MetaMetrics Webinar: Text Complexity and the Common Core: What does it mean for publishers?

The webinar provides an overview of:
The crisis of text complexity and how schools are addressing the call
The Lexile market footprint and how to get Lexile Measures

Presenters at this webinar include:
Sue Pimentel, Lead Writer of the (CCSS) for English Language Arts/Literacy
Matt Copeland, Lexile Curriculum Specialist
Malbert Smith, Ph.D., President and Co-Founder
Trilby Berger, SVP Strategic Partnerships

Transcript

1. Text Complexity and the Common Core: What does it mean for publishers? Sue Pimentel, Lead Writer of the (CCSS) for English Language Arts/Literacy and Founding Partner of the nonprofit Student Achievement Partners Matt Copeland, Lexile Curriculum Specialist, MetaMetrics Malbert Smith, Ph.D., President and Co-Founder, MetaMetrics & Research Professor, UNC School of Education Trilby Berger, SVP Strategic Partnerships, MetaMetrics
2. 2 Logistics  If you experience any technical difficulties, please refer to your confirmation email or call 617-834-6275.  Submit your questions to the Q&A Moderator, which can be selected from the drop-down menu in the Q&A panel.  When submitting your question, please include your full name and organization.  Recorded webinar and presentation will be included in Monday’s follow-up.
3. 3 Agenda  Overview and Intro  Crisis of Text Complexity  How Are Schools Addressing the Call?  Lexile Market Footprint and How to Get Measures  Q&A
4. 4 Google Trends “Text Complexity”
5. 5 Google Trends “College and Career Readiness”
6. 6 The Crisis of Text Complexity  Complexity of texts students are expected to read is way below what is required to achieve college and career readiness:  High school textbooks have declined in all subject areas over several decades  Average length of sentences in K-8 textbooks has declined from 20 to 14 words  Vocabulary demands have declined, e.g., 8th grade textbooks = former 5th grade texts; 12th grade anthologies = former 7th grade texts  Complexity of college and careers texts has remained steady or increased.
7. 7 Results in a Huge Gap. . .  Between end of high school and college reading demands equal to 350L (Lexile) or the Lexile difference between 4th grade and 8th grade NAEP texts! How much should we worry about this gap?
8. 8 Recap of ACT Study  Question type (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator between students scoring above and below the benchmark.  Question level (higher order vs. lower order; literal vs. inferential) is NOT the chief differentiator between students either.  What students could read, in terms of its complexity--rather than what they could do with what they read--is greatest predictor of success.
9. 9 Too Many Students Reading at Too Low a Level  Less than half of high school graduates are meeting the benchmark. Deficiencies are not equal opportunity. . .
10. 10 The fortunate ones are kids. . .  Who have had lots of books available to them at home and whose caretakers read to them in their early years with great regularity.  Who have had teachers that augmented textbooks with adequately complex reading.  Who themselves have become eager and independent readers because they learned how to read well in their first years of their schooling.
11. 11 The unfortunate ones are. . .  Those who are isolated from texts before arriving at the schoolhouse door.  Struggling readers who are never given the opportunity to grapple with adequately complex texts.  Kids thought not to be able to “handle” the regular curriculum so materials are pitched at a much lower level.  English learners who are provided adapted texts far too long—texts so greatly simplified they provide little exposure to the content or the forms/structures of the language they need to be learning.
12. 12 That’s why. . .  Text complexity is one of the hallmarks of the Common Core State Standards.  Reading Standard 10 specifies a staircase of text complexity to ensure students are on track each year for college and career reading.
