inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. (R.CCR.1)
2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. (R.CCR.2)
3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. (R.CCR.3) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 10)
Craft and Structure
The three anchor standards in this domain discuss the reader’s ability to analyze texts at the micro and macro levels. Readers should attend to the author’s craft in how he or she purposefully uses word choice, literary techniques, and organizational structures to shape the text; a character’s voice and experiences; or the interaction between the choice of genre and the information shared.
4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone. (R.CCR.4)
5. Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole. (R.CCR.5)
6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text. (R.CCR.6) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 10)
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
In this domain, anchor standards seven through nine are dedicated to the content within and across texts, in print and in digital environments. Anchor standard seven (R.CCR.7) is also closely tied to the Writing anchor standard domain Research to Build and Present Knowledge (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 21), as well as the Speaking and Listening domain Comprehension and Collaboration (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 24). Anchor standard eight (R.CCR.8) on argumentation is not addressed in the Literature part as it is not applicable to these text types.
7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words. (R.CCR.7)
8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. (R.CCR.8)
9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take. (R.CCR.9) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 10)
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity
The tenth and final anchor standard for reading has arguably been the predominant topic of discussion about the CCSS ELA.
10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. (R.CCR.10) (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 10)
The Common Core ELA and its appendices devote a considerable amount of space to this standard, noting that students’ use of complex texts has diminished since at least the 1970s, while texts used in college and the workplace have not (Chall, Conard, & Harris, 1977; Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolfe, 1996; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). The CCSS advocate for a staircase approach to systematically raising reading comprehension and critical thinking through the purposeful use of complex texts that require students to stretch their cognitive and metacognitive abilities (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a). For students who struggle with reading, this means that they must be taught with complex texts and asked to read increasingly complex texts across the year. It is important to note, however, that the text alone should not be the only scaffold; instruction is critical for these students to progress and accelerate.
Text complexity is defined across three dimensions: (1) quantitative measures, (2) qualitative factors, and (3) reader and task considerations. Quantitative factors, using a mixture of word length, sentence length, and syllables, are familiar to high school educators. In addition, many readability formulae calculate the number of difficult words that appear in a text by comparing these to grade-level lists. Examples of quantitative measures include the Fry Readability Formula, Dale-Chall Readability Formula, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index (see Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012), as well as commercial ones such as ATOS (used by Accelerated Reader), Source Rater (Educational Testing Service), Pearson Reading Maturity Scale (Pearson Education), Degrees of Reading Power (Questar), and Lexile (MetaMetrics). Table 2.1 compares these readability scales. Published quantitative reading scores can provide a platform for professional learning communities to begin their examination of which texts to use with their students.
Table 2.1: Text Complexity Ranges Within Grade Bands
Source: CCSSO, 2012.
The Lexile measures used in the CCSS have been revised; consequently, the measures in table 2.1 differ from those provided in appendix A of the Common Core for ELA (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 8). For example, the original range for the grades 9–10 band was 960–1115L compared to the revised range of 1050–1335L. Similarly, the original range for the 11–CCR grade band was 1070–1220L compared to the revised range of 1185–1385L. Lexile measures are based on word frequency (semantic difficulty) and sentence length (syntactic complexity), both of which have been shown to be effective predictors of text difficulty (Lennon & Burdick, 2004).
While quantitative reading formulae are calculated by machine, qualitative factors require a human reader. Computers use mathematical formulae to estimate difficulty. Teachers and parents focus on ideas that will confuse the reader or be inappropriate for students at a given age. Furthermore, teachers use their knowledge of text structures to identify areas of difficulty that will require instruction.
Qualitative factors of texts include the following (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b).
• Levels of meaning and purpose: Such as the density and complexity of the information, use of figurative language, and stated and implied purposes
• Structure: Such as the text’s genre, organization, narration, and use of text features and graphics
• Language conventionality and clarity: Such as its use of English language variations and registers
• Knowledge demands: Such as the assumed background knowledge, prior knowledge, cultural knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge
Qualitative factors can make a text more or less complex, and cannot be measured quantitatively. For example, Spoon River Anthology (Masters, 2007), a book often used in high school curricula, does not have a Lexile score because of its extensive use of poetic verse, rendering it unsuitable for quantitative measures. But the personal epitaphs of its 212 characters, all buried in a small-town cemetery, make it a complex read for adolescents. Assessing text complexity using these factors is an excellent task for members of a collaborative planning team who are experienced with using a text and are familiar with its structure.
Using the rubric in table 2.2, members of an eleventh- and twelfth-grade English team meet to discuss informational texts for use in their classrooms. They turn their attention to The Story of Art (Gombrich, 2006), an informational text on art history and criticism. The team identifies several aspects of the book that would affect its complexity. The book’s subject matter draws extensively
