1st grade learning sequence overview...# 3 cloudy (link to translucent) #4 bubbly (link to bubbles...

1st Grade Learning Sequence Overview

Learning Sequence Concept: Liquids have properties by which they can be described. CCSS Content Literacy in Science: SL1.1a SL 1.5 SL1.6; W1.2, W1.5, W1.8,RI1.1, RI1.2, RI1.3, RI1.5, RI1.6, RI1.7; L1.1j, L1.6 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Lesson Concept

Liquids are described differently from solids.

Liquids are described using specific academic vocabulary.

Liquids are described practicing specific academic language patterns. .

Descriptions of liquids can be recorded in a data table and used to describe new liquids.

Activity • Describe solids by properties.

• Introduce liquids and use student language to describe liquids.

• Reading and discussing informational text.

• Use a preview strategy to identify text features.

• Choral Reading to practice using the words

• Go Fish to encourage questions and answers.

• Science Talk to encourage questions and responses.

• Data Table of descriptions • Complete sentence frame

describing a liquid

Oral Language

• Partner and whole group discussion to practice language.

•Word Wall Connection of

common/home/street language to academic vocabulary e.g., moves slow/ viscous,

Academic language is practiced for three different purposes:

• Making connections between words and ideas

• Asking and answering questions.

• Using complete sentences.

• Whole class discussion of data table.

• Practice saying sentences orally prior to wiring.

Notebook entries

Complete writing prompt to describe one liquid from the collection.

• Complete a data table summarizing observation of liquids.

• Complete a scientific observation of one of three liquids in a lunch.

• Label and draw a scientific illustration.

Reading Reading and discussing information text. Use text features as described in the activity section.

Reading words on the floor, wall, and tables during oral language activities.

Reading words on the table while completing data table and sentence prompt.

Student work to be collected

Notebook entries as listed above


Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Lesson Concept

Liquids share properties. All liquids flow and are different from solids.

Liquids share properties of flowing and taking the shape of the container.

Activity Develop a VENN diagram using two liquids. Chart individual descriptions. Write shared properties or descriptions in the center.

Sort liquids and solids into two paper plates. Discuss with a partner what is alike about all liquids. Discuss what is alike about all solids.

Informative writing that includes description of shared properties of all liquids.

Oral Language

Whole group discussion and contribution to the chart.

Small group discussion of evidence for what is alike about all solids or all liquids.

Talk to partners prior to writing.

Notebook entries

Use the prompt: How can liquids be described? Include a scientific illustration as part of the informational writing.

Reading Reads words from word wall or word cards on tables to scaffold writing.


VENN diagram on chart. *

• Informational writing that includes characteristics of liquids. (flow and take the shape of the container) • Use academic language for any properties listed. Illustration must be labeled.

Grade 1 Video One Observation Chart

What does the teacher do to

engage students’ prior knowledge?

What do students do to explore the

liquids?

How are student discussions structured to

practice academic vocabulary in

context?

How does the teacher build awareness of

informational text features?

Grade 1 Video Part 2 Observation Chart

How is speaking and listening structured to support text and words in print?

How does the teacher structure students’ ability to ask a question or make a statement?

How does the teacher structure writing using academic language?

5E Learning Sequence Solids and Liquids

Grade Level: 1

Lesson concept: Liquids can be described by their properties Stage Teacher Does Student Does Engage How could solids be described?

(Hold up two solids: for example, a nail and a cylinder) What is similar about both solids? What is different about them? Introduce a new substance: for example liquid soap How could it be described? How is the new substance (liquid soap) the same or different from the solids?

Words may include: round, smooth, hard, color Both are hard and smooth, one is a larger cylinder, one is thinner Soap moves, not hard, bubbles, color Soap can move and/or flow

Explore I Partner practice/listening and speaking Write: How can liquids be described? Ask students to read together what is being written on the board. (Distribute six different bottles of liquids to small groups) Think about the words you could use to describe or observe the properties of the liquids Describe the liquids to your partner or table groups Ask students to discuss observations. Students should describe one liquid using at least two words

How can liquids be described? Bubbles, moves, color, touch Shake, move, and then describe the liquids: bubbles, slow moving, clear, not clear, sticks, see- through, The liquid was slow-moving

Teacher models a description for students if needed

The liquid was clear like glass

Explain I Whole class practices building data wall Place the vials of liquids on chalkboard. Display prepared cards with the following words/pictures to enhance academic vocabulary:

• viscous (pours slowly) • transparent (can see

through) • translucent (can partially

see through) • has color • foamy • bubbly

Ask students for a volunteer to start sharing his/her description or observation to the whole class Elicit a show of hands of students who have the same description or observation Continue building word wall built from student observations

#1 was slow moving (link to viscous) # 2 Clear (link to transparent) # 3 Cloudy (link to translucent) #4 Bubbly (link to bubbles stay) #5 Foamy (bubbles or foam on top) #6 Yellow or other color (has color) May use not as part of the description such as not slow (not viscous)

Explore II

Informational Text Hold up the “Big Book” and ask students to look at the cover and describe what might the book be about Ask students how they figured out

Ice / solids Water / liquids I saw it on the cover

that answer Turn to the table of contents and ask students what information the table of contents tells us Ask students where they might find information about liquids Find the suggested page number in the book Show the pictures and ask what ask students to predict what this page might be about. Read aloud from that page and discuss information in the print and the pictures with students Focus on the page with both solids and liquids Ask students what the pictures are showing on this page

I read the word It tells us where to find things Suggest page number Liquids can be different colors, move slowly or be viscous, transparent, translucent, foamy or bubbly Solids and liquids (soup)

Explain II

Ask students to read the question they were investigating Explain that we have all the words needed to describe the liquids Have students pick the most interesting liquid and write a description about the it Students should describe the liquid using the words from the word wall that the class developed or words placed on student’s desk Students review the vocabulary by “talking to their feet: ’’Explain that everyone has feet. Tell your feet three words that you could use to describe liquids.

How can liquids be described? Liquid #1 is transparent and slow moving (viscous). Liquid #2 is translucent and white. Etc Viscous, Transparent, Translucent, color

Explore III

Ask students what they remember about liquids?

Slow moving, viscous Bubbly Foamy

Chant this reading and allow students to answer each stanza in a chant with an example liquid: I know some bubbly liquids, Some very bubbly liquids, Some very bubbly liquids, Can you name just a few? I know some viscous liquids, Some very viscous liquids, Some very viscous liquids, Try to name a few! I know some transparent liquids, Some very transparent liquids, Some very transparent liquids, Can you name just a few? I know some translucent liquids, Some very translucent liquids, Some very translucent liquids, Try to name a few! I know some colorful liquids, Some very colorful liquids, Some very colorful liquids, Can you name just a few? I know some colorless liquids, Some very colorless liquids, Some very colorless liquids, Try to name a few!

Transparent, you can see through it Fabric Softener or ? Syrup, or a ? Clear juice or a ? Fabric Softener, milk or ? Dish soap or a ? Water

Explain III

Play “Go Fish”

1. Distribute 4 set of cards (viscous and picture, transparent and picture, translucent and picture, bubbly and picture, foamy and color) to each group of four students.

2. Model for students how to

play “Go Fish” using the words from the cards

3. Ask and answer the question, “Do you have?” using the vocabulary words to describe a liquid • Do you have a

transparent liquid?

• Do you have a viscous liquid?

4. If a student has the card

asked for by a partner, the student has to give the card up to the partner as in the traditional game of “Go Fish."

5. Allow students to deal the cards and play “Go Fish.” Explain to students that the pictures and words on the cards are the same as the words/pictures added to our charts previously in “Explore/Explain I”.

6. Observe the ability students

demonstrate to ask for a card and play the card needed.

Science Talk Write the beginning of several sentences on sentence strips:

• I observed… • I agree… • I disagree… • I wonder…

Ask students to get into a circle and use the following sentence beginnings to talk about what they observed in the liquids:

Use the rules to play the game Students practice science talk in a collaborative session.

• I observed liquid #1 was… • I agree liquid #1 was… • I disagree that liquid #1

was… • I wonder if liquid #1 was…

Continue pattern of science talk using new sentence frames with new sentence beginnings

I observed liquid #1 was clear and viscous I agree it was viscous I disagree it was clear because a better word is transparent I wonder what it is used for

Explain IV

Developing a Data Table Distribute 6 liquids and ask students to use their notebooks to write down their descriptions of the liquids Explain to the students that their descriptions are called “data” and define “data” for the students. Explain to the students how to organize a data table once they’ve finished writing their descriptions of the liquids in their notebook. Now, ask students to look at the first liquid Which descriptions should be checked on the data sheet? Have students continue checking descriptions in each column, encouraging independence for students in completing the data table

Transparent, viscous Give appropriate answer to the liquid’s description

Looking at Liquids 1. Hold up three liquids for

students to observe: apple juice, apple sauce, and chocolate milk. Explain all

three liquids might be in your lunch.

2. ask students to select on

liquid and make a scientific illustrations with labels. look at the pictures and use words to describe each liquid

3. Add at least two words to

describe your liquid from our words in the “Go Fish” game.

Complete a drawing of the liquid they selected. Add two words to each picture to describe the liquid Add words and details to your drawing to show differences among liquids

Explore 5 VENN diagram Draw a VENN diagram on the whiteboard and explain to students what the VENN diagram is designed to show. Hold up two liquids and have students record draw a VENN diagram in their notebooks and on the left side. identify the properties of liquid #1 Have students do the same process with liquid #2 on the right side of the diagram Have students take note of the properties that the two liquids have in common and write these into the intersecting center of the diagram Ask students if they can think of any liquids that do not flow

Liquid #1 is transparent, yellow, viscous and it flows. Liquid #2 is translucent, red, bubbly and it flows. Flows

Explain 5 Distribute sets of liquids and solid objects and ask students to sort the objects into two categories. Ask students to explain how they sorted the objects.

Sort objects into two sets: lquids and solids Share with a partner the explanation of how they sorted the

• What is alike about all the solids?

• What is alike about all the

liquids?

objects.

• All solids are hard.

• All liquids move and take the shape of a container.

Evaluate Ask students to explain how they know an object is a liquid How did they figure out that an object is a liquid?

It moves in the container I learned this information by trying to make it change by shaking the bottle, etc.

5E Instructional Cycle Magnets and Metals

Grade Level: 5

Lesson concept: Magnets attract some metals

Stage Teacher Does Student Does

Engage

Distribute magnet to each student. Ask students to observe the object and see what it can do.

When they find out it sticks, ask

them if they know what the object is.

Ask students to describe other magnets they have seen and tell

what they do.

Round; black, rolls, sticks to some things

Magnet

Refrigerator, horseshoe, Sticks to things, picks up things,

use to put pictures on refrigerator

Explore #1

What can the magnet stick to that is around your seat? (don’t leave your seat).

What did you find out?

What is common about the things

it sticks to? Write the word stick on the board

and then write “attract.” Ask students what they think that word

means.

Scientists use attract to describe what a magnet does when it sticks to something.

Write stick = attract in your

notebook.

Tell students they will continue to explore what magnets attract.

Explore with the magnets.

Sticks to some things but not

everything (may say sticks to metal)

Looks like metal things

Like someone; stick to something

Write stick = attract

Write item and description in notebook

Distribute a bag of items (make

sure it includes aluminum, copper penny, brass brad in addition to other metals, and some non-metal

items) to partners.

Ask them to look at the items, observe them and record their observations in their notebook.

Based on their observations, ask

students to predict if the magnet will attract the object. Construct a chart to record your predictions,

and provide room on the chart to record what actually happens.

Tell your partner what kinds of items you think the magnet will

attract.

Discuss their predictions. In general what kinds of items do you think the magnet will attract?

How do I know which items are

metals—What are their properties? (students should be able to answer

these questions from their previous investigations on metals)

Tell students to test items and record results in their chart.

Write observation of the items.

Make chart

(column headers: item, prediction attract yes or no , actual attract yes or no)

Report to a partner before answering the teacher’s questions.

metals

shiny, malleable (bendable)

Test and record in chart in their notebook.

Explain

#1

Ask students to review their data

table. Which items did the magnet

attract? Teacher records students’ responses in a T chart as she asks

each group to report out. Use Numbered Heads and ask student #2 to report out for the group.

What is the same about these

items? Use the stem: “I observed noticed that…. ”

Give list

I observed that they are metal.

Which items did the magnet not

attract? Use stem: “We noticed that the magnet did not attract….”

Did any of these items surprise you? Why?

Ask students to write a statement in their notebooks (note this will

be a precursor to the claim/evidence at the end of the lesson) that summarizes their data

and what surprised them.

Why do you think the magnet attracts one group of metals, but not another group of metals?

What is going on?

Record what you are thinking/wondering about in your notebook.

Ask students to read their

sentences to their partner.

Select a couple of partners who have sentences that you want to have the whole class hear (e.g.,

uses academic vocabulary to explain) and ask them to share.

We noticed that the magnet did

not attract…………(students give list).

Aluminum, brass, copper penny. They surprised me because I

thought magnets attract all metals but it didn’t attract these.

Write what the magnet attracted, what the magnet didn’t attract and what surprised them.

The metals that the magnets attract must have something

different than the metals that the magnet does not attract.

Write in their notebooks.

Read their sentences to their elbow partner in an inside voice.

Share

Explore

#2

Today we are going to read to find

out more about why the magnet attracts some metals, but not others.

When you read today, what might

you want to find out from your reading?

Make a list of the student questions and select the question

that has to do with why some magnets attract only some metals.

brainstorm questions like:

“Why do some magnets attract only some metals?”

Today we are going to use a new

strategy for reading using post-its. I’m going to give you some sticky notes. If you need more, let me

know. As you read, I want you to use the sticky notes in the

following way: 1. put a star on a sticky note

and stick to the part(s) of

the reading that help you find an answer to your

question 2. put an ! on a sticky note

and stick to the reading

where you find something interesting

3. put a ? on a sticky note and stick it to the part(s) of the reading that you have

questions about.

When you are done with your reading, you will read the part of the reading that is next to your

sticky notes with a partner.

Distribute materials and start to read.

When they have finished reading, ask students to partner and

discuss in a Three-Way Interview. (partners talk to each other and at

the end to the teacher) Partner A asks Partner B for one

sentence with a star. Then Partner B asks Partner A for a sentence

with a star. They continue to take turns for the ! passage and the ? passage.

As they discuss, ask students to

take notes in their notebook about their discussion. Suggest that they make 3 columns to record the

answer to their question, the things that were interesting and

Start reading, using sticky notes as

they go

the questions they have.

Tell students to start their interview.

After students have had an opportunity to share with their

partners, ask Partner A to share one thing that he/she heard

Partner B say. Ask Partner B to share one thing

that he/she heard Partner A say.

Share what they starred, marked with ! and ?

For example: Partner A: I put a star next to the

sentence that talks about iron. Partner B: I put a star next to the sentence that has iron and another

one next to the sentence that says nickel and cobalt.

Partners A and B continue to share their sentences with each other

and record their conversation in their notebook.

Partner A in each group shares one sentence he/she heard.

Partner B in each groups shares

one sentence he/she heard.

Explain #2

Ask students to write a claim from evidence about metals and

magnetism based on their experiment and reading.

Ask students what makes a good claim and evidence statement.

Remind them of the criteria (see end of the lesson for the example)

on the wall if they need a hint. Tell students they can use this

sentence frame if they need to.

My claim is_______________ The evidence from my investigation and reading that

support this claim are__________

Claim is a generalized statement supported by evidence. Evidence

should come from more than one source and be related to the claim.

My claim is that some metals have magnetic properties. The evidence from my investigation is that the

magnet attracts some metals but not others. It attracts the paper

clip and nail but it doesn’t attract the aluminum foil or the brass brad or the copper penny.

The evidence from my reading is that I learned that magnets attract only metals made of iron or steel

(and some with nickel or cobalt). Aluminum foil and brass do not

have iron, so that explains why magnets don’t attract them.

Elaborate So what kind of metal do magnets attract?

Which items in our classroom are

made of iron? How could we find out?

Distribute magnets. Work with a partner to find as any items made

of iron as you can. Record the list in your notebook.

What did you find? Use the stem: “We observed that. . .”

What surprised you in your

results?

Metals that contain iron/steel (or nickel or cobalt)

Use the magnets to see if they

attract the item/object.

Try to find items and record in notebook.

When students report out their findings, they use the stem, “We

observed that. . . “ (For example) Metal doesn’t have

to be silver, it can be colored, but if it has iron in it, the magnet will

attract it.

Evaluate Complete this prompt about magnetism as a property of metals

I used to think____________. Now I think__________.

I wonder why__________. I wonder if ___________.

I used to think all metals were magnetic. Now I think that only

those that contain iron/steel are magnetic. I wonder why my

magnets don’t stick to our new stainless steel refrigerator. I wonder if magnets are all the same

or if they are different. I wonder what magnets are made from.

5E Instructional Cycle

Stage

Teacher Does Learning Experience …

strategies/activities

Student Does

ENGAGE Initiates the learning task. The activity should make connections between past and present learning experience and anticipate activities and organize students’ thinking toward the learning outcomes and current activities.

• creates interest • generates curiosity • raises questions and problems • Elicits responses that uncover students’ current knowledge about the concept/topic

Asks questions such as, Why did this happen? What do I already know about this? What can I find out about this? How can this problem be solved? Shows interest in the topic.

EXPLORE Provides students with a common base of experiences within which current concepts, processes, and skills are identified and developed.

• encourages students to work together without direct instruction from the teacher. • observes and listens to students as they interact. • asks probing questions to redirect students’ investigations when necessary. • provides time for students to puzzle through problems. • acts as a consultant for students

• thinks creatively within the limits of the activity • tests predictions and hypotheses • forms new predictions and hypotheses • tries alternatives to solve a problem and discusses them with others • records observations and ideas • suspends judgment • tests ideas

EXPLAIN Focuses students’ attention on a particular aspect of their engagement and exploration experiences; provides opportunities to demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This phase also provides opportunities for teachers to introduce a concept, process, or skill.

• encourages students to explain concepts and definitions in their own words. • asks for justification (evidence) and clarification from students • formally provides definitions, explanations, and new vocabulary • uses students’ previous experiences as the basis for explaining concepts

• explains possible solutions or answers to other students • listens critically to other students’ explanations • questions other students’ explanations • listens to and tries to comprehend explanations offered by the teacher • refers to previous activities

ELABORATE Challenges and extends students’ conceptual understanding and skills. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills.

• expects students to use vocabulary, definitions, and explanations provided previously in new context • encourages students to apply the concepts and skills in new situations • reminds students of alternative explanations • refers students to alternative explanations

• applies new labels, definitions, explanations, and skills in new, but similar, situations • uses previous information to ask questions, propose solutions, make decisions, and design experiments • draws reasonable conclusions from evidence • records observations and explanations

EVALUATE Encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities and provide opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress.

• refers students to existing data and evidence and asks, “What do you already know?” Why do you think …? • observes students as they apply new concepts and skills • assesses students’ knowledge and/or skills • looks for evidence that students have changed their thinking • allows students to assess their learning and group process skills • asks open-ended questions such as, Why do you think…? What evidence do you have? What do you know about the problem? How would you answer the question?

• checks for understanding among peers • answers open-ended questions by using observations, evidence, and previously accepted explanations • demonstrates an understanding or knowledge of the concept or skill • evaluates his or her own progress and knowledge • asks related questions that would encourage future investigations

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy from purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N.

(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS

Learning Sequence Template (duplicate as needed)

Learning Sequence Concept: __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CCSS Content Literacy in Science:______________________________________________________________________________________________

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

Lesson Concept (Science)

Activity (lab or investigation)

Oral Language (conversations, collaborations, pts. of view, evidence, academic lang.

Notebook entries (observations, data, summaries, claims/evidence)

Reading (type of text purpose?)

Student work to be collected for feedback (e.g., notebook) or for production (e.g., CCSS text types; peer edit)

Grade 5 Learning Sequence Overview

Learning Sequence Concept: Metals have properties by which they can be described. CCSS Literacy in Science: SL5.1, SL5.4; W5.1, W5.4, W5.8, W5.9; RI5.1, RI5.3, R5.4, L5.6 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Lesson Concept

Metals are shiny, malleable and ductile

Metals conduct heat Metals conduct heat Metals conduct electricity

Activity Sort common household objects based on properties (are they shiny or not, have they been rolled, stamped, pulled into wire etc)

Experiment with melting chocolate on metal and non- metal surfaces; compare and contrast observations

Reading about heat conduction Using electric circuit as a “tester” for metals. Test various items and classify as metal or not based on electrical conductivity

Oral Language

Connection of common/home/street language to academic vocabulary (shiny = luster; bends = malleable; pulls=ductile

Compare and contrast observations Connect the idea of getting soft to melting

Connect to home experience with pots and pans as student learn the academic word= conduction

Compare and contrast observations Use academic language (complete circuit when the light is on)

Notebook entries

• Prior knowledge: What is a metal? What are its characteristics?

• (or these are metals, what do they have in common? And how would you describe them?)

• Summary statement of

identified properties from lesson using the academic vocabulary

• Prediction of how substances (metal/non- metal) will work on the chocolate

• Data collection • Summary statement of data

• Record of student’s reading notes; exchange ideas with another student (give one, get one) to extend reading comprehension—record in notebook

• Write summary statement of

reading notes with experimentation data about metals as thermal conductors

• Add this property to those

from day 1

• Prediction which items will light the bulb (because they now know which items are metals)

• Write the procedure

(narrative writing) • Create data tables • Write a summary of their

data

Reading Reading about conduction; use active reading strategy of your choice






Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Lesson Concept

Some metals are magnetic Some metals are magnetic Metals have properties by which they can be described

Activity Testing various metals; Identify which are magnetic

Reading about which metals are magnetic

Writing an informative/explanatory writing about the properties of metals. Students use information from their notebooks to write the piece

Oral Language

Link common language of Stick = attracted to Magnetic????

Label iron, nickel and cobalt as necessary for magnetism

Students read aloud to another student (self-edit) Peer editing

Notebook entries

Prior knowledge • Predict what things will stick

to the magnet? • What do those items have in

common? • Create a data table (with

predictions and observed) • Write a summary of their

data

• Record of student’s reading

notes; exchange ideas with another student (give one, get one) to extend reading comprehension—record in notebook

• Use experimental data

summary and reading notes to write a claim and evidence statement about metals and magnetism (use a sentence frame)

• Metacognitive prompt—I used to think this about magnets, now I think_______

Reading Reading about which metals are magnetic



Notebook entries as listed above Claim and evidence writing of this property

Informative writing (using their science notebooks as a reference)

Grade 5: Magnets and Metals Lesson Video Observation Chart

What does the teacher do to engage students?

What do students do to explore the metals?

How are student discussions structured?

How is student writing structured?

Grade 5 Metals and Magnets Video Part 2 Observation Chart

How is reading structured? How does the teacher structure students’ ability to summarize?

How is student metacognition prompted?

8th Grade 5E Learning Sequence

Teacher Does

Student Does Concept

Engage Yesterday we reviewed what Physical Properties of objects or different substances and experienced several different types of Physical Changes Today, I going to conduct two different demos and ask you to decide whether they demonstrate a Physical Change or something different. * Place an ice cube in a large spoon and places the spoon over a lit candle until ice melts over the edge of the spoon. What type of change is this? Why? * show a “glow stick” to class. Is this a example of a Physical Change? Tell why? What causes this stick to glow? Write in notebooks, what is the difference between chemical change and physical change

Phase change; no new molecules formed, still water molecules). “glow stick” and it is activated when it is crushed. No, not sure Some might say chemical reaction Physical change can change appearance, but it is the same thing Chemical change changes chemically

Prior knowledge of chemical and physical change

Explore #1/Explain #1 Use ipads or text book with partner to read and find out about chemical and physical change. Share ideas with class Write one clear statement in notebook about what is a physical

Share notes from reading; examples of chemical change (e.g.rust) and physical change (e.g. tearing paper). Physical change is when the

Physical change is when the appearance of the matter changes, but it is still the same matter (e.g., tearing paper). Chemical change is when the matter chemically changes to produce a new

change and what is a chemical change

appearance of the matter changes, but it is still the same matter (e.g., tearing paper). Chemical change is when the matter chemically changes to produce a new product different from the first matter

product different from the first matter

Explore #2/Explain #2 “We are now going to experience several different experiments to determine if the experiment is a chemical or physical change. Review procedures for each one-which will also be posted at each center. The focus questions is: What type of change is this and what is your evidence? Set up a Data Table (see end of lesson) to record all observations, Before and After mixing, and record the physical properties for each of the reactants and products and list any ‘evidences’ After the lab is completed, ask groups to share their results for each center using these prompts: Explain what the experiment involved; what were the physical properties before mixing; after mixing. What type of reaction do you think this was and why?

work in partners/lab groups for each center record observations and determine if the reaction in physical or chemical and why note things in different stations like baking soda + vinegar =bubble being formed—gas; plaster of paris + water = change in temperature in the bag; baking soda + calcium chloride = formation of precipitate Use their evidence to discuss whether it is physical or chemical

Chemical reactions can be identified by a change in color, production of gas, temperature change or the formation of a precipitate

Provide a “challenge” experiment and ask students to observe and determine what type of reaction was created

Production of gas, temperature change, and color change make it a chemical change.

Explain #3 Build a word wall from student reading and experiment In table groups, ask students to develop a definition of a physical change from their notes and experiment and write it on white board Refer to word wall; have they included academic vocabulary? Underline it. Have they included evidence for their definition? Have 2 groups share and determine the definition they like best Have the selected definition brought to the front of the class. Call on people to read each board, then ask the class to vote for the best definition Ask students to write that definition in their notebook REPEAT for CHEMICAL CHANGE

Contribute words from their notebooks that they want to know more about and learn to use Create group definition Refine definition Select one to share with class Discuss ideas and vote Enter definition Write, vote on and enter a definition for chemical reaction into notebooks

Definition, with evidence, for a chemical or physical change

Extend Use ipads to capture pictures of chemical or physical changes in our environment. Be prepared to share your pictures and explain why it is representative of a chemical or physical change. Have each group present

in partners, capture images Share image and evidence (e.g., leaf with photosynthesis is a chemical change—leave is green, but changes color

Chemical and physical changes can be observed in our environment

Evaluate Write a sticky note post it to define a chemical and physical change ask students to turn back in their notebooks to the place where they had written their first definition of a physical and chemical change and compare it to the summary they have just written. Ask them to share how their understanding has changed as a result of their recent experiences. At the end of the unit, have students use notebooks to write an informative essay comparing physical and chemical change.

Write sticky notes with definition and examples Better definition with example, evidence for the type of change Write at least a 5 paragraph essay comparing physical and chemical changes, citing evidence for both, using experimental data, and information from the text. Writing meets the CCSS ELA Content Literacy in Science standards.

Data Tables

EXPERIMENT #1

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES BEFORE

MIXING

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AFTER

MIXING

TYPE OF REACTION/ EVIDENCE?

Reactant A Reactant B Product(s)

8th Grade Learning Sequence Overview

Learning Sequence Concept: Matter can change physically and chemically. CCSS Content Literacy in Science: RST6-8.2, RST6-8.4; WHST6-8.2; WHST6-8.4, WHST6-8.5, WHST6-8.8, WHST6-8.9; SL8.1, SL8.4; L8.6 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Lesson Concept

The properties of matter can change physically (without changing the identify of the matter)

A chemical change results in products with new properties; changes in matter can be identified as a physical or chemical change

Chemical and physical changes can be observed (lab)

Chemical and physical changes can be observed (lab discussion)

Matter can change physically or chemically

Activity Build on prior knowledge of the properties of matter ; review properties of various objects Several different lab experiments demonstrating physical change (e.g. tearing paper, phase change, cutting an orange, etc.) Short textbook reading on physical changes. p.

Demo one physical and one chemical change and asks students determine which demo is a physical change and why. What is the other changed called? Explore concepts about chemical and physical change in the text or ipods.

Lab to determine if changes are physical or chemical

Debrief findings from the lab station Identify evidence for chemical change Write summary statements for chemical changes

Build academic word wall based on reading and lab experiences over the past few days Peer writing of definitions of physical and chemical change on whiteboards

Oral Language

Think-Pair-Share Think-Pair-Share Group work Whole class discussion

Academic language during experiments; class discussion

Compare and contrast evidence of physical and chemical change

Academic language to define chemical and physical changes; use notes to determine the words

Notebook entries

Notebook entries on • Writing Prompt-

What is a Physical Change? (pre-assessment)

• Record observations

on physical change activities

Notebook entries on • Quick write prompt-

“What is the difference between a physical and chemical change>

• Record notes from reading

• One clear statement

Notebook entries on

• Complete data tables for

each lab station

Notebook entries on

• Write claim and evidence statement about chemical change

• Write a summary

statement about chemical change

Use notebook as reference for academic language Write “best” definition of physical and chemical change

• Summary statement of data—what is a physical change?

about chemical and physical change

Reading Read text pages

(Physical Changes- Pg. 215-216); Use golden lines to identify the key ideas of a physical change with some examples

Read text pages or ipad to gather as much information as you can about physical and chemical change

Read lab directions

Reading data tables and summary statements

Reading of peer definitions


None




Day 6 Days 7-17 Lesson Concept

Physical and chemical changes can be observed all around us

Molecular and atomic basis for chemical reactions

Activity Use ipads to capture images of physical and chemical change in the environments Sticky note summary of chemical and physical change

Labs, discussions and reading

Oral Language

Class discussion of images on ipad, using evidence to decide if it is a chemical or physical change

multiple

Notebook entries

• Sticky note summary of everything they know from the learning sequence about chemical and physical change

Multiple entries

Reading Multiple



Notebook entries FINAL write: Informative writing comparing chemical and physical change and using evidence from labs, readings and class discussions


Stage



Student Does










Grade 8 Data Tables

EXPERIMENT #1

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES BEFORE

MIXING

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AFTER

MIXING

TYPE OF REACTION/ EVIDENCE?

Reactant A

Reactant B

Product(s)

Grade 8 Video Observation Chart #2

How is academic language

addressed?

How is peer editing accomplished?

How does the teacher structure students’ ability to

summarize?

Learning Sequence: Chemical Reactions and Law of Conservation of Mass This is a 5-day instructional module embedded into a larger sequence of modules and lessons that allow for the learning and reinforcement of the Law of Conservation of Mass (see diagram at the end of this document). The specific Common Core State Standards addressed during key elements of the learning sequence are indicated in square brackets. The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. This means that the total mass of reactants in a chemical reaction will equal the total mass of the products. Mathematically this is represented by the appropriate balancing of chemical equations, regardless the type of chemical reaction involved in the process. S: Students DSJ: Daily Science Journal T: Teacher DSR: Daily Science Reflection

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Science Standard – Chemistry grades 9-12 and Module-specific Concepts

3. The conservation of atoms in chemical reactions leads to the principle of conservation of matter and the ability to calculate the mass of products and reactants.

a. Students know how to describe chemical reactions by writing balanced equations.

At home activity

S read assigned textbook sections and write Cornell notes for the content that will be addressed during the week. [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.2; RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.10]

S complete assigned practices [RST.9-10.7]

S read pre-laboratory handout and prepare written pre-lab notes in their notebook [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.7; RST.9-10.7] [WHST.9-10.2]

S respond in writing in their notebook to 5 prompt questions related to the lab activity by using textbook and notebook. Start thinking about possible conclusion statements. [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.5] [WHST.9-10.1]

S complete the report on their lab experience, including the conclusion (CCR) section, a reflection on the formulated hypothesis, and a qualitative analysis of the sources of errors associated with the lab. [RST.9-10.9] [WHST.9-10.2; WHST.9-10. WHST.9-10.4]

Beginning/ Engage

S write DSJ notebook entry: a prompt question is projected on the screen related to key ideas from the materials presented

S [same as Day 1] T [same as Day 1] [WHST.9-10.1;

S [same as Day 1] T [same as Day 1] [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4]

S check their notebooks with T to verify their readiness to conduct the experiments. If ok, they can put on safety lab

S complete a weekly study sheet summarizing all the key concepts addressed during the

during this unit that highlight student’s understanding and prior knowledge. T checks homeworks, daily planner entry, and ask specific questions to S individually regarding content from the previous week. [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4] [SL.9-10.1] T demonstrates single replacement chemical reaction with aluminum into a solution of copper chlorite. T guides S in classroom discussion to determine what is causing the aluminum to transform from a silver substance into a reddish substance. T works with S to determine the proper chemical equation associated with the demonstration and balance it. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

WHST.9-10.4] [SL.9-10.1] T demonstrates combustion reaction by burning magnesium. T guides S to review their notes in order to answer questions related to combustion reaction. [RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

[SL.9-10.1]

gowns and check at their assigned station. T check completeness of multistep procedure to conduct the experiment, verify attention to safety rules, assign S to lab station. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

week. Without the aid of their notebooks, S write a summative report of all they have learned during the week. The section should contain as many sentences as possible; each sentence must contain and introduction, a supporting evidential statement, and a conclusion. [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4]

Middle

T assigns in sequence several chemical equations to be balanced with increasing level of difficulties. Mastery of academic language is

T engages S in comparing and contrasting organic versus inorganic chemical combustion and the

T review pre-laboratory handout and assigns 5 questions that must be completed before starting the lab. The questions allow

S conduct a laboratory experimentation in which they identify 5 different types of chemical reaction.

S are assigned a weekly quiz to assess content knowledge.

emphasized. S solve equations by using their notebook, the table of the elements, charts, and white boards; they are prompted to help each other in reaching a solution. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6] T introduces new material using direct instruction. The new material relates to the 5 types of chemical reactions. S review their Cornell notes by highlighting key concepts and adding missing information. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

relevance of this knowledge for firefighters. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

students to focus on specific key observations they will have to record in order to identify correctly 5 different chemical reactions. 1) How does a

decomposition reaction differ from other types of reactions?

2) In a combustion reaction, what products form in addition to any new compound?

3) Which two ions should be used in very small quantities because they are toxic and bio-accumulative, that is, they build up in body tissues?

4) During which steps of the procedure would you expect to produce gas?

5) What safety precaution applies when heating a test tube?

T help S to answer the questions by allowing them to review their notebook entries and their chemistry charts (ionization and oxidation, and the table of the elements) S review the materials needed, check the

By using their notebooks, S: 1) Gather materials for

experiment. 2) Follow procedures to

achieve a chemical reaction

3) Collect observations in the data table in their notebooks

4) Reason on evidence to formulate a claim regarding the type of chemical reaction

After all chemical reactions are completed, S in teams bring their notebook with data and conclusions to T for verification. [RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.7] [WHST.9-10.2; WHST.9-10.4; WHST.9-10.7; WHST.9-10.9] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

necessary safety precautions associated with the experiment, and develop a series of hypothesis associated with each described reaction based on their knowledge and by reviewing their notebook entries. [RST.9-10.2; RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.5] [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4; WHST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

Conclusion

T assesses S by asking them to summarize their learning from the day and ask them how does it connect to the principle conservation of matter. S write DSR entry in notebooks while T checks Cornell notes and ask questions to each student individually differentiating by level of mastery of the subject matter. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6] [WHST.9-10.10]

[same as Day 1] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6] [WHST.9-10.10]


S clean up lab stations, dispose chemical materials as appropriate, wash chemical tools and materials and return them to stock table. S write the Classroom Closure and Relevance section in their notebook. The CCR is a conclusion section at the end of each lab experience in which S describe how the laboratory experience was connected to the learning during the week and how the experience may be relevant to their daily lives. [WHST.9-10.1]


Overview of chemistry concepts associated with the principle of conservation of matter

CONVERT MOLAR MASS to moles, # of particles and volume of gases at

STP

CALCULATE MASS OF REACTANTS AND

PRODUCTS

CALCULATE % YIELD

REDOX RXNS Identify and balance

WRITING BALANCED CHEMICAL EQUATIONS

DEFINING THE MOLE (1 mole of C12=12g)

DETERMINING MOLAR MASS

1 MOLE = 6.02 x 1023 particles

LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER

(Chemistry, 3a-g)

Learning Sequence: Chemical Reactions and Law of Conservation of Mass This is a 5-day instructional module embedded into a larger sequence of modules and lessons that allow for the learning and reinforcement of the Law of Conservation of Mass (see diagram at the end of this document). The specific Common Core State Standards addressed during key elements of the learning sequence are indicated in square brackets. The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. This means that the total mass of reactants in a chemical reaction will equal the total mass of the products. Mathematically this is represented by the appropriate balancing of chemical equations, regardless the type of chemical reaction involved in the process. S: Students DSJ: Daily Science Journal T: Teacher DSR: Daily Science Reflection

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Science Standard – Chemistry grades 9-12 and Module-specific Concepts

3. The conservation of atoms in chemical reactions leads to the principle of conservation of matter and the ability to calculate the mass of products and reactants.

a. Students know how to describe chemical reactions by writing balanced equations.

At home activity

S read assigned textbook sections and write Cornell notes for the content that will be addressed during the week. [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.2; RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.10]

S complete assigned practices [RST.9-10.7]

S read pre-laboratory handout and prepare written pre-lab notes in their notebook [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.7; RST.9-10.7] [WHST.9-10.2]

S respond in writing in their notebook to 5 prompt questions related to the lab activity by using textbook and notebook. Start thinking about possible conclusion statements. [RST.9-10.1; RST.9-10.5] [WHST.9-10.1]

S complete the report on their lab experience, including the conclusion (CCR) section, a reflection on the formulated hypothesis, and a qualitative analysis of the sources of errors associated with the lab. [RST.9-10.9] [WHST.9-10.2; WHST.9-10. WHST.9-10.4]

Beginning/ Engage

S write DSJ notebook entry: a prompt question is projected on the screen related to key ideas from the materials presented

S [same as Day 1] T [same as Day 1] [WHST.9-10.1;

S [same as Day 1] T [same as Day 1] [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4]

S check their notebooks with T to verify their readiness to conduct the experiments. If ok, they can put on safety lab

S complete a weekly study sheet summarizing all the key concepts addressed during the

during this unit that highlight student’s understanding and prior knowledge. T checks homeworks, daily planner entry, and ask specific questions to S individually regarding content from the previous week. [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4] [SL.9-10.1] T demonstrates single replacement chemical reaction with aluminum into a solution of copper chlorite. T guides S in classroom discussion to determine what is causing the aluminum to transform from a silver substance into a reddish substance. T works with S to determine the proper chemical equation associated with the demonstration and balance it. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

WHST.9-10.4] [SL.9-10.1] T demonstrates combustion reaction by burning magnesium. T guides S to review their notes in order to answer questions related to combustion reaction. [RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

[SL.9-10.1]

gowns and check at their assigned station. T check completeness of multistep procedure to conduct the experiment, verify attention to safety rules, assign S to lab station. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

week. Without the aid of their notebooks, S write a summative report of all they have learned during the week. The section should contain as many sentences as possible; each sentence must contain and introduction, a supporting evidential statement, and a conclusion. [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4]

Middle

T assigns in sequence several chemical equations to be balanced with increasing level of difficulties. Mastery of academic language is

T engages S in comparing and contrasting organic versus inorganic chemical combustion and the

T review pre-laboratory handout and assigns 5 questions that must be completed before starting the lab. The questions allow

S conduct a laboratory experimentation in which they identify 5 different types of chemical reaction.

S are assigned a weekly quiz to assess content knowledge.

emphasized. S solve equations by using their notebook, the table of the elements, charts, and white boards; they are prompted to help each other in reaching a solution. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6] T introduces new material using direct instruction. The new material relates to the 5 types of chemical reactions. S review their Cornell notes by highlighting key concepts and adding missing information. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

relevance of this knowledge for firefighters. [RST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

students to focus on specific key observations they will have to record in order to identify correctly 5 different chemical reactions. 1) How does a

decomposition reaction differ from other types of reactions?

2) In a combustion reaction, what products form in addition to any new compound?

3) Which two ions should be used in very small quantities because they are toxic and bio-accumulative, that is, they build up in body tissues?

4) During which steps of the procedure would you expect to produce gas?

5) What safety precaution applies when heating a test tube?

T help S to answer the questions by allowing them to review their notebook entries and their chemistry charts (ionization and oxidation, and the table of the elements) S review the materials needed, check the

By using their notebooks, S: 1) Gather materials for

experiment. 2) Follow procedures to

achieve a chemical reaction

3) Collect observations in the data table in their notebooks

4) Reason on evidence to formulate a claim regarding the type of chemical reaction

After all chemical reactions are completed, S in teams bring their notebook with data and conclusions to T for verification. [RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.7] [WHST.9-10.2; WHST.9-10.4; WHST.9-10.7; WHST.9-10.9] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

necessary safety precautions associated with the experiment, and develop a series of hypothesis associated with each described reaction based on their knowledge and by reviewing their notebook entries. [RST.9-10.2; RST.9-10.3; RST.9-10.4; RST.9-10.5] [WHST.9-10.1; WHST.9-10.4; WHST.9-10.7] [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6]

Conclusion

T assesses S by asking them to summarize their learning from the day and ask them how does it connect to the principle conservation of matter. S write DSR entry in notebooks while T checks Cornell notes and ask questions to each student individually differentiating by level of mastery of the subject matter. [SL.9-10.1; SL.9-10.4; L.9-10.6] [WHST.9-10.10]



S clean up lab stations, dispose chemical materials as appropriate, wash chemical tools and materials and return them to stock table. S write the Classroom Closure and Relevance section in their notebook. The CCR is a conclusion section at the end of each lab experience in which S describe how the laboratory experience was connected to the learning during the week and how the experience may be relevant to their daily lives. [WHST.9-10.1]


Overview of chemistry concepts associated with the principle of conservation of matter

CONVERT MOLAR MASS to moles, # of particles and volume of gases at

STP

CALCULATE MASS OF REACTANTS AND

PRODUCTS

CALCULATE % YIELD

REDOX RXNS Identify and balance

WRITING BALANCED CHEMICAL EQUATIONS

DEFINING THE MOLE (1 mole of C12=12g)

DETERMINING MOLAR MASS

1 MOLE = 6.02 x 1023 particles

LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER

(Chemistry, 3a-g)

common core state stanDarDs For

english Language arts & Literacy in History/social studies, science, and technical subjects

appendix a:

research supporting Key elements of the standards

Glossary of Key terms

Common Core State StandardS for engliSh language artS & literaCy in hiStory/SoCial StudieS, SCienCe, and teChniCal SubjeCtSa

pp

en

dix

a | 2

readingOne of the key requirements of the Common Core State Standards for Reading is that all students must be able to comprehend texts of steadily increasing complexity as they progress through school. By the time they complete the core, students must be able to read and comprehend independently and proficiently the kinds of complex texts com-monly found in college and careers. The first part of this section makes a research-based case for why the complex-ity of what students read matters. In brief, while reading demands in college, workforce training programs, and life in general have held steady or increased over the last half century, K–12 texts have actually declined in sophistication, and relatively little attention has been paid to students’ ability to read complex texts independently. These conditions have left a serious gap between many high school seniors’ reading ability and the reading requirements they will face after graduation. The second part of this section addresses how text complexity can be measured and made a regular part of instruction. It introduces a three-part model that blends qualitative and quantitative measures of text com-plexity with reader and task considerations. The section concludes with three annotated examples showing how the model can be used to assess the complexity of various kinds of texts appropriate for different grade levels.

Why text complexity matters

In 2006, ACT, Inc., released a report called Reading Between the Lines that showed which skills differentiated those students who equaled or exceeded the benchmark score (21 out of 36) in the reading section of the ACT college ad-missions test from those who did not. Prior ACT research had shown that students achieving the benchmark score or better in reading—which only about half (51 percent) of the roughly half million test takers in the 2004–2005 academ-ic year had done—had a high probability (75 percent chance) of earning a C or better in an introductory, credit-bear-ing course in U.S. history or psychology (two common reading-intensive courses taken by first-year college students) and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in such a course.1

Surprisingly, what chiefly distinguished the performance of those students who had earned the benchmark score or better from those who had not was not their relative ability in making inferences while reading or answering questions related to particular cognitive processes, such as determining main ideas or determining the meaning of words and phrases in context. Instead, the clearest differentiator was students’ ability to answer questions associated with com-plex texts. Students scoring below benchmark performed no better than chance (25 percent correct) on four-option multiple-choice questions pertaining to passages rated as “complex” on a three-point qualitative rubric described in the report. These findings held for male and female students, students from all racial/ethnic groups, and students from families with widely varying incomes. The most important implication of this study was that a pedagogy focused only on “higher-order” or “critical” thinking was insufficient to ensure that students were ready for college and careers: what students could read, in terms of its complexity, was at least as important as what they could do with what they read.

The ACT report is one part of an extensive body of research attesting to the importance of text complexity in reading achievement. The clear, alarming picture that emerges from the evidence, briefly summarized below2, is that while the reading demands of college, workforce training programs, and citizenship have held steady or risen over the past fifty years or so, K–12 texts have, if anything, become less demanding. This finding is the impetus behind the Standards’ strong emphasis on increasing text complexity as a key requirement in reading.

College, Careers, and Citizenship: Steady or Increasing Complexity of Texts and TasksResearch indicates that the demands that college, careers, and citizenship place on readers have either held steady or increased over roughly the last fifty years. The difficulty of college textbooks, as measured by Lexile scores, has not decreased in any block of time since 1962; it has, in fact, increased over that period (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). The word difficulty of every scientific journal and magazine from 1930 to 1990 examined by Hayes and Ward (1992) had actually increased, which is important in part because, as a 2005 College Board study (Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005) found, college professors assign more readings from periodicals than do high school teachers. Work-place reading, measured in Lexiles, exceeds grade 12 complexity significantly, although there is considerable variation (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). The vocabulary difficulty of newspapers remained stable over the 1963–1991 period Hayes and his colleagues (Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolfe, 1996) studied.

Furthermore, students in college are expected to read complex texts with substantially greater independence (i.e., much less scaffolding) than are students in typical K–12 programs. College students are held more accountable for what they read on their own than are most students in high school (Erickson & Strommer, 1991; Pritchard, Wilson, & Yamnitz, 2007). College instructors assign readings, not necessarily explicated in class, for which students might be held accountable through exams, papers, presentations, or class discussions. Students in high school, by contrast, are

1In the 2008–2009 academic year, only 53 percent of students achieved the reading benchmark score or higher; the increase from 2004–2005 was not statistically significant. See ACT, Inc. (2009).2Much of the summary found in the next two sections is heavily influenced by Marilyn Jager Adams’s painstaking review of the relevant literature. See Adams (2009).


pp

en

dix

a | 3

rarely held accountable for what they are able to read independently (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). This discrepancy in task demand, coupled with what we see below is a vast gap in text complexity, may help explain why only about half of the students taking the ACT Test in the 2004–2005 academic year could meet the benchmark score in reading (which also was the case in 2008–2009, the most recent year for which data are available) and why so few students in general are prepared for postsecondary reading (ACT, Inc., 2006, 2009).

K–12 Schooling: Declining Complexity of Texts and a Lack of Reading of Complex Texts IndependentlyDespite steady or growing reading demands from various sources, K–12 reading texts have actually trended downward in difficulty in the last half century. Jeanne Chall and her colleagues (Chall, Conard, & Harris, 1977) found a thirteen-year decrease from 1963 to 1975 in the difficulty of grade 1, grade 6, and (especially) grade 11 texts. Extending the period to 1991, Hayes, Wolfer, and Wolfe (1996) found precipitous declines (relative to the period from 1946 to 1962) in average sentence length and vocabulary level in reading textbooks for a variety of grades. Hayes also found that while science books were more difficult to read than literature books, only books for Advanced Placement (AP) classes had vocabulary levels equivalent to those of even newspapers of the time (Hayes & Ward, 1992). Carrying the research closer to the present day, Gary L. Williamson (2006) found a 350L (Lexile) gap between the difficulty of end-of-high school and college texts—a gap equivalent to 1.5 standard deviations and more than the Lexile difference between grade 4 and grade 8 texts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although legitimate questions can be raised about the tools used to measure text complexity (e.g., Mesmer, 2008), what is relevant in these numbers is the general, steady decline—over time, across grades, and substantiated by several sources—in the difficulty and likely also the sophistication of content of the texts students have been asked to read in school since 1962.

There is also evidence that current standards, curriculum, and instructional practice have not done enough to foster the independent reading of complex texts so crucial for college and career readiness, particularly in the case of infor-mational texts. K–12 students are, in general, given considerable scaffolding—assistance from teachers, class discus-sions, and the texts themselves (in such forms as summaries, glossaries, and other text features)—with reading that is already less complex overall than that typically required of students prior to 1962.3 What is more, students today are asked to read very little expository text—as little as 7 and 15 percent of elementary and middle school instructional reading, for example, is expository (Hoffman, Sabo, Bliss, & Hoy, 1994; Moss & Newton, 2002; Yopp & Yopp, 2006)—yet much research supports the conclusion that such text is harder for most students to read than is narrative text (Bowen & Roth, 1999; Bowen, Roth, & McGinn, 1999, 2002; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008), that students need sustained exposure to expository text to develop important reading strategies (Afflerbach, Pear-son, & Paris, 2008; Kintsch, 1998, 2009; McNamara, Graesser, & Louwerse, in press; Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005; van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001; van den Broek, Risden, & Husebye-Hartmann, 1995), and that expository text makes up the vast majority of the required reading in college and the workplace (Achieve, Inc., 2007). Worse still, what little expository reading students are asked to do is too often of the superficial variety that involves skimming and scanning for particular, discrete pieces of information; such reading is unlikely to prepare students for the cognitive demand of true understanding of complex text.

The Consequences: Too Many Students Reading at Too Low a LevelThe impact that low reading achievement has on students’ readiness for college, careers, and life in general is signifi-cant. To put the matter bluntly, a high school graduate who is a poor reader is a postsecondary student who must struggle mightily to succeed. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Wirt, Choy, Rooney, Provasnik, Sen, & Tobin, 2004) reports that although needing to take one or more remedial/developmental courses of any sort low-ers a student’s chance of eventually earning a degree or certificate, “the need for remedial reading appears to be the most serious barrier to degree completion” (p. 63). Only 30 percent of 1992 high school seniors who went on to enroll in postsecondary education between 1992 and 2000 and then took any remedial reading course went on to receive a degree or certificate, compared to 69 percent of the 1992 seniors who took no postsecondary remedial courses and 57 percent of those who took one remedial course in a subject other than reading or mathematics. Considering that 11 percent of those high school seniors required at least one remedial reading course, the societal impact of low reading achievement is as profound as its impact on the aspirations of individual students.

Reading levels among the adult population are also disturbingly low. The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, Boyle, Hsu, & Dunleavy, 2007) reported that 14 percent of adults read prose texts at “below basic” level, meaning they could exhibit “no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills”; a similarly small number (13 percent) could read prose texts at the “proficient level,” meaning they could perform “more complex and challenging literacy activities” (p. 4). The percent of “proficient” readers had actually declined in a statistically significant way from 1992 (15 percent). This low and declining achievement rate may be connected to a general lack of reading. As reported by the National Endowment for the Arts (2004), the percent of U.S. adults reading literature dropped from 54.0 in 1992 to 46.7 in 2002, while the percent of adults reading any book also declined by 7 percent

3As also noted in “Key Considerations in Implementing Text Complexity,” below, it is important to recognize that scaffolding often is entirely appropriate. The expectation that scaffolding will occur with particularly challenging texts is built into the Standards’ grade-by-grade text complexity expectations, for example. The general movement, however, should be toward de-creasing scaffolding and increasing independence both within and across the text complexity bands defined in the Standards.


pp

en

dix

a | 4

during the same time period. Although the decline occurred in all demographic groups, the steepest decline by far was among 18-to-24- and 25-to-34-year-olds (28 percent and 23 percent, respectively). In other words, the problem of lack of reading is not only getting worse but doing so at an accelerating rate. Although numerous factors likely contribute to the decline in reading, it is reasonable to conclude from the evidence presented above that the deterio-ration in overall reading ability, abetted by a decline in K–12 text complexity and a lack of focus on independent read-ing of complex texts, is a contributing factor.

Being able to read complex text independently and proficiently is essential for high achievement in college and the workplace and important in numerous life tasks. Moreover, current trends suggest that if students cannot read challenging texts with understanding—if they have not developed the skill, concentration, and stamina to read such texts—they will read less in general. In particular, if students cannot read complex expository text to gain informa-tion, they will likely turn to text-free or text-light sources, such as video, podcasts, and tweets. These sources, while not without value, cannot capture the nuance, subtlety, depth, or breadth of ideas developed through complex text. As Adams (2009) puts it, “There may one day be modes and methods of information delivery that are as efficient and powerful as text, but for now there is no contest. To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically they must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought” (p. 182). A turning away from complex texts is likely to lead to a general impoverishment of knowledge, which, be-cause knowledge is intimately linked with reading comprehension ability, will accelerate the decline in the ability to comprehend complex texts and the decline in the richness of text itself. This bodes ill for the ability of Americans to meet the demands placed upon them by citizenship in a democratic republic and the challenges of a highly competi-tive global marketplace of goods, services, and ideas.

It should be noted also that the problems with reading achievement are not “equal opportunity” in their effects: students arriving at school from less-educated families are disproportionately represented in many of these statis-tics (Bettinger & Long, 2009). The consequences of insufficiently high text demands and a lack of accountability for independent reading of complex texts in K–12 schooling are severe for everyone, but they are disproportionately so for those who are already most isolated from text before arriving at the schoolhouse door.

the standards’ approach to text complexity

To help redress the situation described above, the Standards define a three-part model for determining how easy or difficult a particular text is to read as well as grade-by-grade specifications for increasing text complexity in suc-cessive years of schooling (Reading standard 10). These are to be used together with grade-specific standards that require increasing sophistication in students’ reading comprehension ability (Reading standards 1–9). The Standards thus approach the intertwined issues of what and how student read.

A Three-Part Model for Measuring Text ComplexityAs signaled by the graphic at right, the Standards’ model of text complexity consists of three equally important parts.

(1) Qualitative dimensions of text complexity. In the Stan-dards, qualitative dimensions and qualitative factors refer to those aspects of text complexity best measured or only measurable by an attentive human reader, such as levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and clarity; and knowledge demands.

(2) Quantitative dimensions of text complexity. The terms quantitative dimensions and quantitative factors refer to those aspects of text complexity, such as word length or fre-quency, sentence length, and text cohesion, that are difficult if not impossible for a human reader to evaluate efficiently, especially in long texts, and are thus today typically mea-sured by computer software.

(3) Reader and task considerations. While the prior two elements of the model focus on the inherent complexity of text, variables specific to particular readers (such as motiva-tion, knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks (such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed) must also be considered when determining whether a text is appropriate for a given stu-dent. Such assessments are best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowl-edge of their students and the subject.

Figure 1: The Standards’ Model of Text Complexity


pp

en

dix

a | 5

The Standards presume that all three elements will come into play when text complexity and appropriateness are determined. The following pages begin with a brief overview of just some of the currently available tools, both quali-tative and quantitative, for measuring text complexity, continue with some important considerations for using text complexity with students, and conclude with a series of examples showing how text complexity measures, balanced with reader and task considerations, might be used with a number of different texts.

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of Text ComplexityThe qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity described below are representative of the best tools presently available. However, each should be considered only provisional; more precise, more accurate, and easier-to-use tools are urgently needed to help make text complexity a vital, everyday part of classroom instruction and curriculum planning.

Qualitative Measures of Text Complexity

Using qualitative measures of text complexity involves making an informed decision about the difficulty of a text in terms of one or more factors discernible to a human reader applying trained judgment to the task. In the Standards, qualitative measures, along with professional judgment in matching a text to reader and task, serve as a necessary complement and sometimes as a corrective to quantitative measures, which, as discussed below, cannot (at least at present) capture all of the elements that make a text easy or challenging to read and are not equally successful in rat-ing the complexity of all categories of text.

Built on prior research, the four qualitative factors described below are offered here as a first step in the development of robust tools for the qualitative analysis of text complexity. These factors are presented as continua of difficulty rather than as a succession of discrete “stages” in text complexity. Additional development and validation would be needed to translate these or other dimensions into, for example, grade-level- or grade-band-specific rubrics. The qualitative factors run from easy (left-hand side) to difficult (right-hand side). Few, if any, authentic texts will be low or high on all of these measures, and some elements of the dimensions are better suited to literary or to informational texts.

(1) Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts). Literary texts with a single level of meaning tend to be easier to read than literary texts with multiple levels of meaning (such as satires, in which the author’s literal mes-sage is intentionally at odds with his or her underlying message). Similarily, informational texts with an explicitly stated purpose are generally easier to comprehend than informational texts with an implicit, hidden, or obscure purpose.

(2) Structure. Texts of low complexity tend to have simple, well-marked, and conventional structures, whereas texts of high complexity tend to have complex, implicit, and (particularly in literary texts) unconventional structures. Simple literary texts tend to relate events in chronological order, while complex literary texts make more frequent use of flashbacks, flash-forwards, and other manipulations of time and sequence. Simple informational texts are likely not to deviate from the conventions of common genres and subgenres, while complex informational texts are more likely to conform to the norms and conventions of a specific discipline. Graphics tend to be simple and either unnecessary or merely supplementary to the meaning of texts of low complexity, whereas texts of high complexity tend to have simi-larly complex graphics, graphics whose interpretation is essential to understanding the text, and graphics that provide an independent source of information within a text. (Note that many books for the youngest students rely heavily on graphics to convey meaning and are an exception to the above generalization.)

(3) Language Conventionality and Clarity. Texts that rely on literal, clear, contemporary, and conversational language tend to be easier to read than texts that rely on figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic or otherwise unfa-miliar language or on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary.

(4) Knowledge Demands. Texts that make few assumptions about the extent of readers’ life experiences and the depth of their cultural/literary and content/discipline knowledge are generally less complex than are texts that make many assumptions in one or more of those areas.


pp

en

dix

a | 6

Figure 2: Qualitative Dimensions of Text Complexity

Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts)• Single level of meaning Multiple levels of meaning

• Explicitly stated purpose Implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure

Structure • Simple Complex

• Explicit Implicit

• Conventional Unconventional (chiefly literary texts)

• 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 supplementary to understanding the text Graphics essential to understanding the text and may provide information not otherwise conveyed in the text

Language Conventionality and Clarity• Literal Figurative or ironic

• Clear Ambiguous or purposefully misleading

• Contemporary, familiar Archaic or otherwise unfamiliar

• Conversational General academic and domain-specific

Knowledge Demands: Life Experiences (literary texts)• Simple theme Complex or sophisticated themes

• Single themes 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

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)

Knowledge Demands: Content/Discipline Knowledge (chiefly informational texts)• Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required Extensive, perhaps specialized discipline-specific

content knowledge required

• Low intertextuality (few if any references to/citations of other texts) High intertextuality (many references to/citations of other texts)

Adapted from ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author; Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York; Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge, UK: Brookline Books; Hess, K., & Biggam, S. (2004). A discussion of “increasing text complexity.” Published by the New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont departments of education as part of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP). Retrieved from www.nciea.org/publications/TextComplexity_KH05.pdf


pp

en

dix

a | 7

Quantitative Measures of Text Complexity

A number of quantitative tools exist to help educators assess aspects of text complexity that are better measured by algorithm than by a human reader. The discussion is not exhaustive, nor is it intended as an endorsement of one method or program over another. Indeed, because of the limits of each of the tools, new or improved ones are needed quickly if text complexity is to be used effectively in the classroom and curriculum.

Numerous formulas exist for measuring the readability of various types of texts. Such formulas, including the widely used Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test, typically use word length and sentence length as proxies for semantic and syntactic complexity, respectively (roughly, the complexity of the meaning and sentence structure). The assump-tion behind these formulas is that longer words and longer sentences are more difficult to read than shorter ones; a text with many long words and/or sentences is thus rated by these formulas as harder to read than a text with many short words and/or sentences would be. Some formulas, such as the Dale-Chall Readability Formula, substitute word frequency for word length as a factor, the assumption here being that less familiar words are harder to comprehend than familiar words. The higher the proportion of less familiar words in a text, the theory goes, the harder that text is to read. While these readability formulas are easy to use and readily available—some are even built into various word processing applications—their chief weakness is that longer words, less familiar words, and longer sentences are not inherently hard to read. In fact, series of short, choppy sentences can pose problems for readers precisely because these sentences lack the cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases, that help establish logical links among ideas and thereby reduce the inference load on readers.

Like Dale-Chall, the Lexile Framework for Reading, developed by MetaMetrics, Inc., uses word frequency and sentence length to produce a single measure, called a Lexile, of a text’s complexity. The most important difference between the Lexile system and traditional readability formulas is that traditional formulas only assign a score to texts, whereas the Lexile Framework can place both readers and texts on the same scale. Certain reading assessments yield Lexile scores based on student performance on the instrument; some reading programs then use these scores to assign texts to students. Because it too relies on word familiarity and sentence length as proxies for semantic and syntactic complex-ity, the Lexile Framework, like traditional formulas, may underestimate the difficulty of texts that use simple, familiar language to convey sophisticated ideas, as is true of much high-quality fiction written for adults and appropriate for older students. For this reason and others, it is possible that factors other than word familiarity and sentence length contribute to text difficulty. In response to such concerns, MetaMetrics has indicated that it will release the qualita-tive ratings it assigns to some of the texts it rates and will actively seek to determine whether one or more additional factors can and should be added to its quantitative measure. Other readability formulas also exist, such as the ATOS formula associated with the Accelerated Reader program developed by Renaissance Learning. ATOS uses word dif-ficulty (estimated grade level), word length, sentence length, and text length (measured in words) as its factors. Like the Lexile Framework, ATOS puts students and texts on the same scale.

A nonprofit service operated at the University of Memphis, Coh-Metrix attempts to account for factors in addition to those measured by readability formulas. The Coh-Metrix system focuses on the cohesiveness of a text—basically, how tightly the text holds together. A high-cohesion text does a good deal of the work for the reader by signaling relation-ships among words, sentences, and ideas using repetition, concrete language, and the like; a low-cohesion text, by contrast, requires the reader him- or herself to make many of the connections needed to comprehend the text. High-cohesion texts are not necessarily “better” than low-cohesion texts, but they are easier to read.

The standard Coh-Metrix report includes information on more than sixty indices related to text cohesion, so it can be daunting to the layperson or even to a professional educator unfamiliar with the indices. Coh-Metrix staff have worked to isolate the most revealing, informative factors from among the many they consider, but these “key factors” are not yet widely available to the public, nor have the results they yield been calibrated to the Standards’ text complexity grade bands. The greatest value of these factors may well be the promise they offer of more advanced and usable tools yet to come.

Reader and Task Considerations

The use of qualitative and quantitative measures to assess text complexity is balanced in the Standards’ model by the expectation that educators will employ professional judgment to match texts to particular students and tasks. Numer-ous considerations go into such matching. For example, harder texts may be appropriate for highly knowledgeable or skilled readers, and easier texts may be suitable as an expedient for building struggling readers’ knowledge or reading skill up to the level required by the Standards. Highly motivated readers are often willing to put in the extra effort re-quired to read harder texts that tell a story or contain information in which they are deeply interested. Complex tasks may require the kind of information contained only in similarly complex texts.

Numerous factors associated with the individual reader are relevant when determining whether a given text is ap-propriate for him or her. The RAND Reading Study Group identified many such factors in the 2002 report Reading for Understanding:

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of


pp

en

dix

a | 8

comprehension strategies); and experiences.

As part of describing the activity of reading, the RAND group also named important task-related variables, includ-ing the reader’s purpose (which might shift over the course of reading), “the type of reading being done, such as skimming (getting the gist of the text) or studying (reading the text with the intent of retaining the information for a period of time),” and the intended outcome, which could include “an increase in knowledge, a solution to some real-world problem, and/or engagement with the text.”4

Key considerations in Implementing text complexity

Texts and Measurement ToolsThe tools for measuring text complexity are at once useful and imperfect. Each of the qualitative and quantitative tools described above has its limitations, and none is completely accurate. The development of new and improved text complexity tools should follow the release of the Standards as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Stan-dards recommend that multiple quantitative measures be used whenever possible and that their results be confirmed or overruled by a qualitative analysis of the text in question.

Certain measures are less valid or inappropriate for certain kinds of texts. Current quantitative measures are suitable for prose and dramatic texts. Until such time as quantitative tools for capturing poetry’s difficulty are developed, de-termining whether a poem is appropriately complex for a given grade or grade band will necessarily be a matter of a qualitative assessment meshed with reader-task considerations. Furthermore, texts for kindergarten and grade 1 may not be appropriate for quantitative analysis, as they often contain difficult-to-assess features designed to aid early readers in acquiring written language. The Standards’ poetry and K–1 text exemplars were placed into grade bands by expert teachers drawing on classroom experience.