13. 13 Confirm & Extend the Preliminary Research in Appendix A of the CCSS  Test and validate quantitative measures of text complexity and difficulty (led by Chuck Perfetti, U of Pitt)  In particular, assessed the capabilities of six quantitative metrics to predict text difficulty for students on standardized tests:  ATOS - ATOS® (Renaissance Learning)  DRP - Degrees of Reading Power® (Questar)  FK - Flesch Kincaid®  Lexile - Lexile® Framework (MetaMetrics)  SR - Source Rater© (Educational Testing Service)  RM- Pearson Reading Maturity Metric© (Pearson Education)
14. 14 Results  All the metrics were reliably, and often highly, correlated with how students perform with grade level texts across a variety of assessments (No measure was better than any other in predicting text difficulty for students).  All measures were equally good when situating informational texts on the scale (less so with respect to narrative fiction)  While some variance existed between and among the measures about where they place any single text, they all climb reliably—though differently—up the text complexity ladder to college and career readiness.  Six measures now share a common scale—anchored by texts representative of those required in typical first-year credit-bearing college courses and in workforce training programs.
15. 15 Common Scale Common Scale for Band Level Text Difficulty Ranges ATOS DRP FK Lexile SR RM 2nd-3rd 2.75-5.14 42-54 1.98-5.34 420-820 0.05 – 2.48 3.53 - 6.13 4th-5th 4.97-7.03 52-60 4.51-7.73 740-1010 0.84 – 5.75 5.42 - 7.92 6th-8th 7.00-9.98 57-67 6.51-10.34 925-1185 4.11 – 10.66 7.04 - 9.57 9th-10th 9.67-12.01 62-72 8.32-12.12 1050-1335 9.02 – 13.93 8.41 - 10.81 11th-CCR 11.20-14.10 67-74 10.34-14.2 1185-1385 12.30 – 14.50 9.57 - 12 Common Core Bands: Text Analyzer Tools
16. 16 Stretch Continuum
17. 17 Implications for Publishers  Pay attention to the complexity band levels as defined by the Common Scale.  Be transparent about the complexity levels of the texts that are included in textbooks, particularly with respect to the quantitative measures.  Add annotations to accompany the passages in order to provide educators with a deeper, more multidimensional picture of text complexity to assist them in planning their lessons and instructional focus.  Select texts/passages for student reading that depend not only on text complexity but also on considerations of quality and coherence.
18. 18 How are schools addressing the call for increasing text complexity throughout their curricula?
19. 19 CCSS Text Complexity Model Text complexity is defined by: 2. Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands often best measured by an attentive human reader. 1. Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity often best measured by computer software. Reader and Task 3. 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.
20. 20 Determining Complexity of Text A Four-step Process: 1. Determine the quantitative measures of the text. 2. Analyze the qualitative measures of the text. 3. Reflect upon the reader and task considerations. 4. Recommend placement in the appropriate text complexity band. Reader and Task
21. 21 Step 1: Quantitative Measures Measures such as:  Word length  Word frequency  Word difficulty  Sentence length  Text length  Text cohesion Reader and Task
22. 22 Quantitative Measures Ranges for Text Complexity: This document outlines the suggested ranges for each of the text complexity bands Step 1: Quantitative Measures
23. 23 Find a Book http://www.lexile.com/fab
26. 26 Step 2: Qualitative Measures Measures such as:  Levels of meaning  Levels of purpose  Structure  Organization  Language conventionality  Language clarity  Prior knowledge demands Reader and Task
27. 27 The Qualitative Measures Rubrics for Literary and Informational Text: Rubrics for literary text and for informational text allow educators to evaluate the important elements of text often missed by computer software. Step 2: Qualitative Measures
28. 28 Qualitative Rubrics for Literary Text & Informational Text  Same format  Similar content  Same functionality Step 2: Qualitative Measures
30. 30 Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations Considerations such as:  Student motivation  Student knowledge and experience  Purpose for reading  Complexity of task assigned regarding text  Complexity of questions asked regarding text Reader and Task
31. 31 Questions for Professional Reflection on Reader and Task Considerations: The questions provided in this resource are meant to spur teacher thought and reflection upon the text, students, and any tasks associated with the text. Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations
32. 32 What aspects of the text will likely pose the most challenge for students?  Content or theme concerns or challenges?  Text structure challenges?  Language feature challenges?  Knowledge and experience demands?  Motivation for and interest in the text? With which standards do students need the most practice? Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations
33. 33  What aspects/elements of the text naturally lend themselves to addressing these identified standards?  Will the complexity of any before, during, and after reading tasks or the complexity of any questions asked about the text interfere with the reading experience?  What supports do educators need to provide so all students (even those who are struggling readers) can access and be successful with the text? Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations
34. 34 Read Aloud Modeling of decoding and fluency Heavy scaffolding for vocabulary and comprehension Read Along Some scaffolding, as needed, for decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension Read Alone Independent, autonomous reading Little to no scaffolding RA! RA! RA! Reading! Te ach e r S caffold i ng Gradual Release of Responsibility (I do, we do, you do)… S tu d e nt Au tonomy 34 How Instruction Addresses Text Complexity
35. 35 After reflecting upon all three legs of the text complexity model, educators can make a final recommendation of placement within a text band and begin to document their thinking for future reference. Reader and Task Step 4: Recommended Placement
36. 36 Step 4: Recommended Placement
37. 37 Lexile Text Measure / Lexile Reader Measure The Lexile Framework places text and reader on same scale Lexile Text Measure Lexile Reader Measure How: Lexile Analyzer How: Lexile-linked tests Market Footprint:  150,000+ books with Lexile Measures  400 M+ articles with Lexile measures  Many web and digital resources with Lexile measures Market Footprint:  30+M, K-12 readers in U.S. (56%) get Lexile measures  21 state tests report Lexile measures  Many commercially published tests report Lexile measures  Many reading programs report Lexile measures
38. 38 How is the Lexile book database used?  “Find A Book” (free search tool at www.Lexile.com)  Distributors & Wholesalers  Library cataloging services providers  Book-based social media platforms  Incorporated into many reading programs  State DOE, district & school web sites  Barnes & Noble
41. 41 Publisher Process for obtaining Lexile Measures http://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/publishers/
42. 42 Using the Lexile Analyzer  Free access to the tool at www.Lexile.com  Limited to 1000 words  Used primarily for sampling text measurement  Publishers can license a professional version  Useful in the development process  Measures texts of all sizes  Unlimited users  24/7 web access In either case, Lexile Measures must be certified by MetaMetrics for use in any commercial context.
43. 43 News & Updates Common Core Publisher Criteria  Guide to help publishers & curriculum developers as they work to ensure alignment with the standards  Document available at: http://www.corestandards.org/resources Beginning Reader (BR)  New research to be unveiled in 2013!  Will further specify Lexile Measures of books in the emergent reader space  Informational webinar in Spring 2013
44. 44 News & Updates Chief’s Summer Reading Challenge  Partnered with Council of Chief State School Officers  National, state-led summer initiative using “Find A Book”  14 state DOEs participated in 2012, growing in 2013 Expanding International Markets  Strong interest in Lexile for English language learners  Korea & Japan are particularly strong  ETS's TOEFL iBT® test, TOEFL® Junior™ test and TOEIC® Listening & Reading test have been linked with the Lexile scale Amazon US & Japan  To begin using Lexile measures for kids & teens books
45. 45  El Sistema Lexile™ para Leer  Yes, we can measure your Spanish books & text!  The Lexile® Framework for Writing  Auto essay scoring technology  The Quantile® Framework for Mathematics  A common scale for measuring student ability & difficulty of mathematical skills Did you know?
46. 46 Questions?
47. 47 Upcoming Webinars  Happy Pi Day... Introducing the new Quantiles.com  Presenters: Jason Turner, Director of Professional Development, David Lines, Senior Product Manager and Bethany Hudnutt, Quantile Research Associate  Thursday, March 14th, 3 to 4 p.m. EST  Register here
48. 48 For Lexile measurement or use of Lexile Analyzer: Emily Weller Manager, Strategic Partnerships eweller@lexile.com 919.547.3452 For all other inquiries: Trilby Berger SVP, Strategic Partnerships tberger@lexile.com 919.547.3427 Contact Information