As a follow-up to yesterday's article, I found another by the same author. This one was published six years later, in 2004. It is entitled "Lexile Ratings Catch On." This one consists almost entirely of factual information about MetaMetrics and their system. It contains no interviews with naysayers, not a hint of the concern from Reid's earlier article. Either Reid, his publisher, or public opinion seems to have shifted significantly in the interim six years.
The article begins, "Despite some early critics who questioned its growing use, the Lexile Framework for Reading, a reading comprehension program that measures both the difficulty of a text and individual reading ability, is becoming a popular tool for evaluating and teaching reading by educators around the country" (8).
The rest of the article consists mostly of a description of the program, similar to what I saw in the materials published by MetaMetrics. The only other portion of note is the final paragraph, where Reid writes:
"[Malbert] Smith acknowledged that the Lexile ratings have some critics and are 'not a panacea for reading instruction. In our missionary zeal, we may have oversold it. But it's a technology that can assist academics and parents. It's a tool for educators who understand how to use it'" (8).
Apparently this is Smith's answer to any criticism; the educators who criticize the Lexile system simply don't understand how to use it.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that this article was published on page 8 of Publishers Weekly, whereas the critical article was buried on page 240. Reid describes MetaMetrics as "a privately held company, and Smith said the firm was profitable" (8). Whereas publishers were not anxious to work with MetaMetrics six years before, now, it seems, money talks. Frustrating.
Reid, Calvin. "Lexile Ratings Catch On." Publishers Weekly. 6 September 2004. Vol. 251 Issue 36, p 8.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Retrieving: The view of Lexiles in 1998
Today I read a short but interesting article published in 1998, when Lexiles were "a new technology and instruction method" (240). At first I wasn't sure if the article would be relevant to my study and just planned to skim it, but I soon found that it did, in fact, have some points of interest. The article is entitled "Lexile: Will All Books Need This Reading-Level Rating" and it was written by Calvin Reid.
What I thought was so interesting about this article is that it raises concerns about the Lexile system, right there at the beginning, that I still have today. Ever since the system began popular use, people have worried about the same things, and these issues never seem to have been resolved.
For example, one developer of the Lexile program, A. Jackson Stenner, stated in an interview that "the Lexile rating 'is not a panacea' and that it does not rate content, quality or developmental suitability" (240). 17 years after the publication of this article, many teachers and parents still don't seem to understand this concept and will hand students any book marked within their Lexile range.
The article states that initially, teachers asked "for a way to level texts and match beginning readers to the right texts" (240). I can understand using Lexiles with beginning readers, perhaps in kindergarten and first grade as reading skills are first emerging. But if Lexiles were initially meant for beginning readers, then it's ludicrous to think that we are now measuring high school, college, and workforce texts by Lexile, as the other articles I've read have discussed.
The article goes on to state:
"...some reading professionals are skeptical. Betty Carter, associate professor of library science at Texas Women's University, who studies reading and has examined the Lexile Framework's claims, is critical, noting that the Lexile rating ignores 'the internal qualities of the book,' that Lexile choices are 'mechanical' and that the service provides 'a false sense of selection.' Carter continued, 'It's important to read all over the levels map. If we limit choices, we limit the chances of kids becoming lifetime readers'" (240).
Carter's statements align perfectly with my own experiences with the Lexile system, 17 years later.
The article also quotes "a North Carolina educational administrator who has seen the MetaMetrics presentation" (240). The article states, "The educator, a specialist in teaching beginning reading, worried that inexperienced teachers might use it reflexively and carelessly" (240).
I would argue that the reality is worse than this administrator predicted: even experienced teachers now use this tool carelessly. I have yet to see any teacher use the tools created by MetaMetrics to create personalized Lexiled lists as the original program intended. Instead, students are simply instructed to "read only within their Lexile," with little regard to content or interest.
The article also included concerns from book distributors about "encouraging publishers to label their titles" and "about kids being ridiculed for having a low Lexile rating and about MetaMetrics' research" (240). Sources also expressed concern about the focus on MetaMetrics' list of specific Lexiled titles rather than "what librarians think they need for their collections" (240). In this early stage, many publishers expressed hesitation at allowing their titles to be Lexiled, arguing against the system.
