Instruction in Reading

1. Instruction in Reading Using DATA and RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE for Growth and Instruction

2. What is Reading? 2 “Reading is an active and complex process that involves • Understanding written text • Developing and interpreting meaning; and • Using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose, and situation” (NAEP Framework, 2009) Reading is the single most important educational skill students will learn. As students move up in grade levels text demand significantly increases.

3. Two important goals for improvement: 1. Increase the percentage of students reading “at grade level” each year at each grade level from kindergarten through tenth grade. 2. Decrease the percentage of students with serious reading difficulties each year at each grade level. Our most important measure of success in accomplishing these goals is assessing student performance in reading comprehension using an initial screening, mid-year assessment, and outcome measure at the end of each grade level.

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Students

8. 8 Text complexity is the key to accelerating student achievement in reading.

9. Text Complexity - ACT Study • Purpose: Determine what distinguished the reading performance of students likely to succeed in college and not. • Process: • Set benchmark score on the reading test shown to be predictive of success in college (“21” on ACT composite score) • Looked at results from a half million students. • Divided texts into three levels of complexity: uncomplicated, more challenging, and complex.

10. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Comprehension Level (Averaged across Seven Forms)

11. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Textual Element (Averaged across Seven Forms)

12. Text Complexity Matters • Performance on complex texts is the clearest differentiator in reading between students who are more likely to be ready for college and those who are less likely to be ready. • Texts used in the ACT Reading Test reflect three degrees of complexity: uncomplicated, more challenging, and complex.

13. Performance on the ACT Reading Test by Degree of Text Complexity (Averaged across Seven Forms) In this figure, performance on questions associated with uncomplicated and more challenging texts both above and below the ACT College Readiness Benchmark for Reading follows a pattern similar to those in the previous analyses. Improvement on each of the two kinds of questions is gradual and fairly uniform. 13 13

14. Recap of ACT Findings 14 Question type and level (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator between student scoring above and below the benchmark. The degree of text complexity in the passages acted as the “sorters” within ACT. The findings held true for both males and females, all racial groups and was steady regardless of family income level. What students could read, in terms of its complexity--rather than what they could do with what they read—is greatest predictor of success. FCAT has complex passages and highly cognitive demanding questions.

15. Students who arrive behind in reading or close to grade level are often taught through courses that don’t demand much reading. Many students are engaged in shallow reading, skimming text for answers, focusing only on details and failing to make inferences in order to integrate different parts of the text. Years of reading in this superficial way will cause a student’s reading ability to deteriorate. For many students the decline of text demands in the courses that they take has both an immediate and long term impact on student achievement.

16. The Percent Of Students Who Have Previously Scored A Level 3 Or Higher On FCAT Reading 2011 FCAT Results 16

17. What is FAIR? • A K-2 assessment system administered to individual students 3 times a year, with electronic scoring, Adobe AIR version, and PMRN reports linked to instructional resources. • A 3-12 computer-based system where students take the assessments 3 times a year. Several tasks are adaptive. PMRN reports are available, linked to instructional resources. Printed toolkit available. © 2011 Florida Department of Education

18. The K-2 “Big Picture” Map

19. K-2 Targeted Diagnostic Inventory (TDI) Map

20. The K – 2 “Score” Map 20

21. Target RC Passages for Grades 1 and 2 (BDI) 21 Florida Center for Reading Research

22. Grade 1 PRS Chart (2010-2011)

23. Student Score Detail Box (K-2) Excellent report to include in a student’s cumulative folder ©2011 Florida Center for Reading Research

24. Just Read, Florida! along with staff from the Florida Center for Reading Research reviewed FAIR data for 2nd graders from school year 2009-10 who had a Probability of Reading Success (PRS) of .85+. We followed this cohort into grade 3 to see how they performed on FCAT Reading last school year, 2010-11. • Results • 74% of students with a .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10 • scored FCAT Reading Level 3 or above in 3rd grade SY 10-11. • 15% of students with a .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10 • scored FCAT Reading Level 1 in 3rd grade SY 1011. • 11% of students who had .85 PRS at the end of 2nd grade in SY 09-10 • scored FCAT Reading Level 2 in 3rd grade SY 10-11. • As we move into FCAT 2.0, the best way to reduce failures on Grade 3 FCAT is to target instruction earlier, in grades K-2. Waiting to address reading difficulties in grade 3 is too late.

25. Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring Tool Reading Comprehension Task (3 Times a Year) Targeted Diagnostic Inventory Maze & Word Analysis Tasks Ongoing Progress Monitoring (As Needed) Diagnostic Toolkit (As Needed) Grades 3-12 Assessments Model If necessary © 2011 Florida Department of Education

26. RC Screen Helps us identify students who may not be able to meet the grade level literacy standards at the end of the year as assessed by the FCAT without additional targeted literacy instruction.  Mazes Helps us determine whether a student has more fundamental problems in the area of text reading efficiency and low level reading comprehension. Relevant for students below a 6th grade reading level.  Word Analysis Helps us learn more about a student's fundamental literacy skills--particularly those required to decode unfamiliar words and read and write accurately.  Purpose of Each 3-12 Assessment

27. How is the student placed into the first passage/item?

28. How is the student placed into subsequent passages? • Based on the difficulty of the questions the student answers correctly on the first passage, the student will then be given a harder or easier passage for their next passage. • Difficulty of an item is determined using Item Response Theory (IRT). • Because of this feature, the raw score of 7/9 for Student A and 7/9 for Student B, when reading the same passage, does not mean they will have the same converted scores.

29. The 3-12 “Big Picture” Map 29

30. The 3-12 “Score” Map 30

31. Lexile®Measure Two types of Lexile measures Lexile reader measure Represents a person’s reading ability on the Lexile scale (this is what you will see on your reports) Has nothing to do with the Lexile of the passage. Lexile text measure Indicates the reading demand of the text in terms of word frequency and sentence length. Range of uncapped Lexile Measures on FAIR: 225-2105 Range around Lexile Measure = -100 and +50 (e.g., 600L, 500 – 650L) 31

32. Student Score Detail Box- 3-12

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

34. Table 2: Screening Accuracy of the FAIR predicting FCAT success

35. The Common Core State StandardsText Complexity

36. Common Core State Standards Text Complexity The Common Core State Standards places a strong emphasis on the role of text complexity in evaluating student readiness for college and careers. “The Common Core State Standards hinge on students encountering appropriately complex texts at each grade level in order to develop the mature language skills and the conceptual knowledge they need for success in school and life.” (p. 3)

37. Advantages to Common Core Standards • A focus on college and career readiness • Inclusion of the four strands of English Language Arts: • Reading • Writing • Listening and speaking • Language • The benefits of an integrated literacy approach – all educators have a shared responsibility for literacy instruction, regardless of discipline or content area. • A focus on results rather than means – . . .“the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed.” (p. 4) • Efficiencies of scale – common standards allow for greater collaboration among states in the areas of: • Professional development • Resource development • Teaching tools

38. Text Complexity Included within the Standards is an enhanced focus on text complexity. Specifically, within reading standard #10: Anchor Standard: • R.CCR.10 Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. Example Grade-level Standard (6th grade): • RI.6.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literary nonfiction in the grades 6-8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

39. Guiding Questions What do the Common Core Learning Standards mean by text complexity? What is a text complexity band? and How do we ensure the texts our students are reading are in the appropriate text complexity band?

40. Overview of Text Text Complexity • Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader. Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software. Quantitative Qualitative Reader and Task considerations – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned often best made by educators employing their professional judgment. Reader and Task

41. Common Core State Standards Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands

42. Common Core State Standards Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands

43. Where do we find texts in the appropriate text complexity band? Choose an excerpt of text from Appendix B as a starting place: We could…. Use available resources to determine the text complexity of other materials on our own. or…

44. Determining Text Complexity A Four-step Process: Determine the quantitative measures of the text. Quantitative Qualitative Analyze the qualitative measures of the text. Reader and Task Reflect upon the reader and task considerations. Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band.

45. Step 1: Quantitative Measures Quantitative Measures • Measures such as: • Word length • Word frequency • Word difficulty • Sentence length • Text length • Text cohesion

46. Step 1: Quantitative Measures The Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity: This document outlines the suggested ranges for each of the text complexity bands using: Lexile Text Measures ---or--- ATOS Book Levels (Accelerated Reader)

47. Step 1: Quantitative Measures Let’s imagine we want to see where a text falls on the quantitative measures “leg” of the text complexity triangle, using either the Lexile text measures or the ATOS book level (or both). For illustrative purposes, let’s choose the text, Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass.

48. Step 1: Quantitative Measures Lexile Text Measure: 1080L 7.9 ATOS Book Level: In which of the text complexity bands would this text fall?

49. Common Core Learning Standards Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity Grade Bands * The K-1 suggested Lexile range was not identified by the Common Core State Standards and was added by Kansas. ** Taken from Accelerated Reader and the Common Core State Standards, available at the following URL: http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004572117GKC46B.pdf

50. Step 1: Quantitative Measures Remember, however, that the quantitative measures is only the first of three “legs” of the text complexity triangle. Our final recommendation may be validated, influenced, or even over-ruled by our examination of qualitative measures and the reader and task considerations.