Many current quantitative measures underestimate the challenge posed by complex narrative fiction. Quantitative measures of text complexity, particularly those that rely exclusively or in large part on word- and sentence-level fac-tors, tend to assign sophisticated works of literature excessively low scores. For example, as illustrated in example 2 below, some widely used quantitative measures, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test and the Lexile Frame-work for Reading, rate the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel Grapes of Wrath as appropriate for grades 2–3. This coun-terintuitive result emerges because works such as Grapes often express complex ideas in relatively commonplace language (familiar words and simple syntax), especially in the form of dialogue that mimics everyday speech. Until widely available quantitative tools can better account for factors recognized as making such texts challenging, includ-ing multiple levels of meaning and mature themes, preference should likely be given to qualitative measures of text complexity when evaluating narrative fiction intended for students in grade 6 and above.

Measures of text complexity must be aligned with college and career readiness expectations for all students. Qualita-tive scales of text complexity should be anchored at one end by descriptions of texts representative of those re-quired in typical first-year credit-bearing college courses and in workforce training programs. Similarly, quantitative measures should identify the college- and career-ready reading level as one endpoint of the scale. MetaMetrics, for example, has realigned its Lexile ranges to match the Standards’ text complexity grade bands and has adjusted up-ward its trajectory of reading comprehension development through the grades to indicate that all students should be reading at the college and career readiness level by no later than the end of high school.

Figure 3: Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges (in Lexiles)

Text Complexity Grade Band in the Standards Old Lexile Ranges

Lexile Ranges Aligned to

CCR expectations

K–1 N/A N/A

2–3 450–725 450–790

4–5 645–845 770–980

6–8 860–1010 955–1155

9–10 960–1115 1080–1305

11–CCR 1070–1220 1215–1355

4RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. The quoted text appears in pages xiii–xvi.


pp

en

dix

a | 9

Readers and TasksStudents’ ability to read complex text does not always develop in a linear fashion. Although the progression of Read-ing standard 10 (see below) defines required grade-by-grade growth in students’ ability to read complex text, the development of this ability in individual students is unlikely to occur at an unbroken pace. Students need opportuni-ties to stretch their reading abilities but also to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within them, both of which the Standards allow for. As noted above, such factors as students’ motivation, knowledge, and experiences must also come into play in text selection. Students deeply interested in a given topic, for example, may engage with texts on that subject across a range of complexity. Particular tasks may also require students to read harder texts than they would normally be required to. Conversely, teachers who have had success using particular texts that are easier than those required for a given grade band should feel free to continue to use them so long as the general movement during a given school year is toward texts of higher levels of complexity.

Students reading well above and well below grade-band level need additional support. Students for whom texts within their text complexity grade band (or even from the next higher band) present insufficient challenge must be given the attention and resources necessary to develop their reading ability at an appropriately advanced pace. On the other hand, students who struggle greatly to read texts within (or even below) their text complexity grade band must be given the support needed to enable them to read at a grade-appropriate level of complexity.

Even many students on course for college and career readiness are likely to need scaffolding as they master higher levels of text complexity. As they enter each new grade band, many students are likely to need at least some extra help as they work to comprehend texts at the high end of the range of difficulty appropriate to the band. For ex-ample, many students just entering grade 2 will need some support as they read texts that are advanced for the grades 2–3 text complexity band. Although such support is educationally necessary and desirable, instruction must move generally toward decreasing scaffolding and increasing independence, with the goal of students reading in-dependently and proficiently within a given grade band by the end of the band’s final year (continuing the previous example, the end of grade 3).


pp

en

dix

a | 10

the standards’ Grade-specific text complexity Demands

As illustrated in figure 4, text complexity in the Standards is defined in grade bands: grades 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–10, and 11–CCR.5 Students in the first year(s) of a given band are expected by the end of the year to read and comprehend proficiently within the band, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. Students in the last year of a band are expected by the end of the year to read and comprehend independently and proficiently within the band.

Figure 4: The Progression of Reading Standard 10

Grade(s) Reading Standard 10 (individual text types omitted)

K Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.

1 With prompting and support, read prose and poetry [informational texts] of appropriate complexity for grade 1.

2 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 2–3 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

3 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the grades 2–3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

4 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 4–5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

5 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the grades 4–5 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

6By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

7By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

8By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 6–8 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

9–10

By the end of grade 9, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

11–12

By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 11–CCR text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 11–CCR text complexity band indepen-dently and proficiently.

5As noted above in “Key Considerations in Implementing Text Complexity,” K–1 texts are not amenable to quantitative meas-ure. Furthermore, students in those grades are acquiring the code at varied rates. Hence, the Standards’ text complexity requirements begin formally with grade 2.


pp

en

dix

a | 11

the model in action: sample annotated reading texts

The following examples demonstrate how qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity can be used along with reader and task considerations to make informed decisions about whether a particular text is an appropriate challenge for particular students. The cases below illustrate some of the possibilities that can arise when multiple measures are used to assess text complexity and how discrepancies among those measures might be resolved. It is important to note that the conclusions offered below concerning the texts’ appropriateness for particular grade bands are informed judgments based on qualitative and quantitative assessments of text complexity. Different conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the same data, and reader and task considerations may also warrant a higher or lower placement.

Example 1: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (Grades 6–8 Text Complexity Band)

Excerpt

The plan which I adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of making friends of all the little white boys whom I met in the street. As many of these as I could, I converted into teachers. With their kindly aid, obtained at different times and in different places, I finally succeed-ed in learning to read. When I was sent of errands, I always took my book with me, and by going one part of my errand quickly, I found time to get a lesson before my return. I used also to carry bread with me, enough of which was always in the house, and to which I was always welcome; for I was much better off in this regard than many of the poor white children in our neighborhood. This bread I used to bestow upon the hungry little urchins, who, in return, would give me that more valu-able bread of knowledge. I am strongly tempted to give the names of two or three of those little boys, as a testimonial of the gratitude and affection I bear them; but prudence forbids;—not that it would injure me, but it might embarrass them; for it is almost an unpardonable offence to teach slaves to read in this Christian country. It is enough to say of the dear little fellows, that they lived on Philpot Street, very near Durgin and Bailey’s ship-yard. I used to talk this matter of slavery over with them. I would sometimes say to them, I wished I could be as free as they would be when they got to be men. “You will be free as soon as you are twenty-one, but I am a slave for life! Have not I as good a right to be free as you have?” These words used to trouble them; they would express for me the liveliest sympathy, and console me with the hope that something would occur by which I might be free.

I was now about twelve years old, and the thought of being a slave for life began to bear heavily upon my heart. Just about this time, I got hold of a book entitled “The Columbian Orator.” Every opportunity I got, I used to read this book. Among much of other interesting matter, I found in it a dialogue between a master and his slave. The slave was represented as having run away from his master three times. The dialogue represented the conversation which took place between them, when the slave was retaken the third time. In this dialogue, the whole argument in behalf of slavery was brought forward by the master, all of which was disposed of by the slave. The slave was made to say some very smart as well as impressive things in reply to his master—things which had the desired though unexpected effect; for the conversation resulted in the voluntary emancipation of the slave on the part of the master.

In the same book, I met with one of Sheridan’s mighty speeches on and in behalf of Catholic emancipation. These were choice documents to me. I read them over and over again with unabated interest. They gave tongue to interesting thoughts of my own soul, which had frequently flashed through my mind, and died away for want of utterance. The moral which I gained from the dialogue was the power of truth over the conscience of even a slaveholder. What I got from Sheridan was a bold denunciation of slavery, and a powerful vindication of human rights. The reading of these documents enabled me to utter my thoughts, and to meet the arguments brought forward to sus-tain slavery; but while they relieved me of one difficulty, they brought on another even more painful than the one of which I was relieved. The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers. I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers, who had left their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes, and in a strange land reduced us to slavery. I loathed them as being the meanest as well as the most wicked of men. As I read and contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish. As I writhed under it, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out. In moments of agony, I envied my fellow-slaves for their stupidity. I have often wished myself a beast. I preferred the condition of the meanest reptile to my own. Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking! It was this ever-lasting thinking of my condition that tormented me. There was no getting rid of it. It was pressed


pp

en

dix

a | 12

upon me by every object within sight or hearing, animate or inanimate. The silver trump of freedom had roused my soul to eternal wakefulness. Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever. It was heard in every sound, and seen in every thing. It was ever present to torment me with a sense of my wretched condition. I saw nothing without seeing it, I heard nothing without hearing it, and felt nothing without feeling it. It looked from every star, it smiled in every calm, breathed in every wind, and moved in every storm.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Written by Himself.

Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845.

Figure 5: Annotation of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

Qualitative Measures Quantitative MeasuresLevels of Meaning

While the apparent aim of the text is to convince readers of the day of the evils of slavery, there are other aims as well; among the latter, not fully revealed in the excerpt, are Douglass’s efforts to assert his own manhood (and that of other black men) and to create an extended analogy between his own literal rise to freedom and a spiritual awakening.

Structure

The Narrative uses a fairly simple, explicit, and conven-tional story structure, with events largely related chrono-logically by a narrator recounting his past. There are some philosophical discussions that may, to the reader just looking for a story, seem like digressions.

Language Conventionality and Clarity

Douglass’s language is largely clear and meant to be ac-cessible. He does, however, use some figurative language (e.g., juxtaposing literal bread with the metaphorical bread of knowledge) and literary devices (e.g., personi-fying freedom). There are also some now-archaic and unusual words and phrasings (e.g., choice documents).

Knowledge Demands

The Narrative discusses moderately sophisticated themes. The experiences of slavery Douglass describes are obviously outside students’ own experiences, but Douglass renders them vivid. The text is bound by Dou-glass’s authoritative perspective. General background knowledge about slavery and race in mid-nineteenth-century America is helpful, as is knowledge of Christiani-ty, to which Douglass makes frequent reference through-out the excerpt and the work as a whole.

Various readability measures of the Narrative are largely in agreement that it is of appropriate complexity for grades 6–8. A Coh-Metrix analysis calls attention to this excerpt’s complex syntax and the abstractness of some of the language (e.g., hard-to-define concepts such as slavery and freedom). Helping to balance out that challenge are the text’s storylike structure and the way the text draws clear connections between words and sentences. Readers will still have to make many infer-ences to interpret and connect the text’s central ideas, however.

Reader-Task Considerations

These are to be determined locally with reference to such variables as a student’s motivation, knowledge, and experiences as well as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed.

Recommended Placement

Both the qualitative and quantitative measures support the Standards’ inclusion of the Narrative in the grades 6–8 text complexity band, with the understanding that the text sits at the high end of the range and that it can be reread profitably in later years by more mature students capable of appreciating the deeper messages embedded in the story

.


pp

en

dix

a | 13

Example 2: The Grapes of Wrath (Grades 9–10 Text Complexity Band)

Excerpt

The man took off his dark, stained hat and stood with a curious humility in front of the screen. “Could you see your way to sell us a loaf of bread, ma’am?”

Mae said, “This ain’t a grocery store. We got bread to make san’widges.”

“I know, ma’am.” His humility was insistent. “We need bread and there ain’t nothin’ for quite a piece, they say.”

“’F we sell bread we gonna run out.” Mae’s tone was faltering.

“We’re hungry,” the man said.

“Whyn’t you buy a san’widge? We got nice san’widges, hamburgs.”

“We’d sure admire to do that, ma’am. But we can’t. We got to make a dime do all of us.” And he said embarrassedly, “We ain’t got but a little.”

Mae said, “You can’t get no loaf a bread for a dime. We only got fifteen-cent loafs.”

From behind her Al growled, “God Almighty, Mae, give ‘em bread.”

“We’ll run out ‘fore the bread truck comes.”

“Run out then, goddamn it,” said Al. He looked sullenly down at the potato salad he was mixing.

Mae shrugged her plump shoulders and looked to the truck drivers to show them what she was up against.

She held the screen door open and the man came in, bringing a smell of sweat with him. The boys edged behind him and they went immediately to the candy case and stared in—not with craving or with hope or even with desire, but just with a kind of wonder that such things could be. They were alike in size and their faces were alike. One scratched his dusty ankle with the toe nails of his other foot. The other whispered some soft message and then they straightened their arms so that their clenched fists in the overall pockets showed through the thin blue cloth.

Mae opened a drawer and took out a long waxpaper-wrapped loaf. “This here is a fifteen-cent loaf.”

The man put his hat back on his head. He answered with inflexible humility, “Won’t you—can’t you see your way to cut off ten cents’ worth?”

Al said snarlingly, “Goddamn it, Mae. Give ‘em the loaf.”

The man turned toward Al. “No, we want ta buy ten cents’ worth of it. We got it figgered awful close, mister, to get to California.”

Mae said resignedly, “You can have this for ten cents.”

“That’d be robbin’ you, ma’am.”

“Go ahead—Al says to take it.” She pushed the waxpapered loaf across the counter. The man took a deep leather pouch from his rear pocket, untied the strings, and spread it open. It was heavy with silver and with greasy bills.

“May soun’ funny to be so tight,” he apologized. “We got a thousan’ miles to go, an’ we don’ know if we’ll make it.” He dug in the pouch with a forefinger, located a dime, and pinched in for it. When he put it down on the counter he had a penny with it. He was about to drop the penny back into the pouch when his eye fell on the boys frozen before the candy counter. He moved slowly down to them. He pointed in the case at big long sticks of striped peppermint. “Is them penny candy, ma’am?”


pp

en

dix

a | 14

Mae moved down and looked in. “Which ones?”

“There, them stripy ones.”

The little boys raised their eyes to her face and they stopped breathing; their mouths were partly opened, their half-naked bodies were rigid.

“Oh—them. Well, no—them’s two for a penny.”

“Well, gimme two then, ma’am.” He placed the copper cent carefully on the counter. The boys ex-pelled their held breath softly. Mae held the big sticks out.

Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath.New York: Viking, 1967 (1939).

Figure 6: Annotation of The Grapes of Wrath

Qualitative Measures Quantitative MeasuresLevels of Meaning

There are multiple and often implicit levels of meaning within the excerpt and the novel as a whole. The surface level focuses on the literal journey of the Joads, but the novel also works on metaphorical and philosophical levels.

Structure

The text is relatively simple, explicit, and conventional in form. Events are largely related in chronological order.


Although the language used is generally familiar, clear, and conversational, the dialect of the characters may pose a challenge for some readers. Steinbeck also puts a great deal of weight on certain less familiar words, such as faltering. In various portions of the novel not fully rep-resented in the excerpt, the author combines rich, vivid, and detailed description with an economy of words that requires heavy inferencing.

Knowledge Demands

The themes are sophisticated. The experiences and per-spective conveyed will be different from those of many students. Knowledge of the Great Depression, the “Okie Migration” to California, and the religion and music of the migrants is helpful, but the author himself provides much of the context needed for comprehension.

The quantitative assessment of The Grapes of Wrath demonstrates the difficulty many currently existing readability measures have in capturing adequately the richness of sophisticated works of literature, as vari-ous ratings suggest a placement within the grades 2–3 text complexity band. A Coh-Metrix analysis also tends to suggest the text is an easy one since the syntax is uncomplicated and the author uses a conventional story structure and only a moderate number of abstract words. (The analysis does indicate, however, that a great deal of inferencing will be required to interpret and con-nect the text’s words, sentences, and central ideas.)




Though considered extremely easy by many quantitative measures, The Grapes of Wrath has a sophistication of theme and content that makes it more suitable for early high school (grades 9–10), which is where the Standards have placed it. In this case, qualitative measures have overruled the quantitative measures.


pp

en

dix

a | 15

Example 3: The Longitude Prize (Grades 9–10 Text Complexity Band)

Excerpt

From Chapter 1: “A Most Terrible Sea”

At six in the morning I was awaked by a great shock, and a confused noise of the men on deck. I ran up, thinking some ship had run foul of us, for by my own reckoning, and that of every other person in the ship, we were at least thirty-five leagues distant from land; but, before I could reach the quarter-deck, the ship gave a great stroke upon the ground, and the sea broke over her. Just after this I could perceive the land, rocky, rugged and uneven, about two cables’ length from us . . . the masts soon went overboard, carrying some men with them . . . notwithstanding a most terrible sea, one of the [lifeboats] was launched, and eight of the best men jumped into her; but she had scarcely got to the ship’s stern when she was hurled to the bottom, and every soul in her perished. The rest of the boats were soon washed to pieces on the deck. We then made a raft . . . and waited with resignation for Providence to assist us.

—From an account of the wreck of HMS Litchfield off the coast of North Africa, 1758

The Litchfield came to grief because no one aboard knew where they were. As the narrator tells us, by his own reckoning and that of everyone else they were supposed to be thirty-five leagues, about a hundred miles, from land. The word “reckoning” was short for “dead reckoning”—the system used by ships at sea to keep track of their position, meaning their longitude and latitude. It was an intricate system, a craft, and like every other craft involved the mastery of certain tools, in this case such instruments as compass, hourglass, and quadrant. It was an art as well.

Latitude, the north-south position, had always been the navigator’s faithful guide. Even in ancient times, a Greek or Roman sailor could tell how far north of the equator he was by observing the North Star’s height above the horizon, or the sun’s at noon. This could be done without instruments, trusting in experience and the naked eye, although it is believed that an ancestor of the quadrant called the astrolabe—“star-measurer”—was known to the ancients, and used by them to measure the angular height of the sun or a star above the horizon.

Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans tended to sail along the coasts and were rarely out of sight of land. As later navigators left the safety of the Mediterranean to plunge into the vast Atlantic—far from shore, and from the shorebirds that led them to it—they still had the sun and the North Star. And these enabled them to follow imagined parallel lines of latitude that circle the globe. Follow-ing a line of latitude—“sailing the parallel”—kept a ship on a steady east-west course. Christopher Columbus, who sailed the parallel in 1492, held his ships on such a safe course, west and west again, straight on toward Asia. When they came across an island off the coast of what would later be called America, Columbus compelled his crew to sign an affidavit stating that this island was no island but mainland Asia.

Dash, Joan. The Longitude Prize.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000. (2000)


pp

en

dix

a | 16

Figure 7: Annotation of The Longitude Prize

Qualitative Measures Quantitative MeasuresPurpose

The single, relatively clear purpose of the text (not fully apparent in the excerpt but signaled by the title) is to recount the discovery of the concept of longitude.

Structure

The text is moderately complex and subtle in structure. Although the text may appear at first glance to be a conventional narrative, Dash mainly uses narrative ele-ments in the service of illustrating historical and techni-cal points.


Language is used literally and is relatively clear, but numerous archaic, domain-specific, and otherwise unfamiliar terms are introduced in the course of citing primary historical sources and discussing the craft, art, and science of navigation.

Knowledge Demands

The text assumes relatively little prior knowledge regarding seafaring and navigation, but some general sense of the concepts of latitude and longitude, the nature of sailing ships, and the historical circumstances that promoted exploration and trade is useful to com-prehending the text.

Various readability measures of The Longitude Prize are largely in agreement that the text is appropriate for the grades 9–10 text complexity band. The Coh-Metrix analysis notes that the text is primarily informational in structure despite the narrative opening. (Recall from “Why Text Complexity Matters,” above, that research indicates that informational texts are generally harder to read than narratives.) While the text relies on concrete language and goes to some effort to connect central ideas for the reader, it also contains complex syntax and few explicit connections between words and sentences.




The qualitative and quantitative measures by and large agree on the placement of The Longitude Prize into the grades 9–10 text complexity band, which is where the Standards have it.


pp

en

dix

a | 17

reading Foundational skillsThe following supplements the Reading Standards: Foundational Skills (K–5) in the main document (pp. 15–17). See page 37 in the bibliography of this appendix for sources used in helping construct the foundational skills and the material below.

Phoneme-Grapheme correspondences

ConsonantsCommon graphemes (spellings) are listed in the following table for each of the consonant sounds. Note that the term grapheme refers to a letter or letter combination that corresponds to one speech sound.

Figure 8: Consonant Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in English

Phoneme Word Examples Common Graphemes (Spellings) for the Phoneme*

/p/ pit, spider, stop p

/b/ bit, brat, bubble b

/m/ mitt, comb, hymn m, mb, mn

/t/ tickle, mitt, sipped t, tt, ed

/d/ die, loved d, ed

/n/ nice, knight, gnat n, kn, gn

/k/ cup, kite, duck, chorus, folk, quiet k, c, ck, ch, lk, q

/g/ girl, Pittsburgh g, gh

/ng/ sing, bank ng, n

/f/ fluff, sphere, tough, calf f, ff, gh, ph, lf

/v/ van, dove v, ve

/s/ sit, pass, science, psychic s, ss, sc, ps

/z/ zoo, jazz, nose, as, xylophone z, zz, se, s, x

/th/ thin, breath, ether th

/th/ this, breathe, either th

/sh/ shoe, mission, sure, charade, precious, notion, mission, special

sh, ss, s, ch, sc, ti, si, ci

/zh/ measure, azure s, z

/ch/ cheap, future, etch ch, tch

/j/ judge, wage j, dge, ge

/l/ lamb, call, single l, ll, le

/r/ reach, wrap, her, fur, stir r, wr, er/ur/ir

/y/ you, use, feud, onion y, (u, eu), i

/w/ witch, queen w, (q)u

/wh/ where wh

/h/ house, whole h, wh

*Graphemes in the word list are among the most common spellings, but the list does not include all possible graph-emes for a given consonant. Most graphemes are more than one letter.


pp

en

dix

a | 18

VowelsCommon graphemes (spellings) are listed in the following table for each of the vowel sounds. Note that the term grapheme refers to a letter or letter combination that corresponds to one speech sound.

Figure 9: Vowel Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in English

Phoneme Word Examples Common Graphemes (Spellings) for the Phoneme*

/ē/ see, these, me, eat, key, happy, chief, either ee, e_e, -e, ea, ey, -y, ie, ei

/ĭ/ sit, gym i, y

/ā/ make, rain, play, great, baby, eight, vein, they a_e, ai, ay, ea, -y, eigh, ei, ey

/ĕ/ bed, breath e, ea

/ă/ cat a

/ī/ time, pie, cry, right, rifle i_e, ie, -y, igh, -i

/ŏ/ fox, swap, palm o, wa, al

/ŭ/ cup, cover, flood, tough u, o, oo, ou

/aw/ saw, pause, call, water, bought aw, au, all, wa, ough

/ō. vote, boat, toe, snow, open o_e, oa, oe, ow, o-,

/oo/ took, put, could oo, u, ou

/ū/ [oo] moo, tube, blue, chew, suit, soup oo, u_e, ue, ew, ui, ou

/y//ū/ use, few, cute u, ew, u_e

/oi/ boil, boy oi, oy

/ow/ out, cow ou, ow

er her, fur, sir er, ur, ir

ar cart ar

or sport or* Graphemes in the word list are among the most common spellings, but the list does not include all possible graph-emes for a given vowel. Many graphemes are more than one letter.

Phonological awareness

General Progression of Phonological Awareness Skills (PreK–1)

Word Awareness (Spoken Language)

Move a chip or marker to stand for each word in a spoken sentence.

The dog barks. (3) The brown dog barks. (4) The brown dog barks loudly. (5)

Rhyme Recognition during Word Play

Say “yes” if the words have the same last sounds (rhyme):

clock/dock (y) red/said (y) down/boy (n)

Repetition and Creation of Alliteration during Word Play

Nice, neat Nathan Chewy, chunky chocolate

¯˘


pp

en

dix

a | 19

Syllable Counting or Identification (Spoken Language)

A spoken syllable is a unit of speech organized around a vowel sound.

Repeat the word, say each syllable loudly, and feel the jaw drop on the vowel sound:

chair (1) table (2) gymnasium (4)

Onset and Rime Manipulation (Spoken Language)

Within a single syllable, onset is the consonant sound or sounds that may precede the vowel; rime is the vowel and all other consonant sounds that may follow the vowel.

Say the two parts slowly and then blend into a whole word:

school onset - /sch/; rime - /ool/ star onset - /st/; rime - /ar/ place onset - /pl/; rime - /ace/ all onset (none); rime - /all/

General Progression of Phoneme Awareness Skills (K–2)

Phonemes are individual speech sounds that are combined to create words in a language system. Phoneme aware-ness requires progressive differentiation of sounds in spoken words and the ability to think about and manipulate those sounds. Activities should lead to the pairing of phonemes (speech sounds) with graphemes (letters and letter combinations that represent those sounds) for the purposes of word recognition and spelling.

Phoneme Identity

Say the sound that begins these words. What is your mouth doing when you make that sound?

milk, mouth, monster /m/ — The lips are together, and the sound goes through the nose. thick, thimble, thank /th/ — The tongue is between the teeth, and a hissy sound is produced. octopus, otter, opposite /o/ — The mouth is wide open, and we can sing that sound.

Phoneme Isolation

What is the first speech sound in this word?

ship /sh/ van /v/ king /k/ echo /e/

What is the last speech sound in this word?

comb /m/ sink /k/ rag /g/ go /o/

Phoneme Blending (Spoken Language)

Blend the sounds to make a word:

(Provide these sounds slowly.)

/s/ /ay/ say /ou/ /t/ out /sh/ /ar/ /k/ shark /p/ /o/ /s/ /t/ post

Phoneme Segmentation (Spoken Language)

Say each sound as you move a chip onto a line or sound box:

no /n/ /o/ rag /r/ /a/ /g/ socks /s/ /o/ /k/ /s/ float /f/ /l/ /oa/ /t/


pp

en

dix

a | 20

Phoneme Addition (Spoken Language)

What word would you have if you added /th/ to the beginning of “ink”? (think)

What word would you have if you added /d/ to the end of the word “fine”? (find)

What word would you have if you added /z/ to the end of the word “frog”? (frogs)

Phoneme Substitution (Spoken Language)

Say “rope.” Change /r/ to /m/. What word would you get? (mope)

Say “chum.” Change /u/ to /ar/. What word would you get? (charm)

Say “sing.” Change /ng/ to /t/. What word would you get? (sit)

Phoneme Deletion (Spoken Language)

Say “park.” Now say “park” without /p/. (ark)

Say “four.” Now say “four” without /f/. (or)

orthography

Categories of Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences

Figure 10: Consonant Graphemes with Definitions and Examples

Grapheme Type Definition Examples

Single letters A single consonant letter can represent a conso-

nant phoneme.

b, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, y, z

Doublets A doublet uses two of the same letter to spell

one consonant phoneme.

ff, ll, ss, zz

Digraphs A digraph is a two- (di-) letter combination that

stands for one phoneme; neither letter acts

alone to represent the sound.

th, sh, ch, wh

ph, ng (sing)

gh (cough)

[ck is a guest in this category]

Trigraphs A trigraph is a three- (tri-) letter combination

that stands for one phoneme; none of the letters

acts alone to represent the sound.

-tch

-dge

Consonants in blends A blend contains two or three graphemes be-

cause the consonant sounds are separate and

identifiable. A blend is not “one sound.”

s-c-r (scrape) th-r (thrush)

c-l (clean) f-t (sift)

l-k (milk) s-t (most)

and many more

Silent letter

combinations

Silent letter combinations use two letters: one

represents the phoneme, and the other is silent.

Most of these are from Anglo-Saxon or Greek.

kn (knock), wr (wrestle), gn (gnarl), ps

(psychology), rh (rhythm), -mb (crumb),

-lk (folk), -mn (hymn), -st (listen)

Combination qu These two letters, always together, usually stand

for two sounds, /k/ /w/.

quickly


pp

en

dix

a | 21

Figure 11: Vowel Graphemes with Definitions and Examples

Grapheme Type Definition Examples

Single letters A single vowel letter stands for a vowel sound. (short vowels) cap, hit, gem, clod,

muss

(long vowels) me, no, music

Vowel teams A combination of two, three, or four letters stands for a vowel.

(short vowels) head, hook

(long vowels) boat, sigh, weigh

(diphthongs) toil, bout

Vowel-r combinations A vowel, followed by r, works in combination with /r/ to make a unique vowel sound.

car, sport, her, burn, first

Vowel-consonant-e (VCe) The vowel–consonant–silent e pattern is common for spelling a long vowel sound.

gate, eve, rude, hope, five

Figure 12: Six Types of Written Syllable Patterns

Syllable Type Definition Examples

Closed A syllable with a short vowel spelled with a single vowel letter ending in one or more con-sonants

dap-plehos-telbev-erage

Vowel-C-e

(“Magic e”)

A syllable with a long vowel spelled with one vowel + one consonant + silent e

competedespite

Open A syllable that ends with a long vowel sound, spelled with a single vowel letter

programtablerecent

Vowel Team Syllables that use two to four letters to spell the vowel

beau-ti-fultrain-ercon-gealspoil-age

Vowel-r (r-controlled)

A syllable with er, ir, or, ar, or ur Vowel pronunciation often changes before /r/.

in-jur-iouscon-sortchar-ter

Consonant-le An unaccented final syllable containing a conso-nant before /l/ followed by a silent e

dribblebeaglelittle

Three Useful Principles for Chunking Longer Words into Syllables

1. VC-CV: Two or more consonants between two vowels

When syllables have two or more adjacent consonants between them, we divide between the consonants. The first

syllable will be closed (with a short vowel).

sub-let nap-kin pen-ny emp-ty

2. V-CV and VC-V: One consonant between two vowels

a) First try dividing before the consonant. This makes the first syllable open and the vowel long. This strategy will

work 75 percent of the time with VCV syllable division.

e-ven ra-bies de-cent ri-val


pp

en

dix

a | 22

b) If the word is not recognized, try dividing after the consonant. This makes the first syllable closed and the vowel

sound short. This strategy will work 25 percent of the time with VCV syllable division.

ev-er rab-id dec-ade riv-er

3. Consonant blends usually stick together. Do not separate digraphs when using the first two principles for decod-

ing.

e-ther spec-trum se-quin

Morphemes Represented in English Orthography

Figure 13: Examples of Inflectional Suffixes in English

Inflection Example-s plural noun I had two eggs for breakfast.

-s third person singular verb

She gets what she wants.

-ed past tense verb We posted the notice.

-ing progressive tense verb We will be waiting a long time.

-en past participle He had eaten his lunch.

’s possessive singular The frog’s spots were brown.

-er comparative adjective He is taller than she is.

-est superlative adjective Tom is the tallest of all.

Examples of Derivational Suffixes in EnglishDerivational suffixes, such as -ful, -ation, and -ity, are more numerous than inflections and work in ways that inflec-tional suffixes do not. Most derivational suffixes in English come from the Latin layer of language. Derivational suffixes mark or determine part of speech (verb, noun, adjective, adverb) of the suffixed word. Suffixes such as -ment, -ity, and -tion turn words into nouns; -ful, -ous, and -al turn words into adjectives; -ly turns words into adverbs.

nature (n. — from nat, birth) permit (n. or v.)

natural (adj.) permission (n.)

naturalize (v.) permissive (adj.)

naturalizing (v.) permissible (adj.)

naturalistic (adj.) permissibly (adv.)


pp

en

dix

a | 23

Writing

Definitions of the standards’ three text types

ArgumentArguments are used for many purposes—to change the reader’s point of view, to bring about some action on the reader’s part, or to ask the reader to accept the writer’s explanation or evaluation of a concept, issue, or problem. An argument is a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid. In English language arts, students make claims about the worth or meaning of a literary work or works. They defend their interpretations or judgments with evidence from the text(s) they are writing about. In history/social studies, students analyze evidence from multiple primary and secondary sources to advance a claim that is best supported by the evidence, and they argue for a historically or empirically situated interpretation. In science, students make claims in the form of statements or conclusions that answer questions or address problems. Using data in a scientifically ac-ceptable form, students marshal evidence and draw on their understanding of scientific concepts to argue in support of their claims. Although young children are not able to produce fully developed logical arguments, they develop a variety of methods to extend and elaborate their work by providing examples, offering reasons for their assertions, and explaining cause and effect. These kinds of expository structures are steps on the road to argument. In grades K–5, the term “opinion” is used to refer to this developing form of argument.

Informational/Explanatory WritingInformational/explanatory writing conveys information accurately. This kind of writing serves one or more closely related purposes: to increase readers’ knowledge of a subject, to help readers better understand a procedure or pro-cess, or to provide readers with an enhanced comprehension of a concept. Informational/explanatory writing address-es matters such as types (What are the different types of poetry?) and components (What are the parts of a motor?); size, function, or behavior (How big is the United States? What is an X-ray used for? How do penguins find food?); how things work (How does the legislative branch of government function?); and why things happen (Why do some authors blend genres?). To produce this kind of writing, students draw from what they already know and from primary and secondary sources. With practice, students become better able to develop a controlling idea and a coherent fo-cus on a topic and more skilled at selecting and incorporating relevant examples, facts, and details into their writing. They are also able to use a variety of techniques to convey information, such as naming, defining, describing, or dif-ferentiating different types or parts; comparing or contrasting ideas or concepts; and citing an anecdote or a scenario to illustrate a point. Informational/explanatory writing includes a wide array of genres, including academic genres such as literary analyses, scientific and historical reports, summaries, and précis writing as well as forms of workplace and functional writing such as instructions, manuals, memos, reports, applications, and résumés. As students advance through the grades, they expand their repertoire of informational/explanatory genres and use them effectively in a variety of disciplines and domains.

Although information is provided in both arguments and explanations, the two types of writing have different aims. Arguments seek to make people believe that something is true or to persuade people to change their beliefs or be-havior. Explanations, on the other hand, start with the assumption of truthfulness and answer questions about why or how. Their aim is to make the reader understand rather than to persuade him or her to accept a certain point of view. In short, arguments are used for persuasion and explanations for clarification.

Like arguments, explanations provide information about causes, contexts, and consequences of processes, phenom-ena, states of affairs, objects, terminology, and so on. However, in an argument, the writer not only gives information but also presents a case with the “pros” (supporting ideas) and “cons” (opposing ideas) on a debatable issue. Be-cause an argument deals with whether the main claim is true, it demands empirical descriptive evidence, statistics, or definitions for support. When writing an argument, the writer supports his or her claim(s) with sound reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

Narrative WritingNarrative writing conveys experience, either real or imaginary, and uses time as its deep structure. It can be used for many purposes, such as to inform, instruct, persuade, or entertain. In English language arts, students produce narratives that take the form of creative fictional stories, memoirs, anecdotes, and autobiographies. Over time, they learn to provide visual details of scenes, objects, or people; to depict specific actions (for example, movements, gestures,

Creative Writing beyond NarrativeThe narrative category does not include all of the pos-sible forms of creative writing, such as many types of poetry. The Standards leave the inclusion and evaluation of other such forms to teacher discretion.


pp

en

dix

a | 24

postures, and expressions); to use dialogue and interior monologue that provide insight into the narrator’s and char-acters’ personalities and motives; and to manipulate pace to highlight the significance of events and create tension and suspense. In history/social studies, students write narrative accounts about individuals. They also construct event models of what happened, selecting from their sources only the most relevant information. In science, students write narrative descriptions of the step-by-step procedures they follow in their investigations so that others can replicate their procedures and (perhaps) reach the same results. With practice, students expand their repertoire and control of different narrative strategies.

Texts that Blend TypesSkilled writers many times use a blend of these three text types to accomplish their purposes. For example, The Longitude Prize, included above and in Appendix B, embeds narrative elements within a largely expository structure. Effective stu-dent writing can also cross the boundaries of type, as does the grade 12 student sample “Fact vs. Fiction and All the Grey Space In Between” found in Appendix C.

the special Place of argument in the standards

While all three text types are important, the Standards put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound argu-ments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness. English and education professor Gerald Graff (2003) writes that “argument literacy” is fundamen-tal to being educated. The university is largely an “argument cul-ture,” Graff contends; therefore, K–12 schools should “teach the conflicts” so that students are adept at understanding and en-gaging in argument (both oral and written) when they enter col-lege. He claims that because argument is not standard in most school curricula, only 20 percent of those who enter college are prepared in this respect. Theorist and critic Neil Postman (1997) calls argument the soul of an education because argument forces a writer to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of mul-tiple perspectives. When teachers ask students to consider two or more perspectives on a topic or issue, something far beyond surface knowledge is required: students must think critically and deeply, assess the validity of their own thinking, and anticipate counterclaims in opposition to their own assertions.

The unique importance of argument in college and careers is as-serted eloquently by Joseph M. Williams and Lawrence McEner-ney (n.d.) of the University of Chicago Writing Program. As part of their attempt to explain to new college students the major differences between good high school and college writing, Wil-liams and McEnerney define argument not as “wrangling” but as “a serious and focused conversation among people who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively”:

Those values are also an integral part of your education in college. For four years, you are asked to read, do research, gather data, analyze it, think about it, and then communicate it to readers in a form . . . which enables them to assess it and use it. You are asked to do this not because we expect you all to become professional scholars, but because in just about any profession you pursue, you will do research, think about what you find, make decisions about complex matters, and then ex-plain those decisions—usually in writing—to others who have a stake in your decisions being sound ones. In an Age of Information, what most professionals do is research, think, and make arguments. (And part of the value of doing your own thinking and writing is that it makes you much better at evaluating the thinking and writing of others.) (ch. 1)

In the process of describing the special value of argument in college- and career-ready writing, Williams and McEner-ney also establish argument’s close links to research in particular and to knowledge building in general, both of which are also heavily emphasized in the Standards.

Much evidence supports the value of argument generally and its particular importance to college and career readi-ness. A 2009 ACT national curriculum survey of postsecondary instructors of composition, freshman English, and sur-vey of American literature courses (ACT, Inc., 2009) found that “write to argue or persuade readers” was virtually tied with “write to convey information” as the most important type of writing needed by incoming college students. Other curriculum surveys, including those conducted by the College Board (Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005) and

“Argument” and “Persuasion”When writing to persuade, writers employ a variety of persuasive strategies. One common strategy is an appeal to the credibility, char-acter, or authority of the writer (or speaker). When writers establish that they are knowl-edgeable and trustworthy, audiences are more likely to believe what they say. Another is an appeal to the audience’s self-interest, sense of identity, or emotions, any of which can sway an audience. A logical argument, on the other hand, convinces the audience be-cause of the perceived merit and reasonable-ness of the claims and proofs offered rather than either the emotions the writing evokes in the audience or the character or credentials of the writer. The Standards place special emphasis on writing logical arguments as a particularly important form of college- and career-ready writing.


pp

en

dix

a | 25

the states of Virginia and Florida6, also found strong support for writing arguments as a key part of instruction. The 2007 writing framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (National Assessment Gov-erning Board, 2006) assigns persuasive writing the single largest targeted allotment of assessment time at grade 12 (40 percent, versus 25 percent for narrative writing and 35 percent for informative writing). (The 2011 prepublication framework [National Assessment Governing Board, 2007] maintains the 40 percent figure for persuasive writing at grade 12, allotting 40 percent to writing to explain and 20 percent to writing to convey experience.) Writing argu-ments or writing to persuade is also an important element in standards frameworks for numerous high-performing nations.7

Specific skills central to writing arguments are also highly valued by postsecondary educators. A 2002 survey of instructors of freshman composition and other introductory courses across the curriculum at California’s community colleges, California State University campuses, and University of California campuses (Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, 2002) found that among the most important skills expected of incoming students were articulating a clear thesis; identifying, evaluating, and using evidence to support or challenge the thesis; and considering and incorporat-ing counterarguments into their writing. On the 2009 ACT national curriculum survey (ACT, Inc., 2009), postsecond-ary faculty gave high ratings to such argument-related skills as “develop ideas by using some specific reasons, details, and examples,” “take and maintain a position on an issue,” and “support claims with multiple and appropriate sources of evidence.”

The value of effective argument extends well beyond the classroom or workplace, however. As Richard Fulkerson (1996) puts it in Teaching the Argument in Writing, the proper context for thinking about argument is one “in which the goal is not victory but a good decision, one in which all arguers are at risk of needing to alter their views, one in which a participant takes seriously and fairly the views different from his or her own” (pp. 16–17). Such capacities are broadly important for the literate, educated person living in the diverse, information-rich environment of the twenty-first century.

6Unpublished data collected by Achieve, Inc.7See, for example, frameworks from Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore as well as Victoria and New South Wales in Australia.


pp

en

dix

a | 26

speaking and Listeningthe special role of speaking and Listening in K–5 LiteracyIf literacy levels are to improve, the aims of the English language arts classroom, especially in the earliest grades, must include oral language in a purposeful, systematic way, in part because it helps students master the printed word. Be-sides having intrinsic value as modes of communication, listening and speaking are necessary prerequisites of reading and writing (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2006; Hulit, Howard, & Fahey, 2010; Pence & Justice, 2007; Stuart, Wright, Grigor, & Howey, 2002). The interrelationship between oral and written language is illustrated in the table below, using the distinction linguists make between receptive language (language that is heard, processed, and understood by an individual) and expressive language (language that is generated and produced by an individual).

Figure 14: Receptive and Expressive Oral and Written Language

Receptive Language Expressive Language

Oral Language Listening Speaking

Written Language

Reading (decoding + comprehension)

Writing (handwriting, spelling, written composition)

Oral language development precedes and is the foundation for written language development; in other words, oral language is primary and written language builds on it. Children’s oral language competence is strongly predictive of their facility in learning to read and write: listening and speaking vocabulary and even mastery of syntax set boundar-ies as to what children can read and understand no matter how well they can decode (Catts, Adolf, & Weismer, 2006; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoover & Gough, 1990: Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

For children in preschool and the early grades, receptive and expressive abilities do not develop simultaneously or at the same pace: receptive language generally precedes expressive language. Children need to be able to understand words before they can produce and use them.

Oral language is particularly important for the youngest students. Hart and Risley (1995), who studied young children in the context of their early family life and then at school, found that the total number of words children had heard as preschoolers predicted how many words they understood and how fast they could learn new words in kindergar-ten. Preschoolers who had heard more words had larger vocabularies once in kindergarten. Furthermore, when the students were in grade 3, their early language competence from the preschool years still accurately predicted their language and reading comprehension. The preschoolers who had heard more words, and subsequently had learned more words orally, were better readers. In short, early language advantage persists and manifests itself in higher lev-els of literacy. A meta-analysis by Sticht and James (1984) indicates that the importance of oral language extends well beyond the earliest grades. As illustrated in the graphic below, Sticht and James found evidence strongly suggesting that children’s listening comprehension outpaces reading comprehension until the middle school years (grades 6–8).

Figure 15: Listening and Reading Comprehension, by Age


pp

en

dix

a | 27

The research strongly suggests that the English language arts classroom should explicitly address the link between oral and written language, exploiting the influence of oral language on a child’s later ability to read by allocating in-structional time to building children’s listening skills, as called for in the Standards. The early grades should not focus on decoding alone, nor should the later grades pay attention only to building reading comprehension. Time should be devoted to reading fiction and content-rich selections aloud to young children, just as it is to providing those same children with the skills they will need to decode and encode.

This focus on oral language is of greatest importance for the children most at risk—children for whom English is a second language and children who have not been exposed at home to the kind of language found in written texts (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Ensuring that all children in the United States have access to an excellent education re-quires that issues of oral language come to the fore in elementary classrooms.

read-alouds and the reading-speaking-Listening Link

Generally, teachers will encourage children in the upper elementary grades to read texts independently and reflect on them in writing. However, children in the early grades—particularly kindergarten through grade 3—benefit from participating in rich, structured conversations with an adult in response to written texts that are read aloud, orally comparing and contrasting as well as analyzing and synthesizing (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Feitelstein, Goldstein, Iraqui, & Share, 1993; Feitelstein, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986; Whitehurst et al., 1988). The Standards acknowl-edge the importance of this aural dimension of early learning by including a robust set of K–3 Speaking and Listening standards and by offering in Appendix B an extensive number of read-aloud text exemplars appropriate for K–1 and for grades 2–3.

Because, as indicated above, children’s listening comprehension likely outpaces reading comprehension until the middle school years, it is particularly important that students in the earliest grades build knowledge through being read to as well as through reading, with the balance gradually shifting to reading independently. By reading a story or nonfiction selection aloud, teachers allow children to experience written language without the burden of decod-ing, granting them access to content that they may not be able to read and understand by themselves. Children are then free to focus their mental energy on the words and ideas presented in the text, and they will eventually be better prepared to tackle rich written content on their own. Whereas most titles selected for kindergarten and grade 1 will need to be read aloud exclusively, some titles selected for grades 2–5 may be appropriate for read-alouds as well as for reading independently. Reading aloud to students in the upper grades should not, however, be used as a substitute for independent reading by students; read-alouds at this level should supplement and enrich what students are able to read by themselves.


pp

en

dix

a | 28

Language

overview

The Standards take a hybrid approach to matters of conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary. As noted in the table below, certain elements important to reading, writing, and speaking and listening are included in those strands to help provide a coherent set of expectations for those modes of communication.

Figure 16: Elements of the Language Standards in the Reading, Writing, and Speaking and Listening Strands

Strand Standard

Reading

r.ccr.4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, con-notative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.

WritingW.ccr.5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.

Speaking and Listening

sL.ccr.6. Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks, demonstrating com-mand of formal English when indicated or appro-priate.

In many respects, however, conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary extend across reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Many of the conventions-related standards are as appropriate to formal spoken English as they are to formal written English. Language choice is a matter of craft for both writers and speakers. New words and phrases are acquired not only through reading and being read to but also through direct vocabulary instruction and (particularly in the earliest grades) through purposeful classroom discussions around rich content.

The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.

conventions and Knowledge of Language

Teaching and Learning the Conventions of Standard English

Development of Grammatical Knowledge

Grammar and usage development in children and in adults rarely follows a linear path. Native speakers and language learners often begin making new errors and seem to lose their mastery of particular grammatical structures or print conventions as they learn new, more complex grammatical structures or new usages of English, such as in college-level persuasive essays (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Bartholomae, 1980; DeVilliers & DeVilliers, 1973; Shaughnessy, 1979). These errors are often signs of language development as learners synthesize new grammatical and usage knowledge with their current knowledge. Thus, students will often need to return to the same grammar topic in greater complex-ity as they move through K–12 schooling and as they increase the range and complexity of the texts and communica-tive contexts in which they read and write. The Standards account for the recursive, ongoing nature of grammatical knowledge in two ways. First, the Standards return to certain important language topics in higher grades at greater levels of sophistication. For instance, instruction on verbs in early elementary school (K–3) should address simple present, past, and future tenses; later instruction should extend students’ knowledge of verbs to other tenses (pro-gressive and perfect tenses8 in grades 4 and 5), mood (modal auxiliaries in grade 4 and grammatical mood in grade 8) and voice (active and passive voice in grade 8). Second, the Standards identify with an asterisk (*) certain skills and understandings that students are to be introduced to in basic ways at lower grades but that are likely in need of being

8Though progressive and perfect are more correctly aspects of verbs rather than tenses, the Standards use the more familiar notion here and throughout for the sake of accessibility.


pp

en

dix

a | 29

retaught and relearned in subsequent grades as students’ writing and speaking matures and grows more complex. (See “Progressive Language Skills in the Standards,” below.)

Making Appropriate Grammar and Usage Choices in Writing and Speaking

Students must have a strong command of the grammar and usage of spoken and written standard English to succeed academically and professionally. Yet there is great variety in the language and grammar features of spoken and writ-ten standard English (Biber, 1991; Krauthamer, 1999), of academic and everyday standard English, and of the language of different disciplines (Schleppegrell, 2001). Furthermore, in the twenty-first century, students must be able to com-municate effectively in a wide range of print and digital texts, each of which may require different grammatical and usage choices to be effective. Thus, grammar and usage instruction should acknowledge the many varieties of English that exist and address differences in grammatical structure and usage between these varieties in order to help stu-dents make purposeful language choices in their writing and speaking (Fogel & Ehri, 2000; Wheeler & Swords, 2004). Students must also be taught the purposes for using particular grammatical features in particular disciplines or texts; if they are taught simply to vary their grammar and language to keep their writing “interesting,” they may actually become more confused about how to make effective language choices (Lefstein, 2009). The Standards encourage this sort of instruction in a number of ways, most directly through a series of grade-specific standards associated with Language CCR standard 3 that, beginning in grade 1, focuses on making students aware of language variety.

Using Knowledge of Grammar and Usage for Reading and Listening Comprehension

Grammatical knowledge can also aid reading comprehension and interpretation (Gargani, 2006; Williams, 2000, 2005). Researchers recommend that students be taught to use knowledge of grammar and usage, as well as knowl-edge of vocabulary, to comprehend complex academic texts (García & Beltrán, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). At the elementary level, for example, students can use knowledge of verbs to help them understand the plot and characters in a text (Williams, 2005). At the secondary level, learning the gram-matical structures of nonstandard dialects can help students understand how accomplished writers such as Harper Lee, Langston Hughes, and Mark Twain use various dialects of English to great advantage and effect, and can help students analyze setting, character, and author’s craft in great works of literature. Teaching about the grammatical patterns found in specific disciplines has also been shown to help English language learners’ reading comprehension in general and reading comprehension in history classrooms in particular (Achugar, Schleppegrell, & Oteíza, 2007; Gargani, 2006).

As students learn more about the patterns of English grammar in different communicative contexts throughout their K–12 academic careers, they can develop more complex understandings of English grammar and usage. Students can use this understanding to make more purposeful and effective choices in their writing and speaking and more accu-rate and rich interpretations in their reading and listening.

Progressive Language Skills in the StandardsWhile all of the Standards are cumulative, certain Language skills and understandings are more likely than others to need to be retaught and relearned as students advance through the grades. Beginning in grade 3, the Standards note such “progressive” skills and understandings with an asterisk (*) in the main document; they are also summarized in the table on pages 29 and 55 of that document as well as on page 34 of this appendix. These skills and understand-ings should be mastered at a basic level no later than the end of the grade in which they are introduced in the Stan-dards. In subsequent grades, as their writing and speaking become more sophisticated, students will need to learn to apply these skills and understandings in more advanced ways.

The following example shows how one such task—ensuring subject-verb agreement, formally introduced in the Stan-dards in grade 3—can become more challenging as students’ writing matures. The sentences in the table below are taken verbatim from the annotated writing samples found in Appendix C. The example is illustrative only of a general development of sophistication and not meant to be exhaustive, to set firm grade-specific expectations, or to establish a precise hierarchy of increasing difficulty in subject-verb agreement.


pp

en

dix

a | 30

Figure 17: Example of Subject-Verb Agreement Progression across Grades

Example Condition

Horses are so beautiful and fun to ride.

[Horses, grade 3]

Subject and verb next to each other

When I started out the door, I noticed that Tigger and Max were follow-ing me to school.

[Glowing Shoes, grade 4]

Compound subject joined by and

A mother or female horse is called a mare.

[Horses, grade 3]

Compound subject joined by or; each subject takes a singular verb1

The first thing to do is research, research, research!

[Zoo Field Trip, grade 4]

Intervening phrase between subject and verb

If the watershed for the pools is changed, the condition of the pools changes.

[A Geographical Report, grade 7]

Intervening phrase between each subject and verb suggesting a different number for the verb than the subject calls for

Another was the way to the other evil places.

[Getting Shot and Living Through It, grade 5]

All his stories are the same type.

[Author Response: Roald Dahl, grade 5]

All the characters that Roald Dahl ever made were probably fake charac-ters.

[Author Response: Roald Dahl, grade 5]

One of the reasons why my cat Gus is the best pet is because he is a cuddle bug.

[A Pet Story About My Cat . . . Gus, grade 6]

Indefinite pronoun as subject, with increasing distance between subject and verb

1In this particular example, or female horse should have been punctuated by the student as a nonrestrictive appositive, but the sentence as is illustrates the notion of a compound subject joined by or.


pp

en

dix

a | 31

Figure 18: Language Progressive Skills, by Grade

The following standards, marked with an asterisk (*) in the main Standards document, are particularly likely to require continued attention in higher grades as they are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking.

Standard Grade(s)3 4 5 6 7 8 9–10 11–12

L.3.1f. Ensure subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement.

L.3.3a. Choose words and phrases for effect.

L.4.1f. Produce complete sentences, recognizing and correcting inappropriate fragments and run-ons.

L.4.1g. Correctly use frequently confused words (e.g., to/too/two; there/their).

L.4.3a. Choose words and phrases to convey ideas precisely.*

L.4.3b. Choose punctuation for effect.

L.5.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in verb tense.

L.5.2a. Use punctuation to separate items in a series.†

L.6.1c. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in pronoun number and person.

L.6.1d. Recognize and correct vague pronouns (i.e., ones with unclear or ambiguous antecedents).

L.6.1e. Recognize variations from standard English in their own and others’ writing and speaking, and identify and use strategies to improve expression in conventional language.

L.6.2a. Use punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes) to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements.

L.6.3a. Vary sentence patterns for meaning, reader/listener interest, and style.‡

L.6.3b. Maintain consistency in style and tone.

L.7.1c. Place phrases and clauses within a sentence, recognizing and correcting misplaced and dangling modifiers.

L.7.3a. Choose language that expresses ideas precisely and concisely, recognizing and eliminating wordiness and redundancy.

L.8.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in verb voice and mood.

L.9–10.1a. Use parallel structure.

* Subsumed by L.7.3a† Subsumed by L.9–10.1a‡ Subsumed by L.11–12.3a


pp

en

dix

a | 32

Vocabulary

Acquiring Vocabulary

Words are not just words. They are the nexus—the interface—between communication and thought. When we read, it is through words that we build, refine, and modify our knowledge. What makes vocabulary valuable and important is not the words themselves so much as the understandings they afford.

Marilyn Jager Adams (2009, p. 180)

The importance of students acquiring a rich and varied vocabulary cannot be overstated. Vocabulary has been em-pirically connected to reading comprehension since at least 1925 (Whipple, 1925) and had its importance to compre-hension confirmed in recent years (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). It is widely ac-cepted among researchers that the difference in students’ vocabulary levels is a key factor in disparities in academic achievement (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Becker, 1977; Stanovich, 1986) but that vocabulary instruction has been neither frequent nor systematic in most schools (Biemiller, 2001; Durkin, 1978; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010; Scott & Nagy, 1997).

Research suggests that if students are going to grasp and retain words and comprehend text, they need incremen-tal, repeated exposure in a variety of contexts to the words they are trying to learn. When students make multiple connections between a new word and their own experiences, they develop a nuanced and flexible understanding of the word they are learning. In this way, students learn not only what a word means but also how to use that word in a variety of contexts, and they can apply appropriate senses of the word’s meaning in order to understand the word in different contexts (Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Landauer, McNamara, Dennis, & Kintsch, 2007; Nagy, Herman, & Ander-son, 1985).

Initially, children readily learn words from oral conversation because such conversations are context rich in ways that aid in vocabulary acquisition: in discussions, a small set of words (accompanied by gesture and intonation) is used with great frequency to talk about a narrow range of situations children are exposed to on a day-to-day basis. Yet as children reach school age, new words are introduced less frequently in conversation, and consequently vocabulary acquisition eventually stagnates by grade 4 or 5 unless students acquire additional words from written context (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988).

Written language contains literally thousands of words more than are typically used in conversational language. Yet writing lacks the interactivity and nonverbal context that make acquiring vocabulary through oral conversation rela-tively easy, which means that purposeful and ongoing concentration on vocabulary is needed (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988). In fact, at most between 5 and 15 percent of new words encountered upon first reading are retained, and the weaker a student’s vocabulary is the smaller the gain (Daneman & Green, 1986; Hayes & Ahrens, 1988; Herman, Anderson, Pear-son, & Nagy, 1987; Sternberg & Powell, 1983). Yet research shows that if students are truly to understand what they read, they must grasp upward of 95 percent of the words (Betts, 1946; Carver, 1994; Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer, 1988).

The challenge in reaching what we might call “lexical dexterity” is that, in any given instance, it is not the entire spec-trum of a word’s history, meanings, usages, and features that matters but only those aspects that are relevant at that moment. Therefore, for a reader to grasp the meaning of a word, two things must happen: first, the reader’s internal representation of the word must be sufficiently complete and well articulated to allow the intended meaning to be known to him or her; second, the reader must understand the context well enough to select the intended meaning from the realm of the word’s possible meanings (which in turn depends on understanding the surrounding words of the text).

Key to students’ vocabulary development is building rich and flexible word knowledge. Students need plentiful op-portunities to use and respond to the words they learn through playful informal talk, discussion, reading or being read to, and responding to what is read. Students benefit from instruction about the connections and patterns in language. Developing in students an analytical attitude toward the logic and sentence structure of their texts, alongside an awareness of word parts, word origins, and word relationships, provides students with a sense of how language works such that syntax, morphology, and etymology can become useful cues in building meaning as students encounter new words and concepts (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2008). Although direct study of language is essential to student progress, most word learning occurs indirectly and unconsciously through normal reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Miller, 1999; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987).

As students are exposed to and interact with language throughout their school careers, they are able to acquire un-derstandings of word meanings, build awareness of the workings of language, and apply their knowledge to compre-hend and produce language.


pp

en

dix

a | 33

Three Tiers of WordsIsabel L. Beck, Margaret G. McKeown, and Linda Kucan (2002, 2008) have outlined a useful model for conceptual-izing categories of words readers encounter in texts and for understanding the instructional and learning challenges that words in each category present. They describe three levels, or tiers, of words in terms of the words’ commonality (more to less frequently occurring) and applicability (broader to narrower).

While the term tier may connote a hierarchy, a ranking of words from least to most important, the reality is that all three tiers of words are vital to comprehension and vocabulary development, although learning tier two and three words typically requires more deliberate effort (at least for students whose first language is English) than does learn-ing tier one words.

• tier one words are the words of everyday speech usually learned in the early grades, albeit not at the same rate by all children. They are not considered a challenge to the average native speaker, though English language learners of any age will have to attend carefully to them. While Tier One words are important, they are not the focus of this discussion.

• tier two words (what the Standards refer to as general academic words) are far more likely to appear in written texts than in speech. They appear in all sorts of texts: informational texts (words such as relative, vary, formulate, specificity, and accumulate), technical texts (calibrate, itemize, periphery), and literary texts (misfortune, dignified, faltered, unabashedly). Tier Two words often represent subtle or precise ways to say relatively simple things—saunter instead of walk, for example. Because Tier Two words are found across many types of texts, they are highly generalizable.

• tier three words (what the Standards refer to as domain-specific words) are specific to a domain or field of study (lava, carburetor, legislature, circumference, aorta) and key to understanding a new concept within a text. Because of their specificity and close ties to content knowledge, Tier Three words are far more common in informational texts than in literature. Recognized as new and “hard” words for most readers (particularly student readers), they are often explicitly defined by the author of a text, repeatedly used, and otherwise heavily scaffolded (e.g., made a part of a glossary).

Tier Two Words and Access to Complex TextsBecause Tier Three words are obviously unfamiliar to most students, contain the ideas necessary to a new topic, and are recognized as both important and specific to the subject area in which they are instructing students, teachers of-ten define Tier Three words prior to students encountering them in a text and then reinforce their acquisition through-out a lesson. Unfortunately, this is not typically the case with Tier Two words, which by definition are not unique to a particular discipline and as a result are not the clear responsibility of a particular content area teacher. What is more, many Tier Two words are far less well defined by contextual clues in the texts in which they appear and are far less likely to be defined explicitly within a text than are Tier Three words. Yet Tier Two words are frequently encountered in complex written texts and are particularly powerful because of their wide applicability to many sorts of reading. Teachers thus need to be alert to the presence of Tier Two words and determine which ones need careful attention.

Tier Three Words and Content LearningThis normal process of word acquisition occurs up to four times faster for Tier Three words when students have become familiar with the domain of the discourse and encounter the word in different contexts (Landauer & Dumais, 1997). Hence, vocabulary development for these words occurs most effectively through a coherent course of study in which subject matters are integrated and coordinated across the curriculum and domains become familiar to the student over several days or weeks.

Examples of Tier Two and Tier Three Words in ContextThe following annotated samples call attention to tier two and tier three words in particular texts and, by singling them out, foreground the importance of these words to the meaning of the texts in which they appear. Both samples appear without annotations in Appendix B.

Example 1: Volcanoes (Grades 4–5 Text Complexity Band

Excerpt

In early times, no one knew how volcanoes formed or why they spouted red-hot molten rock. In modern times, scientists began to study volcanoes. They still don’t know all the answers, but they know much about how a volcano works.


pp

en

dix

a | 34

Our planet made up of many layers of rock. The top layers of solid rock are called the crust. Deep beneath the crust is the mantle, where it is so hot that some rock melts. The melted, or molten, rock is called magma.

Volcanoes are formed when magma pushes its way up through the crack in Earth’s crust. This is called a volcanic eruption. When magma pours forth on the surface, it is called lava.

Simon, Seymour. Volcanoes. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. (2006)

Of the Tier Two words, among the most important to the overall meaning of the excerpt is layers. An understanding of the word layers is necessary both to visualize the structure of the crust (“the top layers of solid rock are called the crust”) and to grasp the notion of the planet being composed of layers, of which the crust and the mantle are upper-most. Perhaps equally important are the word spouted and the phrase pours forth; an understanding of each of these is needed to visualize the action of a volcano. The same could be said of the word surface. Both layers and surface are likely to reappear in middle and high school academic texts in both literal and figurative contexts (“this would seem plausible on the surface”; “this story has layers of meaning”), which would justify more intensive instruction in them in grades 4–5.

Tier Three words often repeat; in this excerpt, all of the Tier Three words except mantle and lava appear at least twice. Volcano(es) appears four times—five if volcanic is counted. As is also typical with Tier Three words, the text provides the reader with generous support in determining meaning, including explicit definitions (e.g., “the melted, or molten, rock is called magma”) and repetition and overlapping sentences (e.g., . . . called the crust. Deep beneath the crust . . .).

Example 2: Freedom Walkers (Grades 6–8 Text Complexity Band)

Excerpt

From the Introduction: “Why They Walked”

Not so long ago in Montgomery, Alabama, the color of your skin determined where you could sit on a public bus. If you happened to be an African American, you had to sit in the back of the bus, even if there were empty seats up front.

Back then, racial segregation was the rule throughout the American South. Strict laws—called “Jim crow” laws—enforced a system of white supremacy that discriminated against blacks and kept them in their place as second-class citizens.

People were separated by race from the moment they were born in segregated hospitals until the day they were buried in segregated cemeteries. Blacks and whites did not attend the same schools, worship in the same churches, eat in the same restaurants, sleep in the same hotels, drink from the same water fountains, or sit together in the same movie theaters.

In Montgomery, it was against the law for a white person and a Negro to play checkers on public property or ride together in a taxi.

Most southern blacks were denied their right to vote. The biggest obstacle was the poll tax, a special tax that was required of all voters but was too costly for many blacks and for poor whites as well. Voters also had to pass a literacy test to prove that they could read, write, and understand the U.S. Constitution. These tests were often rigged to disqualify even highly educated blacks. Those who overcame the obstacles and insisted on registering as voters faced threats, harassment and even physical violence. As a result, African Americans in the South could not express their griev-ances in the voting booth, which for the most part, was closed to them. But there were other ways to protest, and one day a half century ago, the black citizens in Montgomery rose up in protest and united to demand their rights—by walking peacefully.

It all started on a bus.

Freedman, Russell. Freedom Walkers: The Story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.New York: Holiday House, 2006. (2006)

The first Tier Two word encountered in the excerpt, determined, is essential to understanding the overall meaning of the text. The power of determined here lies in the notion that skin color in Montgomery, Alabama, at that time was the causal agent for all that follows. The centrality of determined to the topic merits the word intensive attention. Its study is further merited by the fact that it has multiple meanings, is likely to appear in future literary and informational texts, and is part of a family of related words (determine, determination, determined, terminate, terminal).


pp

en

dix

a | 35

Understanding the excerpt’s Tier Three words is also necessary to comprehend the text fully. As was the case in ex-ample 1, these words are often repeated and defined in context. segregation, for example, is introduced in the second paragraph, and while determining its meaning from the sentence in which it appears might be difficult, several closely related concepts (white supremacy, discriminated, second-class) appears in the next sentence to provide more con-text.


pp

en

dix

a | 36

Bibliography

reading

Achieve, Inc. (2007). Closing the expectations gap 2007: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-07-Final.pdf

ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (2009). The condition of college readiness 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Guilford.

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, 44, 736–771.

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (1999, March). “Do-able” questions, covariation, and graphical representation: Do we adequately prepare perservice science teachers to teach inqury? Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and prac-ticing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific re-presentation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1020–1043.

Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32, 303–327.

Chall, J. S., Conard, S., & Harris, S. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.

Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D. W. (1991). Teaching college freshmen. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hayes, D. P., & Ward, M. (1992, December). Learning from texts: Effects of similar and dissimilar features of analogies in study guides. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., & Wolfe, M. F. (1996). Sourcebook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-Verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–508.

Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1994). Building a culture of trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484–501.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223–241). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (in press). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In J. P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Mesmer, H. A. E. (2008). Tools for matching readers to texts: Research-based practices. New York, NY: Guilford.


pp

en

dix

a | 37

Milewski, G. B., Johnson, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M. (2005). A survey to evaluate the alignment of the new SAT Writing and Critical Reading sections to curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No. 2005-1 / ETS RR-05-07). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23(1), 1–13.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Pritchard, M. E., Wilson, G. S., & Yamnitz, B. (2007). What predicts adjustment among college students? A longitudinal panel study. Journal of American College Health, 56(1), 15–22.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

Stenner, A. J., Koons, H., & Swartz, C. W. (in press). Text complexity and developing expertise in reading. Chapel Hill, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.

van den Broek, P., Lorch, Jr., R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.

van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williamson, G. L. (2006). Aligning the journey with a destination: A model for K–16 reading standards. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.

Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004077.pdf

Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2006). Primary students and informational texts. Science and Children, 44(3), 22–25.

reading Foundational skills

Balmuth, M. (1992). The roots of phonics: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: York Press.

Bryson, B. (1990). The mother tongue: English and how it got that way. New York, NY: Avon Books.

Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys. New York, NY: Guilford.

Hanna, P. R., Hanna, S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Moats, L. C. (2008). Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works. (LETRS Module 3). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Venezky, R. (2001). The American way of spelling. New York, NY: Guilford.

Writing

ACT, Inc. (2009). ACT National Curriculum Survey 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.


pp

en

dix

a | 38

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State Uni-versity, and the University of California (ICAS). (2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering California’s public colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Milewski, G. B., Johnson, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M. (2005). A survey to evaluate the alignment of the new SAT Writing and Critical Reading sections to curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No. 2005-1 / ETS RR-05-07). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2006). Writing framework and specifications for the 2007 National Assess-ment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, pre-publication edition. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

Postman, N. (1997). The end of education. New York, NY: Knopf.

Williams, J. M., & McEnerney, L. (n.d.). Writing in college: A short guide to college writing. Retrieved from http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/resources/collegewriting/index.htm

speaking and Listening

Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in reading: A meta-analysis on intergenenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65(5), 1–21.

Catts, H., Adolf, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.

Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income chil-dren’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–123.

Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqui, J., & Share, D. I. (1993). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70–79.

Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders’ comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339–356.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2006). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Florence, KY: Wadsworth.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Balti-more, MD: Brookes.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.

Hulit, L. M., Howard, M. R., & Fahey, K. R. (2010). Born to talk: An introduction to speech and language development. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Pence, K. L., & Justice, L. M. (2007). Language development from theory to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1) (pp. 293–317). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Stuart, L., Wright, F., Grigor, S., & Howey, A. (2002). Spoken language difficulties: Practical strategies and activities for teachers and other professionals. London, England: Fulton.

Whitehurst G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caufield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–558.


pp

en

dix

a | 39

Language

Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteíza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics ap-proach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24.

Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Language Learning Monograph Series. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bartholomae, D. (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31(3), 253–269.

Baumann, J. F., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 604–632). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples. New York, NY: Guilford.

Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.

Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. New York, NY: American Book Company.

Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25(1), 24–28, 47.

Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413–437.

Daneman, M, & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18.

DeVilliers, J., & DeVilliers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267–278.

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.

Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. C. (2000). Teaching elementary students who speak Black English Vernacular to write in Standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 212–235.

García, G. G., & Beltrán, D. (2003). Revisioning the blueprint: Building for the academic success of English learners. In G. G. García (Ed.), English Learners (pp. 197–226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gargani, J. (2006). UC Davis/SCUSD Teaching American History Grant technical memo: Years 1 & 2 essay and CST analysis results. Unpublished report.

Hayes, D., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of “motherese”? Journal of Child Language, 15, 395–410.

Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expo-sitions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 263–284.

Hseuh-chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a For-eign Language, 13(1), 403–430.

Krauthamer, H. S. (1999). Spoken language interference patterns in written English. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisi-tion, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.


pp

en

dix

a | 4

0

Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Lon-don, England: Psychology Press.

Laufer, B. (1988). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Laurén & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Lefstein, A. (2009). Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful verbs” in the English Na-tional Literacy Strategy. Linguistics and Education, 20, 378–400.

Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an aca-demic English vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 196–228.

Miller, G. A. (1999). On knowing a word. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 1–19.

Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehen-sion. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459.

Scott, J., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184–200.

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1979). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. New York, NY: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. S. (1983). Comprehending verbal comprehension. American Psychologist, 38, 878–893.

Wheeler, R., & Swords, R. (2004). Code-switching: Tools of language and culture transform the dialectally diverse classroom. Language Arts, 81, 470–480.

Whipple, G. (Ed.) (1925). The Twenty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Report of the National Committee on Reading. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.

Williams, G. (2000). Children’s literature, children and uses of language description. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 111–129). London, England: Cassell.

Williams, G. (2005). Grammatics in schools. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing dis-course on language (pp. 281–310). London, England: Equinox.


pp

en

dix

a | 4

1

A Note on International Sources for the StandardsIn the course of developing the Standards, the writing team consulted numerous international models, including those from Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, Australia (by state), Canada (by province), Singapore, the United Kingdom, and others. Several patterns emerging from international standards efforts influenced the design and content of the Stan-dards:

(1) Other nations pay equal attention to what students read and how they read. Many countries set standards for student reading by providing a reading list. The United Kingdom has standards for the “range and content” of student reading. While lacking the mandate to set particular reading requirements, the Standards nonetheless follow the spirit of international models by setting explicit expectations for the range, quality, and complexity of what students read along with more conventional standards describing how well students must be able to read.

(2) Students are required to write in response to sources. In several international assessment programs, students are confronted with a text or texts and asked to gather evidence, analyze readings, and synthesize content. The Stan-dards likewise require students to “draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research” (Writing CCR standard 9).

(3) Writing arguments and writing informational/explanatory texts are priorities. The Standards follow international models by making writing arguments and writing informational/explanatory texts the dominant modes of writing in high school to demonstrate readiness for college and career.


pp

en

dix

a | 4

2

Glossary of Key termsEvery effort has been made to ensure that the phrasing of the Standards is as clear and free of jargon as possible. When used, specialized and discipline-specific terms (e.g., simile, stanza, declarative sentence) typically conform to their standard definition, and readers are advised to consult high-quality dictionaries or standard resources in the field for clarification. The terms defined below are limited to those words and phrases particularly important to the Standards and that have a meaning unique to this document. CCSS refers to the main Common Core State Standards document; the names of various sections (e.g., “Reading”) refer to parts of this appendix.

Definitions of many important terms associated with reading foundational skills appear in Reading Foundational Skills, pages 17–22. Descriptions of the Standards’ three writing types (argument, informative/explanatory writing, and nar-rative) can be found in Writing, pages 23–24.

Domain-specific words and phrases – Vocabulary specific to a particular field of study (domain), such as the human body (CCSS, p. 33); in the Standards, domain-specific words and phrases are analogous to Tier Three words (Lan-guage, p. 33).

editing – A part of writing and preparing presentations concerned chiefly with improving the clarity, organization, concision, and correctness of expression relative to task, purpose, and audience; compared to revising, a smaller-scale activity often associated with surface aspects of a text; see also revising, rewriting

emergent reader texts – Texts consisting of short sentences comprised of learned sight words and CVC words; may also include rebuses to represent words that cannot yet be decoded or recognized; see also rebus

evidence – Facts, figures, details, quotations, or other sources of data and information that provide support for claims or an analysis and that can be evaluated by others; should appear in a form and be derived from a source widely ac-cepted as appropriate to a particular discipline, as in details or quotations from a text in the study of literature and experimental results in the study of science

Focused question – A query narrowly tailored to task, purpose, and audience, as in a research query that is sufficient-ly precise to allow a student to achieve adequate specificity and depth within the time and format constraints

Formal english – See standard English

General academic words and phrases – Vocabulary common to written texts but not commonly a part of speech; in the Standards, general academic words and phrases are analogous to Tier Two words and phrases (Language, p. 33)

Independent(ly) – A student performance done without scaffolding from a teacher, other adult, or peer; in the Stan-dards, often paired with proficient(ly) to suggest a successful student performance done without scaffolding; in the Reading standards, the act of reading a text without scaffolding, as in an assessment; see also proficient(ly), scaffold-ing

more sustained research project – An investigation intended to address a relatively expansive query using several sources over an extended period of time, as in a few weeks of instructional time

Point of view – Chiefly in literary texts, the narrative point of view (as in first- or third-person narration); more broadly, the position or perspective conveyed or represented by an author, narrator, speaker, or character

Print or digital (texts, sources) – Sometimes added for emphasis to stress that a given standard is particularly likely to be applied to electronic as well as traditional texts; the Standards are generally assumed to apply to both

Proficient(ly) – A student performance that meets the criterion established in the Standards as measured by a teacher or assessment; in the Standards, often paired with independent(ly) to suggest a successful student perfor-mance done without scaffolding; in the Reading standards, the act of reading a text with comprehension; see also independent(ly), scaffolding

rebus – A mode of expressing words and phrases by using pictures of objects whose names resemble those words

revising – A part of writing and preparing presentations concerned chiefly with a reconsideration and reworking of the content of a text relative to task, purpose, and audience; compared to editing, a larger-scale activity often associ-ated with the overall content and structure of a text; see also editing, rewriting

rewriting – A part of writing and preparing presentations that involves largely or wholly replacing a previous, unsatis-factory effort with a new effort, better aligned to task, purpose, and audience, on the same or a similar topic or theme; compared to revising, a larger-scale activity more akin to replacement than refinement; see also editing, revising


pp

en

dix

a | 4

3

scaffolding – Temporary guidance or assistance provided to a student by a teacher, another adult, or a more capable peer, enabling the student to perform a task he or she otherwise would not be able to do alone, with the goal of fos-tering the student’s capacity to perform the task on his or her own later on*

short research project – An investigation intended to address a narrowly tailored query in a brief period of time, as in a few class periods or a week of instructional time

source – A text used largely for informational purposes, as in research.

standard english – In the Standards, the most widely accepted and understood form of expression in English in the United States; used in the Standards to refer to formal English writing and speaking; the particular focus of Language standards 1 and 2 (CCSS, pp. 26, 28, 52, 54)

technical subjects – A course devoted to a practical study, such as engineering, technology, design, business, or other workforce-related subject; a technical aspect of a wider field of study, such as art or music

text complexity – The inherent difficulty of reading and comprehending a text combined with consideration of reader and task variables; in the Standards, a three-part assessment of text difficulty that pairs qualitative and quantitative measures with reader-task considerations (CCSS, pp. 31, 57; Reading, pp. 4–16)

text complexity band – A range of text difficulty corresponding to grade spans within the Standards; specifically, the spans from grades 2–3, grades 4–5, grades 6–8, grades 9–10, and grades 11–CCR (college and career readiness)

textual evidence – See evidence

With prompting and support/with (some) guidance and support – See scaffolding

* Though Vygotsky himself does not use the term scaffolding, the educational meaning of the term relates closely to his con-cept of the zone of proximal development. See L. S. Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologi-cal processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CRESST REPORT 770

Joan L. Herman

Ellen Osmundson

David Silver

CAPTURING QUALITY IN

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

PRACTICE: MEASUREMENT

CHALLENGES JUNE, 2010

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

UCLA | University of California, Los Angeles

Capturing Quality in Formative Assessment Practice: Measurement Challenges

CRESST Report 770

Joan L. Herman, Ellen Osmundson, & David Silver CRESST/University of California, Los Angeles

June, 2010

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE)

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles

300 Charles E. Young Drive North GSE&IS Building, Box 951522 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1522

(310) 206-1532

Copyright © 2010 The Regents of the University of California The work reported herein was supported by WestEd, grant #5387 S07-091, as administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education (Education Research Grants in Mathematics and Science—Diagnostic Embedded Classroom Assessment—An Efficacy Study) and the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley. The findings and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of WestEd, Lawrence Hall of Science, or the US Department of Education (IES). To cite from this report, please use the following as your APA reference: Herman, J., L., Osmundson, E., & Silver, D. (2010). Capturing quality in formative assessment practice: Measurement challenges. (CRESST Report 770). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

1

CAPTURING QUALITY IN FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICE:

MEASUREMENT CHALLENGES

Joan L. Herman, Ellen Osmundson, and David Silver

CRESST/University of California, Los Angeles

Abstract

This study examines measures of formative assessment practice using data from a study of the implementation and effects of adding curriculum embedded measures to a hands-on science program for upper elementary school students. The authors present a unifying conception for measuring critical elements of formative assessment practice, illustrate common measures for doing so, and investigate the relationships among and between scores on these measures. Findings raise important issues with regard to both the challenge of obtaining valid measures of teachers’ assessment practice and the uneven quality nature of current teacher practice.

Introduction

Using evidence from studies of feedback, mastery learning, special education, and other specific teaching practices, Black and Wiliam (1998), concluded that formative assessment is a powerful classroom intervention, particularly for low achieving students (OECD, 2005). Heeding their advice and spurred on by researchers from diverse theoretical perspectives (See reviews by Shepard, 2005; Herman, 2010; James et al., 2007) and those from practitioner communities, policymakers across the world are considering formative assessment as a primary approach to educational reform (OECD, 2005; CCSSO, 2008). Current federal policy in the United States is a case in point: Billions of dollars are being invested in Race to the Top initiatives that put new standards and assessments front and center: amongst other things, results from new assessments are intended to populate state databases to inform improvement and to fuel efforts to turn around struggling schools. In addition, the federal government is investing $350 million in assessment development grants aimed at the development of state standards-based assessment systems that better support teaching and learning. While system development focuses on testing for purposes of accountability, for the first time the federal program includes attention to formative assessment and the development of local capacity and local assessment resources.

2

These indeed are promising developments for pushing formative assessment to fruition in classroom practice. They acknowledge and work toward remedying the need for classroom tools to assess and support student learning. Yet at the same time, recent studies reveal challenges in implementing quality formative assessment and show non-robust results with regard to effects on student learning (Herman, Osmundson, Ayala, Schneider, & Timms, 2006; Furtak, et al., 2008). Just as the concept of formative assessment itself underscores the central role of evidence—learning data—in an effective teaching and learning process, so too do policymakers and practitioners need evidence on which to build effective formative practices. Toward this latter goal, this report explores measures of formative assessment practice using data from a study of the implementation and effects of adding curriculum embedded measures to a hands-on science program for upper elementary school students. In the sections that follow, we present a unifying conception for measuring critical elements of formative assessment practice, illustrate common measures for doing so, and investigate the relationships among and between scores on these measures. Findings raise important validity issues and critical concerns in assessing quality practice.

Perspective: Formative Assessment Construct

Synthesizing distinct views of formative assessment, our core conception is grounded in modern validity theory about the meaning of quality assessment measures (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999; NRC, 2001) and adds to it concerns for the quality of the assessment process. Echoing the Knowing What Students Know assessment triangle, our conception of the validity of formative assessment measures rests with connections among and between the learning construct(s) being measured, the task(s) designed to elicit student responses, and interpretive frameworks used to make sense of and act on student responses. The validity argument, in part, rests on evidence that teachers’ formative strategies elicit evidence of learning related to the goals, at the level of detail needed, and yield appropriate inferences for subsequent instructional decision making. Similarly, a quality formative assessment process also starts with specified (and significant) learning goals, iterative process of assessment, interpretation, and use of evidence to guide subsequent teaching and learning, to reduce the gap between students’ current understandings and expected learning goals (See, for example, Heritage, 2010; Bell & Cowie, 2001). Figure 1 displays these key elements and processes, which we view as essential constructs in measuring/assessing the quality of formative practice. Effective practice requires the intertwining of quality evidence and a quality process or use: one without the other is counter-productive.

3

Figure 1. Critical Formative Assessment Components.

Illustrative Study: Design and Available Measures

A randomized field study of the effects of incorporating new formative assessments into an upper elementary hands-on science curriculum program provides the context for examining measures of these formative assessment constructs, and highlights the importance of differentiating the quality of the assessment from the process of assessment. The initial phase of the study involved 40 teachers, who were randomly assigned by the school to treatment (revised program with curriculum-embedded assessments) or control (traditional curriculum) conditions. This initial phase involved teachers in professional development designed to deepen content knowledge, and for treatment teachers, sessions to support the analysis and interpretation of student work, as well as next steps in instruction. Each group engaged in a practice year of implementing the curriculum with fidelity in preparation for the Year 2 test of treatment impact. Given the focus of the treatment, the study is using a variety of methods to collect data on teachers’ assessment practices, including teacher surveys, logs, and direct measures of teachers content-pedagogical knowledge, including teachers’ ability

4

to interpret and act upon student work. Measures of student learning, along with the teacher measures discussed below, will be collected for the second phase of the study.

Sample

Schools and teachers from one southwestern state who had prior experience teaching the targeted science curriculum program were recruited for the study. Table 1 shows the demographics of the 39 teachers for whom data was available. For the purposes reported here, there is no reason to differentiate treatment or control status. The data in Table 1 show that both groups were very similar demographically—teachers were predominantly Caucasian females, were experienced teachers as well as experienced with the target curriculum materials, and had engaged in substantial professional development in science in the 2 years prior to the study (See Table 1).

5

Table 1

Cohort 1 Pilot Year (2008–2009): Teacher Demographic Information

Descriptor

Control N = 19

Treatment N = 20

Sex

Male 1 0

Female 18 20

Ethnicity

White 17 17

Hispanic/Latino(a) 2 2

Native American/African American 0 1

Other 0 0

Highest Degree Received

Bachelor’s + Credential 5 6

Bachelor’s + Credential + Units Beyond 3 4

Master’s 3 5

Master’s + Units Beyond 8 5

Teaching Credential*

General Elementary 18 17

General Secondary 1 1

Special Emergency 2 3

Multiple subject 1 1

Single subject 2 2

Bilingual 4 6

Administrative 1 1

Other: (Early childhood, TESOL, guidance, special education, science endorsement)

4 5

Years of experience teaching elementary grades

Average number 12 years 8.4 years

Range of years teaching 1–32 years 2–25 years

Years teaching science curriculum unit

Average number of years 3 years 2.6 years

Range of years teaching 1–11 years 2–12 years

Number of science Professional Development hours in the past 2 years

Average number of hours 19.6 hours 21.3 hours

Range of hours 4–100 hours 2–80 hours

Note. *Teachers may hold multiple credentials.

6

Study Instrumentation

Table 2 summarizes the data sources for the current report. A direct measure of teachers’ content pedagogical knowledge provides a window for examining the quality of teachers’ assessments, while teacher surveys and weekly logs provide self-report data on the assessment processes in which teachers were engaged. Observation and interview data were collected for only a small subsample (see Table 2).

Table 2

Summary of Data Sources

Measure type

Understand content goals/

Depth of knowledge

Establish/ Assess goals

Assessment interpretation

Assessment use

Direct measure X X X

Self report

Survey X X X X

Weekly log X

Interview X X X

Observation X X

Direct measure of teacher content-pedagogical knowledge. A specially developed

teacher-content-pedagogical-knowledge measure focused on magnetism and electricity, the topic for one of two curriculum units all participants implemented for the full study. The measure was administered before the start of the study and will be readministered at its end, after teachers have implemented the curriculum twice, in 2 subsequent years. Three item types corresponded to the different aspects of assessment quality delineated above: (a) content knowledge as a proxy for teachers’ ability to understand learning goals; (b) items that asked teachers to analyze students’ work as a proxy for quality of interpretation; and (c) items that queried teachers’ ability to formulate next instructional steps, which corresponded to quality of use. All item types, items, and scoring schemes were reviewed for scientific accuracy and alignment with the subject curriculum and revised, when necessary, by two science education experts. Task formats were adapted from those used by other researchers to investigate teacher knowledge (Heller, Daehler, Shinohara, & Kaskowitz, 2004; Heritage, Kim, Vendlinski, & Herman, 2009; Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004).

The content knowledge measure comprised the first section of the assessment and contained 29 multiple-choice and short explanation items originally intended for students.

7

These items were culled from the subject curriculum’s Magnetism and Electricity module, as well as from publicly released assessments: NAEP and TIMSS 4th-grade assessments on magnetism and electricity (Olson, Martin, & Mullis, 2008). Consistent with the subject curriculum’s coverage, three topics were assessed: (a) magnetism, (b) electricity, and (c) electromagnetism.

The reliability of this measure was disappointing: subscales by sub topic (magnetism, electricity, and electromagnetism) achieved alphas of .44–.46, and even after deleting poor performing items, the highest performing scale reached .65, as did the combined set of items. As the items constituting the measure were designed for students, there were problems of range restriction and limited variation in performance.

Analysis and interpretation tasks constituted Section 2 of the assessment. These tasks were structured as follows: first, teachers were presented with an explanation task for students, one of the same ones they answered in Section 1 above. Then teachers were provided with student responses to the question and asked to analyze the students’ responses to draw inferences about student understandings—what students understood, and what alternative conceptions might be evident. A third part of the section asked teachers to prescribe next instructional steps for the student(s), the indicator of quality of use, as described further. Figure 2 shows a sample item from the Magnetism and Electricity Module that follows the sequence described.

8

Figure 2. Teacher Content Survey: Magnetism and Electricity Module (The Regents of the University of California, 2005).

Scores for this portion of the content survey (Figure 2, Part B) were based on a 3-point scale, derived from expert ratings of teacher responses. (See Table 3 for the summary of coding guide). All six analysis and interpretation items were double scored by two researchers, and inter-rater reliability (exact match) was calculated at 88%; differences in scores were discussed and resolved. Internal consistency of this item set was weak, at 0.54–0.65, depending on whether responses to two problematic items were included.

9

Table 3

Teacher Analysis and Interpretation of Student Work Coding Guide

Score Description

3

Complete response, scientifically accurate identification of student level of understanding. E.g., “students understand that metal conducts electricity, but don’t understand that all metals don’t stick to magnets.”

2 Partial response, mostly scientifically accurate identification of student level of understanding. E.g., “students understand magnetism and how it works.”

1

Minimal response, minimal level of accuracy identification of student level of understanding. E.g., “student’s understanding is incorrect. Ss need to go back and retest items in magnetism chart.”

0 No response or response that indicates teacher does not understand the student response. E.g., “I’m not sure what the student is thinking.”

Use: Next Steps for Instruction Tasks, described above, were scored on a 3-point scale, as devised by content experts and then revised based on teacher responses (See Table 4). Responses to each of the six tasks comprising this portion of the assessment were doubled scored by two researchers. The percentage of exact agreement, 68%, was lower than that of the analysis tasks, but differences were discussed and resolved to arrive at final consensus scores. Despite the challenge of rater agreement, internal consistency for this item set was higher than that achieved for the Analysis and Interpretation items. Including all six Next Step Tasks, reliability was computed at .74, and with two outliers excluded, .82.

Responses to both Analysis and Interpretation and Next Step Tasks were combined to achieve a more reliable scale. Alpha for the combined set reached .81.

10

Table 4

Teacher Instructional Next Steps Coding Scheme

Score Description

3

Detailed, content-specific next instructional steps indicated. Response takes into consideration students’ current level of understanding. E.g., “Next we’ll investigate induced magnetism with different objects. Discuss why some worked and others did not. Record findings.”

2

General, content-general instructional next steps indicated. Response alludes to “general” level of student understanding. E.g., “Next, I need to help Ss deepen understanding of electromagnets by showing different models.”

1

Broad, vague instructional next steps indicated. Response does not take into consideration students’ level of understanding. E.g., “Next, students need more experience with magnets, review content, more practice, journal our experiences.”

0 No response or response that indicates teacher does not understand the student response. E.g., “I’m not sure what I would do next in instruction.”

Teacher self report of content-pedagogical knowledge. Complementing the direct measures, we also asked teachers to rate their knowledge. On the pre-intervention survey teachers were asked to rate how well qualified they felt to teach fourth grade students a range of science topics, using a 5-point scale, from 1 (not qualified) to 5 (highly qualified). For purposes here, we report only on items related to magnetism and electricity, reflecting key ideas in the subject curriculum unit:

• Magnetic forces,

• How electrical circuits are designed,

• How electricity produces magnetic effects, and

• Overall magnetism and electricity.

Responses to these items, plus one asking them how well they understood the curriculum unit’s learning goals, were summarized in a single scale (alpha = .81).

Teacher self-report of assessment practices. Items from the pre-institute survey asked teachers about the frequency with which they engaged in various aspects of the assessment process: setting and communicating goals, aligning assessments with learning and instruction; analyzing/interpreting student work (individual, small, and large group discussion, and use of curriculum-based strategies to (discussion, response sheets,

11

performance assessments, and notebooks) to assess student understanding. Table 5 describes the items comprising and reliability for each of these scales.

Table 5

Teachers Self-Reported Assessment Practices

Assessment Processes Items Alpha

Establish/communicate goals 3.3a–c .79

Align assessment w/ goals 3.5a, 3.3d, f, 3.3e, g .78

Analyze/interpret 3.5c, d, e, f .78

Use assessment 2.6a–f .70

Teacher logs: use of curriculum and assessment. Teacher Logs were designed to measure teachers’ use and implementation of the science unit curriculum and assessments, and to provide a general gauge of fidelity of implementation for various program constructs and ideas. Teachers were assigned IDs and logins, and were asked to report their instructional and assessment activities on a weekly basis. General reporting categories in the teacher log included: (a) amount of time students engaged with the curriculum; (b) amount of time teachers assessed student work; (c) use of instructional strategies, (d) use of assessment resources and strategies, and (e) levels of student understanding. Log completion rates varied greatly from week to week, and from teacher to teacher. Results were summarized across logs at the individual teacher level.

Preliminary factor analyses were conducted to better understand how the teacher logs could function as an indicator of fidelity of implementation. The analysis revealed two primary factors (see Table 6). Factor 1, a proxy for general information about implementation (including the frequency of and amount of time teaching the curriculum unit, and the evaluation of and feedback on student work) accounted for 56% of the total variance in the model. Factor 2 identified a useful single-item measure of the minutes per day spent teaching the unit, which is only moderately correlated with days per week teaching it and time spent looking at student work after teaching. In other words, Factor 2 seems to get at the degree of intensity with which class time is focused on the science unit. This factor accounts for 12% of the total variance among the log items. Overall, the alpha for the general implementation factor was 0.81.

12

Table 6

Teacher Log: Factors Component Matrix

Component

Factor 1 Factor 2

Number of times the science unit was taught/week .623 .444

Minutes/day > 40 on science unit .367 .738

Minutes/day (at least 10) on analysis of student work .678 .307

Provided written feedback on individual student work (notebooks or other) to most students .833 .100

Used a scoring guide to analyze student work .783 -.281

Figured out a next instructional step based on student assessment data .806 -.068

Recorded observations of students during class .880 -.097

Checked student understandings at the end of an Investigation .780 -.192

Conducted student self-assessment sessions .853 -.386

Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Results

Descriptive statistics for each of the study instruments is summarized below. Analysis of the relationships among the measures then follows.

Descriptive Results

Teacher content knowledge. The low reliability of the multiple-choice and completion items precluded any sub score analysis. Results show that teacher scores ranged from a low of 41% (12/29) correct to 86% correct (25/29), with substantial variation in the mean scores (SD = 3). Mean, median, and mode scores all centered on 20/29 correct—approximately 70% accuracy. Table 7 shows item difficulty by topic for the final item set.

13

Table 7

Mean Difficulty for Multiple Choice and Completion items (n = 34)

Demonstrated content knowledge topic Min Max Mean SD

Magnetism .29 1.00 .8088 .15993

Electricity - modified scale .23 1.00 .6327 .17750

Electromagnetism .00 1.00 .3676 .35481

Teacher content-pedagogical knowledge: Analysis and use. Although responses to both the analysis and interpretation items and those for next steps of instruction were combined, for the purposes of subsequent analysis, we provide separate descriptives here. Table 8 shows that teacher scores varied widely in both areas.

Table 8

Teacher Scores on Content-Pedagogical Knowledge Tasks (n = 34)

Scores Analysis and interpretation Next steps

Mean (SD) 8.4 (2.4) 6.8 (3.3)

Median 9 7.5

Mode 9 8

Range 6–12 2–13

Total possible 18 18

For Analysis and Interpretation items, nearly a third of the teachers left more than half of the items blank, and only a small minority of teachers (5) scored 2 or 3 on at least five of the six items. The remainder of teachers were distributed across the remaining score points. Teachers’ scores were highest for the items that focused on magnetism and lowest on electromagnetism items.

Scores from the Next Steps items similarly varied greatly. At the low end of the spectrum, four teachers scored a total of only 2 points out of a possible 21 points; at the other end of the continuum, the three highest scoring teachers scored 13 out of a possible 21 points. The average score was 6.7 (SD = 3.2), with a range of 2 to 13 points. The scores of the great majority, 80% of the teachers, were clustered around score points “1” and “2” suggesting that most teachers tended to rely on general approaches to subsequent instructional planning. This finding is consistent with other recent studies on teacher pedagogical content knowledge

14

(e.g., Heller, et al., 2004; Heritage & Vendlinski, 2006). These studies also found teachers more proficient at analysis and interpretation than at formulating next steps for instruction and that teachers provided only general information (e.g., review, reteach, or do more investigations/problems) about what they would do next instructionally to support student learning.

Teacher self-report of content knowledge. Table 9 shows teacher perceptions of their own content pedagogical knowledge, which provides a more positive picture than the direct measures. Sampled teachers, on average, reported themselves moderately qualified to teach target concepts in magnetism and electricity. Like the direct measures, teachers’ scores were quite varied and showed more knowledge of magnetism than of electromagnetism.

Table 9

Teacher Self-Reported Content Knowledge (n = 39)*

How well qualified do you feel to teach 4th grade students about the following topics?

Topic Range Mean SD

Magnetism and electricity 2–5 3.6 0.9

Magnetic forces 2–5 3.6 0.9

How electrical circuits are designed 1–5 3.3 1.1

How electricity can produce magnetic effects 1–5 3.1 1.1

How well do you understand the M&E curriculum unit goals?

OVERALL 3.5 .8

Note. *5-pt scale: 1 (not at all qualified) to 5 (highly qualified), M&E = magnetism and electricity.

Teacher self-report of assessment practices. Table 10 shows how frequently teachers report being engaged with various aspects of the assessment process in teaching the subject science unit. Although there is variation in teachers’ responses, in general teachers report usually on a daily basis establishing and communicating their learning goals for students, and regularly, at least weekly, both selecting or developing assessments to address those goals and analyzing/interpreting student work. They more occasionally use specific strategies accompanying the unit to assess and respond to student understandings.

15

Table 10

Teacher Self Report of Assessment Practices (n = 28)

Assessment practice scales Min Max Mean SD

Establish and communicate goals 2.67 5.00 4.4598 .65716

Align assessment with goals 3.00 5.00 4.1143 .60719

Analyze and interpret 2.75 5.00 4.0536 .59844

Use assessment strategies 1.83 4.67 3.4048 .67499

Teacher logs on assessment practices. Table 11 shows descriptive results on how

frequently per week teachers taught the curriculum and engaged with various aspects of the assessment process, using aspects that cohered based on the factor analysis of scores (see methodology section above). The data suggest that sample teachers typically taught science three times a week and more than half devoted more than 40 minutes per day to the subject. A similar percentage of teachers reported spending at least 10 minutes on each day they taught science to analyze student work—this was a minimum amount of time suggested by the curriculum developers.

Consistent with the self-report survey data, the log data also suggest that teachers regularly engage with assessment: teachers report providing individual, written feedback, using scoring guides, recoding observations, checking student understandings at the end of investigations and using the data to guide subsequent weekly instruction. Less often teachers provided their students opportunities to engage in self-assessment.

16

Table 11

Teacher log data on curriculum and assessment use (n = 40 teachers)

Time on curriculum and assessment Mean SD

Number of times science curriculum unit taught/week 2.79 .86

Percentage of logs where teachers reported spending more than 40 minutes/day teaching the science unit 0.57 0.46

Percentage of logs where teachers reported spending at least 10 minutes/day looking at student work 0.60 0.3

Use of Assessments*

Provided written feedback on individual student work (notebooks or other) to most students 0.98 0.74

Use a scoring or coding guide to analyze student work 0.9 0.84

Figured out a next instructional step based on student assessment data 1.03 0.84

Recorded observations of students during class 1.03 0.93

Checked student understandings at the end of an Investigation 1.17 0.77

Conducted student self-assessment sessions 0.57 0.68

Note. * Number of times per week.

Relationships among constructs

Table 12 in the Appendix displays the correlations among all measures included in this study. While sample size and the reliability of each measure provide strong caveats for any interpretation, study findings with regard to measures of teacher knowledge reveal:

• No relationship between teachers self-report of their content-pedagogical knowledge (i.e., the extent to which they feel qualified to teach specific concepts of units on magnetism and electricity, and direct demonstrations of such knowledge).

• No relationship between basic knowledge of specific concepts of magnetism and electricity and teachers’ ability to analyze and suggest next instructional steps based on student responses.

Modest, marginally statistically significant, relationships emerged among the various aspects of assessment practices included in the study, but these were not consistent:

• Teachers who reported more frequently establishing and communicating their learning goals also more frequently reported coordinating their assessments with those goals,

• Teachers who more frequently reported aligning their goals and assessment also tended to report that they more frequently analyzed student and group work and

17

that they more frequently used a variety of strategies to assess student understanding.

• However, there was no apparent relationship between reported of frequency of establishing goals and frequency of analyzing student progress toward those goals.

Study results show little relationship between teachers’ content-pedagogical knowledge and their assessment practices:

• Teachers who were more confident of their content knowledge tended to report more frequent alignment of their instructional goals with their assessments and to report more frequent analysis and interpretation of individual and group work.

• Teachers who scored higher in the analysis and interpretation of student work tended to report more frequent engagement in such analysis.

• No relationship was found between other indicators of assessment quality and practice.

Discussion and Conclusion

We started this report by introducing a model that suggests that quality in formative assessment practice involves the quality of the assessment (i.e., the validity of the inferences) and the quality of the process for using assessment to understand and improve student learning. The study used multiple measures to examine these aspects of quality in practice using available data from a larger study of the effects of adding curriculum-embedded assessments to a hands-on science curriculum. The limitations of study data are obvious: small, non-representative teacher sample, the psychometric quality, and validity of available measures. Nonetheless, findings raise interesting issues with regard to both the conceptualization and measurement of teachers’ assessment practice and the nature of current teacher practice.

A first issue relates to the difficulty of getting coherent, valid measures of teachers’ assessment practice. On the one hand, the multiple measures used in this study provide a variety of vantage points from which to view teachers’ assessment practice. However, the relationships among these multiple measures do not suggest a strong underlying construct. Rather, the general lack of relationship between the quality of teachers’ assessment, based on their ability to analyze student understanding and respond with instructional next steps, and teachers’ use of the assessment process, based on self report survey data, provides support for our model. Results suggest that it may be important to differentiate teachers’ engagement in the process of assessment from the validity of the inferences they are able to draw and use from that process.

18

However, the inconsistencies between and within different aspects of teachers‘ assessment practices means that it is difficult to be confident about the meaning of our measures. Certainly, we recognize shortcomings in the reliability and validity of the individual measures used here. Available measures confound measurement construct and format—that is, the study relied on teacher self reports for measuring assessment process and used primarily direct measures for examining assessment quality. In light of research showing a disjunction between teachers’ reports of their practice and nuanced observations of it (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cohen, 1990; Mayer, 1999), it is possible that differences in measurement format as much as substance underlies our findings.

It may also be true that the inconsistencies across the measures used in the study mark the reality of teachers who themselves are somewhere within the process of developing their assessment capacity and thus they engage some aspects of the process more than others, some better than others. Regardless of the reasons for the inconsistencies found in this study, the need for valid measures of practice is worth underscoring. We believe the types of measures used here are typical of those used in assessment research—yet, without sound measures any research findings are suspect.

If we take at face value the possibility that study teachers lie somewhere on a trajectory between novice and accomplished practice, then study results suggest that the process starts with appreciating the value of and trying to engage in assessment. Self-report findings here suggest that teachers are well on their way on these dimensions of the process. Teachers report that they regularly use each part of a systematic assessment process; they establish goals, administer measures, and gather other evidence of student learning and use results for planning and next steps. One interpretation of study findings is that teachers “talk the talk”, but findings on the teacher knowledge and the quality of their assessments suggest that they need help to more fully “walk the walk.”

Keeping in mind the very small sample, the findings on teachers’ content pedagogical knowledge and the accuracy with which sample teachers are able to analyze student responses and suggest next steps are stark. Even though all teachers were experienced and had previously taught the target content, few were able to use student explanations on open-ended items to interpret student understandings and/or misconceptions. Study teachers’ ability to formulate specific next steps for teaching and learning was even more limited. Certainly such findings raise important questions about whether teacher capacity to use assessment to promote learning or to bring the vision of formative assessment to fruition. For example, treatment teachers in the larger study were asked to adopt the following new practices as part of implementing the new curriculum embedded assessment system:

19

1. Administer assessment tasks on a daily/consistent basis. 2. Use a coding/scoring guide to analyze and interpret the evidence from student data.

3. Provide substantive feedback to students on their performance (i.e., not based on grades but rather conceptual understanding).

4. Administer formal checks at the end of each hands-on investigation to assess specific learning goals.

5. Implement targeted, specific, and appropriate “next-step strategies.” 6. Meet in study groups to discuss student work.

7. Analyze and interpret student work, as well as patterns and trends in the data.

This is a daunting list for teachers to incorporate into their practice, and it is important to remember that the data reported here are from the first year of implementation. Given these kinds of challenges, it seems clear that if current federal assessment policies are to nourish student learning, teacher capacity needs serious attention.

We look forward to the next stage of the study, (a) to a larger sample that may confirm or disconfirm these initial findings, (b) data on student learning, through which we will investigate the relationship between teacher practice and the improvement of student learning.

21

References

American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council of Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Test Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement. Washington, DC: AERA.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-Hammond, L, & Sykes, G. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001) Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Website on Formative Assessment. Available on: www.ccsso.org/projects/SCASS/Projects/Formative%SFassessment%

Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P., R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 360–389. doi: 10.1080/08957340802347852

Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Shinohara, M., & Kaskowitz, S. R. (2004, April 2). Fostering pedagogical content knowledge about electric circuits through case-based professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver, Canada.

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. L. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment?, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.

Heritage, M., & Vendlinski, T. (2006). Measuring teachers’ mathematical knowledge (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 696). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Herman, J. (2010). Impact of assessments on classroom practice. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.). The International Encyclopedia of Education, (3rd ed.). Oxford UK: Elsevier

Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices (CSE Tech Rep. No. 703). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

22

Hill, H., Schilling, S. & Ball, D. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.

James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Drummond, M., Fox, A., … Wiliam, D. (2007). Improving Learning how to learn. United Kingdom: Routledge.

Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.

National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. In J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

Office of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD publishing.

Shepard, L. (October, 2005). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. Paper presented at the ETS Invitational Conference, The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, New York, NY.

The Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Hall of Science. (2005). Full Option Science System (FOSS), magnetism and electricity module, teacher guide. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.

LogosEdSys©2013

DIRECTIONS FOR SETTING-UP DAILY SCIENCE JOURNAL/REFLECTIONS

The second composition notebook that you have and will be working with is referred to as the Daily Science Journal and Reflection (DSJ/DSR) notebook. This is your writing and reflecting journal used mostly during teacher’s presentation and information/lectures. It is very different from the SNB. The DSJ/DSR Notebook may be kept in class in an assigned container, or may need to travel from home to class as needed. The DSJ/DSR Notebook is one of the first things you will do at the start of the period and 5-‐7 minutes before the end of the period. You can pick it up on your way into the classroom and you will see a journal prompt displayed on the board. The DSJ/DSR book can be returned to your bin once that you have collected the stamp/(s) required for that day; unless, the teacher requires you to take it home and have it signed by a parent.

Materials: 1. Composition book 2. Glue/tape 3. Permanent marker

Directions: With a permanent marker please write the following information on the outside cover: 1. a. Your Name b. DSJ/DSR c. Teacher Name (Mr./Mrs _________) d. School Year

2. Open to the 1st blank sheet of paper of the composition notebook. On the left hand side, on the back of

the hardback cover (to the left of the empty page) attach the DSJ/DSR Score Sheet.

3. On the right hand side, you will create a title page. Write the items below in the center of this title page. Write legibly, representing academic excellence.

a) Science Journal (write this centered & large) b) Your Name c) Name of Science Class: __________Period:_____ d) Teacher’s Name e) School Year 4. Now, you will number each page of this SJ/RJ notebook, start on the top right corner of your title and

write on the right corner of the page a number one (1), flip the next page and on the top of the right hand page write a number two (2); do the same until you reach page 25. (DO NOT NUMBER THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGES)

5. On page 2, and only on the right hand side paste the Rubric #1, titled: 5 Sentence Journal Samples. DO NOT paste anything on the left side of page 2.

6. Once you have completed the set-‐up place all journal books in a neat pile (open to the 1st page) and wait for further instructions.

7. Turn to page 3. Your first day Essay will be pasted on this page. DO NOT attach any journals to the left hands side -‐. The left hand side will be used as your Science Reflection page (SR).

8. Turn the page; you should be on page 4. Attach SJ #1 on the right side of the page unless you already

have such journal entered in your Journal Notebook. 9. Continue attaching the rest of your journals in the following pages using the format of page 4 and following

a sequence, (i.e 1,2,3,4…) 10. Once you have attached all the SJs, go back to the Grade Check on the inside hard cover and read the

instructions on how you will reflect on your work and point accumulation.

11. Place your book at the end of the row open to the Self Grade Check. The teacher will sign the grade sheet and the last SJ and SR.

LogosEdSys©2013

5 Sentence Journal Sample #1 Several days out of the week you will spend the first 5 – 9 minutes of class writing a journal entry in your DSJ/DSR composition book. You will answer a journal prompt that will inform, explain, or describe a concept from prior relevant knowledge or science experience. The prompts may ask you to review recently presented information, make predictions, or make connections and conclusions about an idea or concept that was discuss in class or will be discussed. Each class may have its own DSJ/DSR notebook bin. Procedures: On your way into the classroom a journal prompt will be displayed on the classroom screen. You will need your DSJ/DSR Notebooks to respond to such prompt. Please pick up your notebooks from the assigned bin in a quiet and academic behavior, return to your desk and begin journaling. Once, the journal session time ended you may need a stamp from teacher or teacher may choose to stamp your journal and reflection at the end of the period. At the end of the period you will write a reflection that describes what you learned that day. On your way out of the classroom and with teacher stamped/signed journal notebooks return notebooks into the bin. Scoring Guide:

• All journals must have 5 complete sentences that include an introduction, 3 supporting sentences, and a conclusion. (Sample #1 — you will have other formats later in the year)

• All journals must be written in paragraph format • The periods of all journal entries must be numbered and highlighted • All reflections must have 3 sentences (that explain what you have learned ---not what you did). • The periods of all reflections entries must be numbered and highlighted

Example: *Remember to highlight and number each period. DSJ #1: What is matter made of? Describe three particles of an atom. Why are atoms important? Intro sentence: All matter is made of atoms. (1) 1st sentence: Atoms are the smallest particles of matter. (2) 2nd sentence: Atoms are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. (3) 3rd sentece: Each particle has its own properties.(4) Conclusion: Finally, the combination of various atoms forms different type of matter. (5) SAMPLE DSR #1 Today, I learned that atoms are the smallest particles of matter. (1) Protons, neutrons and electrons make an atom.(2) All matter is made of combinations of atoms.(3)

LogosEdSys©2013

SJ-SR Score Sheet

Student Name: _________________________Period: _________ Academic Year: __________ 1st Nine Week DSJ/DSR#______ to SJ-SR# _________ 1st Nine weeks Grade______/______ 2nd Nine Week DSJ/DSR#______ to SJ-SR# _________ 2nd Nine weeks Grade:______/______

1st Nine Weeks SCORE 2nd Nine Weeks SCORE Page SJ # SR # Page SJ # SR #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

1st grade learning sequence overview...# 3 cloudy (link to translucent) #4 bubbly (link to bubbles...

Documents