Clearly, much has changed over the past 17 years, including the prevalence of standardized testing and the focus on Common Core Standards. However, I find it fascinating to note that many intelligent experts and professionals worried about the Lexile system's effectiveness from the start, and MetaMetrics seems to changed very little about the program to alleviate these worries.
Reid, Calvin. "Lexile: Will All Books Need This Reading-Level Rating?" Publishers Weekly. 10 August 1998. Vol. 245 Issue 32, p 240-241.
What I thought was so interesting about this article is that it raises concerns about the Lexile system, right there at the beginning, that I still have today. Ever since the system began popular use, people have worried about the same things, and these issues never seem to have been resolved.
For example, one developer of the Lexile program, A. Jackson Stenner, stated in an interview that "the Lexile rating 'is not a panacea' and that it does not rate content, quality or developmental suitability" (240). 17 years after the publication of this article, many teachers and parents still don't seem to understand this concept and will hand students any book marked within their Lexile range.
The article states that initially, teachers asked "for a way to level texts and match beginning readers to the right texts" (240). I can understand using Lexiles with beginning readers, perhaps in kindergarten and first grade as reading skills are first emerging. But if Lexiles were initially meant for beginning readers, then it's ludicrous to think that we are now measuring high school, college, and workforce texts by Lexile, as the other articles I've read have discussed.
The article goes on to state:
"...some reading professionals are skeptical. Betty Carter, associate professor of library science at Texas Women's University, who studies reading and has examined the Lexile Framework's claims, is critical, noting that the Lexile rating ignores 'the internal qualities of the book,' that Lexile choices are 'mechanical' and that the service provides 'a false sense of selection.' Carter continued, 'It's important to read all over the levels map. If we limit choices, we limit the chances of kids becoming lifetime readers'" (240).
Carter's statements align perfectly with my own experiences with the Lexile system, 17 years later.
The article also quotes "a North Carolina educational administrator who has seen the MetaMetrics presentation" (240). The article states, "The educator, a specialist in teaching beginning reading, worried that inexperienced teachers might use it reflexively and carelessly" (240).
I would argue that the reality is worse than this administrator predicted: even experienced teachers now use this tool carelessly. I have yet to see any teacher use the tools created by MetaMetrics to create personalized Lexiled lists as the original program intended. Instead, students are simply instructed to "read only within their Lexile," with little regard to content or interest.
The article also included concerns from book distributors about "encouraging publishers to label their titles" and "about kids being ridiculed for having a low Lexile rating and about MetaMetrics' research" (240). Sources also expressed concern about the focus on MetaMetrics' list of specific Lexiled titles rather than "what librarians think they need for their collections" (240). In this early stage, many publishers expressed hesitation at allowing their titles to be Lexiled, arguing against the system.
Clearly, much has changed over the past 17 years, including the prevalence of standardized testing and the focus on Common Core Standards. However, I find it fascinating to note that many intelligent experts and professionals worried about the Lexile system's effectiveness from the start, and MetaMetrics seems to changed very little about the program to alleviate these worries.
Reid, Calvin. "Lexile: Will All Books Need This Reading-Level Rating?" Publishers Weekly. 10 August 1998. Vol. 245 Issue 32, p 240-241.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Retrieving: Text Demands on Students
Today's article was a shorter one. It's entitled "Text Demands on Students Don't Meet Life's Demands" and was written by Melissa Ezarik.
The article's main argument rests on a statement from Gary L. Williamson from MetaMetrics. Responding to concerns from the workforce and colleges, Williamson concludes, "not only is the typical end-of-high school text lower in its text demand, but the vast majority of high school texts require less reading ability than most of the reading material students are likely to encounter after high school" (76).
This chart demonstrates what Williamson is saying:
The article's main argument rests on a statement from Gary L. Williamson from MetaMetrics. Responding to concerns from the workforce and colleges, Williamson concludes, "not only is the typical end-of-high school text lower in its text demand, but the vast majority of high school texts require less reading ability than most of the reading material students are likely to encounter after high school" (76).
