Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Education
Curriculum Studies

Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Profile image of Elfrieda H HiebertElfrieda H Hiebert

2015, Language Arts

Abstract

Much attention has been paid to the call in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010) for more reading and writing of informational text in the elementary grades. Indeed, in the context of the CCSS, informational text is on even footing with literature—perhaps for the first time ever. It would be possible to respond to the call for more attention to informational texts by simply changing the balance of different text types used for instructional purposes. In this article, we discuss why this approach would miss of the intent of the CCSS and why we should focus attention on using the opportunity of reading more informational text to build students’ disciplinary and world knowledge. We suggest that the critical message of the CCSS is the need to support students in developing knowledge for and through reading. To understand how knowledge should and can be foregrounded in ELA instruction, we develop three points: • The increased attention to nonfiction texts in the Common Core stems from the emphasis on knowledge. • Knowledge and comprehension are synergistically connected to one another. • ELA instruction needs to be multifaceted to ensure that existing knowledge is activated and new knowledge (and ways of gaining new knowledge) is built.

Related papers

Increase Informational Text in Middle School
Nicole Leyva

The new Common Core Standards and Virginia Standards of Learning call for an increase in informational/nonfiction text in the language arts classroom. Students are performing at low levels in this specific genre in one urban eastern Virginia school district, and more than half of the district middles schools are in accreditation warning due to low scores on the state standardized reading test. In this paper Bandura’s social learning theory provides the framework supported by other searchers in the fields of self-efficacy, technology, science-based instructional strategies, and professional development. District reading data is analyzed along with an audit of the middle school language arts curriculum, with recommendations on how build student-efficacy, implementing computer-based reading program, the use of science-based instructional strategies, building teacher-efficacy, and the development of job-embedded professional development. Lastly, a reflection is provided with a list of strengths and weaknesses of this report.

View PDFchevron_right
Task, Text, and Talk: Literacy for All Subjects
Jody Bintz, Lauren Resnicow, Victoria Bill

2008

Disciplinary literacy builds secondary students' academic content knowledge and their reading, writing, and thinking skills at the same time.

View PDFchevron_right
Selecting Quality Nonfiction in the Common Core Era
Naomi Watkins, Lauren Liang
View PDFchevron_right
Teaching Content to English Learners in the Era of the Common Core Standards
Megan Schramm Possinger

2014

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released in 2010 (for mathematics, English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects). These new standards set high benchmarks for what K–12 students need to know to compete in a global, knowledge-based economy (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann, 2012). The standards, adopted by 45 states, require students to demonstrate high levels of competency in literacy skills. For example, the CCSS require all students to demonstrate critical thinking skills when processing texts of different lengths and levels of complexity, to extract important concepts from a large amount of print and digital media, to explain their point of view based on evidence, and, while doing so, to meet the standards already established by content-area experts in mathematics, science, social studies, and other disciplines. It has been pointed out that the standards are intended to increa...

View PDFchevron_right
The Sixth Pillar of Reading Instruction: Knowledge Development
Elfrieda H Hiebert

The Reading Teacher, 2015

The National Reading Panel (NRP) identified five pillars, or essential components, of reading instruction that lead to the highest chance of reading success—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A decade after the NRP’s report, the majority of US states adopted the Common Core State Standards/English Language Arts & Literacy (CCSS/ELA). One of the most significant changes of the CCSS/ELA is a focus on knowledge development as part of literacy development and focus on the acquisition of literacy skills specific to different disciplines. In highlighting these connections between ELA and knowledge as part of literacy, the CCSS/ELA provide an opportunity for teachers to emphasize what research has validated for decades: that knowledge is a critical component of the reading process. In this column, we describe why knowledge development should be viewed as the sixth pillar of reading instruction and how teachers can increase their students’ knowledge building through reading.

View PDFchevron_right
Preparing Secondary Students for 21st Century Literacy Through Content-Area Reading Instruction
Nancy Joseph

Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Frank Views on Literacy Learning and the Common Core
Elfrieda H Hiebert

2014

This volume is an amalgam of the Frankly Freddys posted at TextProject.org from 2005 to 2014. Each column was intended to stand alone. However, when clustered topically, the columns coalesced into five topics in literacy learning and instruction that have been central to my work: text complexity; vocabulary and morphological awareness; beginning reading, automaticity, fluency, and core vocabulary; reading volume, stamina, and silent reading; comprehension, knowledge building, and assessment.

View PDFchevron_right
Writing for Comprehension: How does Writing Influence Informational Reading Comprehension in the Elementary Classroom?
Roya Scales

Literacy Practice and Research, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
The Use of Nonfiction/Informational Trade Books in an Elementary Classroom
Connie Briggs

1994

View PDFchevron_right
Changes in the Texts of Reading Instruction during the Past Fifty Years
Leigh Ann Martin, Elfrieda H Hiebert

Practices for Teaching Common Core Literacy, 2015

The premise of this chapter, as is the case with the entire volume, is that solutions to the problems of the present can benefit from an understanding of the efforts of the past. The current policy to ramp up text levels illustrates a problem where all existing knowledge needs to be brought to bear—whether that knowledge comes from theoretically derived research, tried and true practice, or commonsense. The contexts of classrooms in the 1960s may not be exactly the same as those of the 2010s but, in any reading interaction, the fundamental participants remain the same—students reading texts with the support of teachers. We begin by comparing the texts over the past 50 years. Then we examine curricular and policy events that have influenced the elementary texts used during the period. The final section of the chapter provides recommendations for how teachers might employ evidence-based practices to responds to these increased demands for challenging texts.

View PDFchevron_right

References (40)

  1. Adams, B. C., Bell, L. S., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children's text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20(3), 307-323.
  2. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students' knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125- 146.
  3. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197-202.
  4. Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T.. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 367-381.
  5. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137-164.
  6. Brandão, A. C., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer? Children's use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 687-713.
  7. Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631-658.
  8. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). The Journal of Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163.
  9. Coleman and Pimenthal (2012). Revised publishers' criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3-12. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf
  10. De La Paz, S., & Felton, M.K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 174-192.
  11. Gaultney, J. F. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59(1), 142-163.
  12. Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in science and literacy instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  13. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., David, M. H., … Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.
  14. Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829.
  15. Hartman, D.K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(30(, 520-561.
  16. Hirsch, E.D., Kett, J.F., & Trefil, J. (2002). The new dictionary of cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  17. Knapp, M.S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  18. Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as learning through the curriculum. College English, 45(5), 465-474.
  19. Lock, D. (2013). Astronaut: Living in space. New York, NY: DK Readers.
  20. Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations with recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 816-827.
  21. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep- dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&Document
  22. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288.
  23. Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 99-113.
  24. Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I.A.G., Soter, A.O., Hennessey, M.N., & Alexander, J.F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(3), 740-764.
  25. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Available at www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  26. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  27. Norris, S.P., Phillips, L.M., Smith, M.L., Guilbert, S.M., Stange, D.M., Baker, J.J., & Weber, A.C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765-798.
  28. Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201-209.
  29. Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273-295.
  30. Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N.K., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre- specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
  31. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16-20.
  32. Rivard, L., & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.
  33. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 272-304.
  34. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360- 407.
  36. Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35.
  37. Taft, M. L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(2), 163-179.
  38. Teng, H.C., Kasinathan, J., Low, V., Brian, M.I., & Shukri, A.B. (2012). Improving science learning through writing-to-learn strategy. Biology Education for Social and Sustainable Development, pp. 187-195.
  39. Textual Tools Study Group (2006). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 261-285). Washington, DC: NSTA.
  40. Turner, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.

