Common Core Standard For English Language Arts (Page 2 of 43) in pdf

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

reading

One 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.

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 below

, 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 Tasks

Research 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

In 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).

Much 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).

Common Core Standard For English Language Arts Page 2

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories