we view literacy teaching and learning.
Shift One: Focus on Reading and Writing to Inform, Persuade, and Convey Experiences
The Common Core ELA standards reflect a trend in literacy that has been occurring since the 1990s: a deepening appreciation of the importance of informational and persuasive texts in a student’s reading diet, or the range of reading genre and materials students encounter across the year. (For now, we will focus our discussion on informational texts, with further attention to persuasive texts featured later in the argumentation section of this chapter.) The reasons for increasing informational text usage are often related to the need to improve content knowledge (Johnson, Watson, Delahunty, McSwiggen, & Smith, 2011) and to meet increased demand in digital environments (Schmar-Dobler, 2003).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), sometimes called “the nation’s report card,” has steadily increased the use of informational text passages on its assessments of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students across the United States. In keeping with this initiative, the CCSS ELA recommend an evenly divided reading diet of literary and informational texts by the fourth grade (see table 1.1), gradually increasing throughout middle and high school. Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean that students in grades 9–12 should no longer be allowed to read narrative text; nothing could be further from the truth. Narrative remains essential as a means of conveying ideas and concepts through story. However, just as a nutritional diet limited to only one or two foods cannot provide sufficient nourishment, neither should we limit the types of texts used (not just stacked on the bookshelves) in the classroom. Furthermore, it is helpful to measure the use of informational texts across the school day, not only in the English classroom, in which teachers use a greater volume of literary texts.
Table 1.1: Grade Distribution of Literary and Informational Passages in the 2009 NAEP Framework
| Grade | Literary Texts | Informational Texts |
| 4 | 50 percent | 50 percent |
| 8 | 45 percent | 55 percent |
| 12 | 30 percent | 70 percent |
Source: Adapted from NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 5.
Just as the reading diet of learners needs to be expanded, so does their writing repertoire. A key practice is to link the reading of expository texts with the original writing in the same genre, as the link between reading and writing abilities is strong for secondary learners (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). However, writing instruction at the secondary level must accurately reflect the forms and processes learners will use in postsecondary experiences. A telling example is the 2004 study of 1,650 Harvard students from their freshman year until graduation. Nancy Sommers and Laura Saltz (2004) find that students had to make profound changes in their approaches to writing. First, they had to shed the notion that writing was about completing an assignment and instead embrace the idea that writing is an essential part of the thinking process. Second, they found that the five-paragraph essay format they had learned in high school had no place in college. Third, they noted that their required readings demanded critical analysis, rather than simple summaries. Sommers and Saltz (2004) note, “One freshman observed: ‘These assignments are an entirely new world. I need to argue a point of view, use evidence, and not accept things just because I have read them’” (p. 138). While not all of our students will attend Harvard, the ability to communicate clearly, coherently, and logically in writing is necessary in virtually any skilled profession, in part because it can’t be automated—a human being is essential.
The Common Core ELA standards for grades 9–12 call for a major investment in the time teachers spend instructing students to raise their ability to comprehend narrative, informational, and persuasive texts. This may require an assessment of where and when students use these types of texts across the school day. Additionally, there is a renewed expectation that students can also write in these genres. Much of the research on expository writing for students in grades 9–12 reinforces what many of us already knew: immersion in these texts, when coupled with explicit instruction, can lead to more sophisticated writing (Graham & Perin, 2007b).
Shift Two: Focus on Increased Text Complexity
Closely related to an emphasis on informational texts is “steadily increasing text complexity” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 2). This has received considerable attention as educators figure out how to apply a three-part model for determining how complex a reading really is. In addition, school teams in the United States are working to design methods for accessing complex texts among students who struggle to read, English learners, and students with special needs. The CCSS ELA define text complexity as “the inherent difficulty of reading and comprehending a text combined with consideration of reader and task variables; in the Standards, a three-part assessment of text difficulty that pairs qualitative [factors] and quantitative measures with reader-task considerations” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 43). In other words, it is multidimensional, with attention given to (1) quantitative measures, such as readability formulae; (2) qualitative factors, such as complexity of ideas, organization, and cohesion; and (3) reader and task considerations, such as motivation and task difficulty.
The issue of text complexity raises the case for backward planning, with the outcome being that graduating high school students are sufficiently prepared to tackle the kinds of texts they will encounter as they enter college and careers. The need for a sense of urgency cannot be understated, as our students have only a precious few years to dramatically increase their capacity to understand complex texts.
In an effort to assist high school educators, appendix B of the CCSS ELA includes an extensive list of text exemplars to illustrate this concept (NGA & CCSSO, 2010c). In high school, these are ordered as grade bands: 9–10 and 11–12. Importantly, these include informational texts for the English classroom, as well as the more familiar poetry, narrative, and dramatic exemplars. These should not be misconstrued as a required reading list. To do so would be to ignore the third dimension of identifying complex texts: reader and task considerations.
Referenced within the standards document is a staircase effect to systematically develop students’ capacity for understanding more complex texts (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a). This should be considered at several levels of analysis: within a unit of instruction, throughout a school year, and across multiple grades. That is, the texts a student uses at the beginning of a unit to build background knowledge are more explicit, while those that occur later in a unit to deepen student knowledge are less so. Similarly, the texts students utilize early in a given school year are less complex than those that occur near the end. Additionally, students’ capacity and stamina for reading complex texts should build across grade-level bands. For this reason, work concerning text complexity should involve at least two collaborative planning team configurations—as English teachers work (1) within grade levels and (2) across high school grades—to articulate a cohesive plan. These horizontal and vertical team collaborations ensure that students experience a cohesive curriculum without gaps or redundancy.
Text complexity poses a major challenge for educators in grades 9–12 as students transition to classroom environments that increasingly rely on texts as a major source of learning. Defining what makes a text complex requires analyzing qualitative factors and quantitative measures, while also considering the characteristics of the reader and the demands of the related task. In addition, the CCSS encourage teachers to look across units, the school year, and grade bands to build a purposeful plan to scaffold student capacity for complex texts.
Shift Three: Focus on Speaking and Listening