Related papers

Knowledge at the Center of English Language Arts Instruction
Elfrieda H Hiebert

The Reading Teacher, 2019

Literacy instruction has traditionally focused on strategies intended to teach children how to read, but decades of research has made it clear that knowledge – the knowledge provided within a text and the existing relevant knowledge of the reader – is the most important factor in reading comprehension and reading-based learning. Readers use existing knowledge to add meaning to a text and to make connections with prior and new knowledge. This is true whether the reader is a native speaker or a second language learner. Despite the numerous studies that demonstrate the efficacy of knowledge-building instruction, however, literacy education does not typically focus on the building of knowledge. Instead, teachers focus on activation of prior knowledge, by asking conceptually or thematically related pre-reading questions. It is thought that by bringing existing knowledge to mind, readers are more likely to use that information to understand the text. Yet this strategy marginalizes students who lack the required foreknowledge and diverts attention from the practice of integrating new information with prior knowledge in a way that supports future reading and comprehension. Further, there is a false dichotomy between the notions of “learning to read” and “reading to learn,” which suggests that the former is solely about the strategic process of decoding: texts need not be rich in meaning. Although decoding is a necessary skill to master during early literacy, there is no need to exclude meaningful, knowledge-building texts from early instruction. In this article, we discuss five knowledge-building classroom practices: 1) Ensure that students read a lot to gain practice and exposure to new vocabulary and knowledge; 2) Include rich, engaging texts in assigned reading and read-alouds, with a balance of fiction and nonfiction; 3) Teach students to use their knowledge to understand texts by forming inferences and engaging in higher-order thinking; 4) Don’t sacrifice content-area teaching in favor of literacy instruction – content areas such as science and social studies can provide important knowledge to students and can be integrated into the literacy curriculum; 5) Give students authentic opportunities to read and write, allowing them insight into the importance of literacy in life beyond school.

View PDFchevron_right
Filling the Great Void Why We Should Bring Nonfiction into the Early-Grade Classroom
Nell K. Duke

American Educator, 2003

Data from several different sources converge on the point that informational text is scarce in primary-grade classrooms. One such source of data is the analyses of the text genres represented in basal reading series. The proportions we found reported in studies within the last two decades ranged from a high of 33.8 percent factual articles in eight basal reading series for grade 2 (Schmidt, Caul, Byers, & Buchman, 1984) to a low of 12 percent nonfiction in five basal reading series for grade 1 (Hoffman et al., 1994). In the most recent analysis of which we are aware, Moss and Newton (1998) examined six grade-2 basal reading series, copyright 1995 to 1997. They found a mean of 16 percent of selections that could be classified as informational literature.

View PDFchevron_right
Reading Horizons Addressing the 'Shift': Preparing Preservice Secondary Teachers for the Common Core
Stephanie M Bennett, Steven Hart

Common Core represents a shift in content-area literacy instruction, broadening from a narrow focus on generalizable skills to also include a disciplinary perspective of literacies specific to the specialized language and habits of thinking within particular subjects. This requires teachers to be knowledgeable in their content and possess competence in pedagogical practices that allow them to scaffold their students' literacy development within these disciplines. We examined how the implementation of a Disciplinary Literacy Project into a content-area literacy course influenced preservice secondary teachers' disciplinary literacy practice. The findings suggest structured inquiry into disciplinary communities enhances preservice teachers' understanding of disciplinary literacy, but this knowledge is not easily transferred into classroom instruction. Implications for future research on disciplinary literacy models and preservice teacher preparation are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Effective questions about literature and nonfiction texts require students to delve into a text to find answers
Nancy Frey

2012

The types of questions that students are asked about a text influence how they read it. If students are asked recall and recitation questions, they learn to read for that type of information. If they are asked synthesis questions, they learn to read for that type of information. Unfor­ tunately, many of the questions that students are asked are about personal connections, which may not even re­ quire that they have read the text at all. The architects of the Common Core State Standards in English Lan ­ guage Arts are challenging the practice of asking students questions that can be answered without reading the text. They are pressing for questions that instead require students to locate evi ­ dence within the text. Those text­ dependent questions require students to read carefully and produce evidence in their verbal and written responses. This is not to say that personal con­ nections should be avoided at all costs— after all, readers naturally com pare the information they are rea...

View PDFchevron_right
The Common Core Goes to College: The Potential for Disciplinary Literacy Approaches in Developmental Literacy Classes
Jodi Holschuh
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Common Core
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved