1 / 31

ELA CCGPS Webinar #2 3 rd – 5 th grade

ELA CCGPS Webinar #2 3 rd – 5 th grade. This session will begin at 3:15 p.m. While you are waiting, please do the following: Enter/edit your profile information by going to: Tools - Preferences - My Profile… Fill out the info on the “Identity” tab and click “OK”

rune
Download Presentation

ELA CCGPS Webinar #2 3 rd – 5 th grade

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ELA CCGPS Webinar #23rd – 5th grade This session will begin at 3:15 p.m. While you are waiting, please do the following: Enter/edit your profile information by going to: Tools - Preferences - My Profile… Fill out the info on the “Identity” tab and click “OK” To view the profile of another use, hover your mouse over his or her name in the Participants window Configure your microphone and speakers by going to: Tools – Audio – Audio setup wizard Confirm your connection speed by going to: Tools – Preferences – Connection speed

  2. Accessing the Session Recording • Recordings are accessed by going to http://elluminate.gavirtualschools.org/doe and click on the Recordings tab. Recordings are posted approximately 15 minutes after the session is closed (all attendees must logout before the recordings can be created).

  3. UNDERSTANDING THECOMMON CORE Georgia Performance StandardsENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS FALL WEBINAR #2Grade ThreeGrade FourGrade Five Tuesday, October 25, 20113:15 – 4:15 pm OCTOBER 2011

  4. WELCOME! Kim Jeffcoat State Program Coordinator English Language Arts and Literacy kjeffcoat@doe.k12.ga.us CCGPS

  5. Your English Language Arts & Literacy Staff at the Georgia Department of Education • Kim Jeffcoat, State Program Coordinator for English Language Arts & Literacy kjeffcoat@doe.k12.ga.us • Sallie Mills, English Language Arts & Literacy Program Specialist smills@doe.k12.ga.us • Susan Jacobs, English Language Arts & Literacy Program Specialist sjacobs@doe.k12.ga.us • Andria Bunner, English Language Arts & Literacy Program Specialist abunner@doe.k12.ga.us • Julie Morrill, Literacy Program Specialist jmorrill@doe.k12.ga.us • Angie Baker, Technology Program Specialist angela.baker@doe.k12.ga.us • Mary Lynn Huie, Gates Literacy Trainer mhuie@doe.k12.ga.us

  6. Focus: Text Complexity

  7. Why Text Complexity Matters 2006 Report, ACT, Inc. Reading Between the Lines • Report looked at scores of students who equaled or exceeded the benchmark score (21 out of 36) on the reading section of the ACT college admissions test from those who did not • Only half of all test-takers (250,000) achieved the benchmark score or better (2004-05 group) • Results: These students had a 75% chance of earning a C or better in an introductory, credit-bearing course in US history or psychology (two courses which rely heavily on reading and are common for first year students ). There was a 50% chance of earning a B.

  8. Surprisingly……. The clearest differentiator in the scores among those who met the benchmark from those who did not was the students’ ability to answer questions associated with complex texts.

  9. The bottom line from Reading Between the Lines What students could read, in terms of complexity, was at least as important as what they could do with what they read.

  10. 1963-1977: a 13 year decrease in difficulty of text in grades 1, 6, and especially 11 (Chall, Conrad, & Harris, 1977) • Extending study to 1991: Dangerously high declines in average sentence length and vocabulary level in reading textbooks within a variety of grades (Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolf, 1996) • Present day: There is a 350L gap between the difficulty of end-of-high school and college texts. This is more than the Lexile difference between what we expect of a 4th grader as compared to that of an 8th grader (Gary Williamson, 2006)

  11. What do we know? • K-12 Reading texts have seen a decline in the levels of difficulty over the last half-century • The reading demands of college and workforce training have held steady or increased over the past 50 years • Only between 7% and 15% of elementary and middle school reading is expository

  12. “A high school graduate who is a poor reader is a postsecondary student who must struggle mightily to succeed.” • “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.” Appendix A/Common Core

  13. Too many students are reading at levels far too low • Low reading achievement impacts students’ readiness for college, careers, and life in general • Reading levels among the adult population are disturbingly low

  14. Students’ ability to read complex text does not always develop in a linear fashion. • The grade-level progression of text complexity defined by Common Core does not always occur at an unbroken pace. • Students need opportunities to stretch their reading abilities, but they also need to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading, both of which the Standards allow.

  15. Factors to consider in text selection: • The student’s motivation to read • The student’s background knowledge • The student’s experiences

  16. Quantitativeaspects of text complexity, such as word length or frequency, 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 measured by computer software Qualitative aspects of text complexity best measured by an attentive human reader, such as levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and clarity; and knowledge demands Reader and task considerationsfocus on the inherent complexity of text, reader motivation, knowledge, and experience and the purpose and complexity of the task at hand. This kind of assessment is best made by teachers employing their professional judgment.

