American Library Association



When Leveling Helps, When It Doesn’t, and How Libraries Can Make the Best of It Lu Benke, M.A., M.A.L.S., lubenke@Jim Erekson, Ph. D., james.erekson@unco.eduAssociation of Library Services to Children National Institute - September 28-29, 2018ReferencesAmerican Library Association. (2015, July 13). Labeling Systems. Retrieved from Library Association. (2007, May 29). Questions and Answers on Labeling and Rating Systems. Retrieved from Begeny, J. C., & Greene, D. J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials??Psychology in the Schools,?51(2), 198-215. doi:10.1002/pits.21740Betts, E. A. (1950).?Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. New York: American Book mon Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards; glossary of key terms. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Supplemental information for appendix A of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).Dzaldov, B. S., & Peterson, S. (2005). Book leveling and readers.?The Reading Teacher,?59(3), 222-229. doi:10.1598/RT.59.3.2Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling.?The Reading Teacher,?56(3), 286-291.Fusaro, J. A. (1988). Applying statistical rigor to a validation study of the Fry readability graph.?Reading Research and Instruction,?28(1), 44-48. doi:10.1080/19388078809557957Glasswell, K., & Ford, M. (2011). Let's start leveling about leveling.?Language Arts,?Retrieved from?, D., & Duffet, A. M. (2018). Reading and writing instruction in American schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from , K. (2017a, Nov 1). Fountas and Pinnell lament labels: SLJ talks to the creators of a reading system, widely used and controversial. School Library Journal,?63, 15.Parrott, K. (2017b, Aug 1). Thinking outside the bin: Why labeling books by reading level disempowers young readers.?School Library Journal,?63, 42.Rumberger, A. (2018). Levels in the library. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(8), 57-61. Retrieved from Hudson Library System. (n.d.) Text leveling: What’s the public library’s role? Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from , J. A., & Wedwick, L. (2005). BOOKMATCH: Scaffolding book selection for independent reading.?The Reading Teacher,?59(1), 16-32. doi:10.1598/RT.59.1.3Useful URLs: - Book search tool that lists several level systems - Handy search tool combining book levels with interest levels - Explanation of frustration level text - Early Reader level system for public libraries *******************************************************************************************Using Common Core (CCSS) Rationale to Increase Flexibility in Giving a Book a Level*The first section of the CCSS Appendix on Text Complexity blends quantitative and qualitative measures of text complexity with reader and task considerations along with known shortcomings of leveling systems in making decisions about text levels. The following checklist gives reasons that a book, while not on the required grade level according to a leveling system, may be on grade level according to other qualitative and reader variables recognized by Common Core. According to CCSS research, K–1 texts can’t be accurately leveled.Non-standard prose such as plays, interviews, poetry, recipes, or lists, which all have non-standard punctuation, cannot be accurately processed by leveling systems.Research indicates that informational texts are generally harder to read than narratives.Qualitative dimensions of text complexity may ultimately overrule quantitative measures and place some texts at a higher level, such asTexts with more complex structure using flashbacks, flash-forwards, multiple points of view and other manipulations of time and sequence Texts with figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic, or otherwise unfamiliar language Texts that make many assumptions about the readers’ life experiences and depth of knowledge Texts with multiple levels of meaning (such as satires, postmodern picture books, texts contradicting the author’s literal message, etc.) Reader and task considerations such as child’s motivation, knowledge, or experiences may warrant a higher or lower placement. Appraisal of the level is best done by professional educators using their judgment, experience, and knowledge of the child and subject. *Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Supplemental information for appendix A of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download