  17. Third Grade Reading Standard 10 CCRR10: Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. LITERARY STANDARD ELACC3RL10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently. INFORMATIONAL STANDARD ELACC3RI10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 2-3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

  18. Fourth Grade Reading Standard 10 CCRR10: Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. LITERARY STANDARD ELACC4RL10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, in the grades 4-5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. INFORMATIONAL STANDARD ELACC4RI10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, in the grades 4-5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

  19. Fifth Grade Reading Standard 10 CCRR10: Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. LITERARY STANDARD ELACC5RL10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, at the high end of the grades 4-5 text complexity band independently and proficiently. INFORMATIONAL STANDARD ELACC5RI10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 4-5 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

  20. Do teachers need to abandon all previously used texts? NO! 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.

  21. A New Rubric As of today, October 24, 2011, there is not a magical tool or computer program that will take into account the three dimensions of text complexity; however, we have developed a rubric that we feel will assist you in determining grade-appropriate, complex text.

  22. Text Complexity Rubric • Intended to assist educators in evaluating multiple dimensions of a text. • The rubric addresses the three aspects of text complexity required for consideration in Common Core Appendix B: qualitative, quantitative, and reader/task match. • Each of these three dimensions includes specific relevant categories, each of which is listed with a short explanation to assist users in making the best possible determination.

  23. HOW TO USE THE •  INTENDED AS A TOOL FOR QUANTIFYING TEXT DETERMINATIONS WITHIN CCGPS PARAMETERS • RUBRIC DIMENSIONS ALLOW FOR UNIQUE MERITS OF TEXT AND FOR SCORE TO BE AN AGGREGATE OF MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS • INTENDED TO STREAMLINE AND CREATE CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE TEXT CONSIDERATION PROCESS, NOT TO BE A DEFINITIVE MEASURE

  24. There are 10 dimensions to be scored on the rubric Each dimension can receive a score between 0 and 10 The best possible score within a dimension is 10 points, indicating that the text would be of optimal benefit to students. The best possible overall score for a text is 100 points. The aggregate text score is interpreted as follows: 80 - 100 POINTS: EXTREMELY APPROPRIATE TEXT CHOICE 50-79 POINTS: ACCEPTABLE TEXT CHOICE 25-49 POINTS: RECONSIDER OR CHANGE GRADE/PURPOSE OF THIS TEXT CHOICE 0 - 24 POINTS: ELIMINATE OR CHANGE GRADE/PURPOSE OF THIS TEXT CHOICE

  25. Qualitative Dimensions Levels of meaning. Symbolism, abstract thought, satire, allegory, pun, symbolism, complex motif or nuanced/complicated technical or academic concepts. 10 = excellent, grade-appropriate examples representing multiple categories Structure. Chapters, multiple plot lines, glossaries, headings, footnotes, legal documents, technical manuals, non-traditional uses of time or language (such as magical realism). 10 = multiple, excellent, grade-appropriate structural features. Language conventionality. Complexity of the vocabulary such as colloquialisms, figurative or idiomatic language, dialects, sophisticated technical or academic language, historical language such as Elizabethan or Old English constructions.10 = language that is appropriate and challenging for the target grade but is not so complex as to be incomprehensible. Background knowledge. The subject of the text is one with which your students might reasonably be expected to be acquainted (World War II) or one that might be understood once introduced (photosynthesis). 10 = students will comprehend the text or the subject can be sufficiently understood when explained. A lower score indicates a disconnect serious enough to adversely impact the effectiveness of instruction.

  26. Quantitative Dimensions • For the purposes of this rubric, we have used a measure familiar to most educators: the Lexile Measure. • 10 = high end of Lexile range for grade band • = lower end of the grade band target range • 4-6 = 100 or fewer points below low end of target range • 0-3 = mismatches beyond 100 points • NOTE! a mismatch of Lexile range ALONE is not enough to disqualify a text choice.

  27. Reader and Task Does this text challenge readers? Aim for 75% comprehension rate. 10 = challenges students within that target range. Does this text match the interests of the students? Cannot always be the primary indicator, but even technical texts can be chosen to provide connection with students. 10 = best choice for the target age and demographic. Is this text ideal for the task? A scientific journal will be a better match for a research project than for a skit depicting the content. 10 = best possible match for the task. Mismatches for which qualitative and quantitative measures cannot easily account. Provides evaluators with a category to bestow or withhold points based on disconnect that may not be addressed in other rubric dimensions. 10 = no mismatch and would be entirely appropriate for the target audience and purpose.

  28. SampleText 3rd grade SampleText 4th grade SampleText 5th grade

  29. Our Next 3-5 Webinar: November 15, 2011Focus: Integrated Lessons with CCGPS We would welcome input from the field on your experiences with constructing integrated tasks and lessons based on the examples we’ve seen here today or your experiences teaching these tasks. Send lessons, comments, and photos to ELAinput@doe.k12.ga.us.

  30. Final Thought One mark of a great educator is the ability to lead students out to new places where even the educator has never been. Thomas Groome – Chicken Soup for the Teacher’s Soul

More Related