This chart demonstrates what Williamson is saying:
The article was published in 2005, and I wonder how much its findings were responsible for the push in recent years to introduce more nonfiction and technical writings in the classroom. This has been a definite shift since I started teaching. But I'm not sure that it's truly "helping" students. While we may be challenging high school students to read texts that have higher lexiles, these texts also tend to have lower interest levels.
In my last few years of teaching, my high school students complained bitterly about assigned classroom texts. While meeting state and district requirements, I rarely got the chance to introduce texts that would capture their interest--or mine. I graduated a generation of students who never knew what it felt like to love reading, and I left the classroom for the library, convinced that I needed to get out of education if I wanted the chance to actually teach kids to like books. What kind of backwards logic is this? But it's what happens when we force-feed kids a diet of all high-lexile, low-interest texts. So while adults with low reading levels may indeed be a problem, the methods that we've employed over the past 10 years are not, in my opinion, the solution.
Ezarik, Melissa. "Text Demands on Students Don't Meet Life's Demands." District Administration. June 2005, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p 76.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Retrieving: Beyond the Classroom
Today's read is entitled "Beyond the Classroom." It was written by Malbert Smith, Anne Schiano, and Elizabeth Lattanzio, all of whom were employed by MetaMetrics, which makes me wary of the article's slant. However, the article was published in a journal published by the American Library Association, which legitimatizes it for me.
The article explains the growth of Common Core State Standards and how the Lexile Framework for Reading supports these standards. Smith, Schiano, and Lattanzio write:
"First and foremost, we need to take a more longitudinal perspective s we prepare all students for the reading demands post high school. Secondly, every grade, every subject, and every education professional is important in growing the literacy skills of our students. Too often we have viewed only a subset of our educators (K-3) as responsible for the reading growth of students. A third point is that we now have a quantitative measure to evaluate whether a student is reading on grade level, a measure that is consistent across districts, states, and our nation" (23).
The chart that the authors are referencing matches the one provided in the Hiebert article. Here is their rendition:
Later in the article, I was surprised to find this section:
"Unlike some qualitative text-complexity tools that are just 'text-centric,' the Lexile Framework was created through a conjoint measurement model of both reader and text. In the creation of the Lexile Framework, the importance of the qualitative portion of the triangle was also recognized. These qualitative features are important and include such characteristics as developmental appropriateness, intended audience, purpose, and even factors such as the book's jacket art. When matching readers to books, it is important to pay attention to all of these features. In trying to address some of these qualitative features, MetaMetrics also provides a series of codes. These codes, while not exhaustive, are intended to capture some of this information that is outside the quantitative measurement of Lexile measures" (24).
Recognition of these qualitative qualities and use of these codes had not been mentioned in any other article I had read, published either my MetaMetrics or any other publisher. As I reviewed the codes, I realized that I had seen books marked "BR" and "GN," but never with any of the other codes. I wonder how prevalent use of these codes is. It seems like it might be complicated to get students to understand them, particularly since I'm not sure I completely understand some of the definitions myself. However, if used properly, they might address some of my concerns about content and maturity.
I think it's also important to note that the authors provided somewhat of a disclaimer on their own work, similar to what I've been arguing all along. They write:
"Many factors affect the relationship between a reader and a book, including its content the age and interests of the reader, and the design of the actual book. The Lexile measure is an important tool in the book-selection process. However, no tool can replace the professional judgment of a teacher, parent, or librarian in helping students select books for educational and recreational reading" (26).
Yes. Lexile is a tool, only a tool. This part, I agree wholeheartedly with. But as teachers face the growing demands of Common Core, will they use the tool correctly?
Smith III, Malbert, Anne Schiano, and Elizabeth Lattanzio. "Beyond the Classroom." Knowledge Quest. Jan/Feb 2014, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p 20-29.
The article explains the growth of Common Core State Standards and how the Lexile Framework for Reading supports these standards. Smith, Schiano, and Lattanzio write:
"First and foremost, we need to take a more longitudinal perspective s we prepare all students for the reading demands post high school. Secondly, every grade, every subject, and every education professional is important in growing the literacy skills of our students. Too often we have viewed only a subset of our educators (K-3) as responsible for the reading growth of students. A third point is that we now have a quantitative measure to evaluate whether a student is reading on grade level, a measure that is consistent across districts, states, and our nation" (23).
The chart that the authors are referencing matches the one provided in the Hiebert article. Here is their rendition:
Later in the article, I was surprised to find this section:
"Unlike some qualitative text-complexity tools that are just 'text-centric,' the Lexile Framework was created through a conjoint measurement model of both reader and text. In the creation of the Lexile Framework, the importance of the qualitative portion of the triangle was also recognized. These qualitative features are important and include such characteristics as developmental appropriateness, intended audience, purpose, and even factors such as the book's jacket art. When matching readers to books, it is important to pay attention to all of these features. In trying to address some of these qualitative features, MetaMetrics also provides a series of codes. These codes, while not exhaustive, are intended to capture some of this information that is outside the quantitative measurement of Lexile measures" (24).
Recognition of these qualitative qualities and use of these codes had not been mentioned in any other article I had read, published either my MetaMetrics or any other publisher. As I reviewed the codes, I realized that I had seen books marked "BR" and "GN," but never with any of the other codes. I wonder how prevalent use of these codes is. It seems like it might be complicated to get students to understand them, particularly since I'm not sure I completely understand some of the definitions myself. However, if used properly, they might address some of my concerns about content and maturity.
"Many factors affect the relationship between a reader and a book, including its content the age and interests of the reader, and the design of the actual book. The Lexile measure is an important tool in the book-selection process. However, no tool can replace the professional judgment of a teacher, parent, or librarian in helping students select books for educational and recreational reading" (26).
Yes. Lexile is a tool, only a tool. This part, I agree wholeheartedly with. But as teachers face the growing demands of Common Core, will they use the tool correctly?
Smith III, Malbert, Anne Schiano, and Elizabeth Lattanzio. "Beyond the Classroom." Knowledge Quest. Jan/Feb 2014, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p 20-29.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Planning: Feedback from Professor
Today I received from feedback from my professor about my proposed project. Professor Kramer also supports the idea of research into lexiles. Having worked in school media centers and with curriculum development for many years, she is certain of her own opinion on the matter. Via our course tools, she told me, "I personally DO feel that this is an argument to research, perfect and have with the principal. There is NOTHING good about restricting kids to books at their level exclusively and they are ultimately harming readers."
I am encouraged by this feedback, as it fits with my own feelings and with what I am finding. Proceeding onwards....!
I am encouraged by this feedback, as it fits with my own feelings and with what I am finding. Proceeding onwards....!
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Retrieving: Beyond Single Readability Measures
Today's reading was heavier than the other articles I have tackled. It is a study entitled "Beyond Single Readability Measures: Using Multiple Sources of Information in Establishing Text Complexity" and was written by Elfrieda H. Hiebert.
Hiebert explains that:
"...the Lexiles have been recalibrated from longstanding recommendations of Lexiles for particular grade levels to a "grade-by-grade" 'staircase' from beginning reading to the college and career readiness level." (CSS Initiative, 2010, p. 8). Beginning with the grade 2-3 band text complexity levels have been increased to ensure that readers will acquire text levels of college and career by the end of high school. The explicit parameters for Lexiles by grade bands, the ease of obtaining Lexile scores, and the lack of ready access to validated qualitative rubrics mean that policymakers and educators could place considerable weight on Lexiles in choosing texts for instruction and assessment" (33).
Here is a copy of the chart of recalibrated lexile ranges from Hiebert's article:
Hiebert explains that:
"...the Lexiles have been recalibrated from longstanding recommendations of Lexiles for particular grade levels to a "grade-by-grade" 'staircase' from beginning reading to the college and career readiness level." (CSS Initiative, 2010, p. 8). Beginning with the grade 2-3 band text complexity levels have been increased to ensure that readers will acquire text levels of college and career by the end of high school. The explicit parameters for Lexiles by grade bands, the ease of obtaining Lexile scores, and the lack of ready access to validated qualitative rubrics mean that policymakers and educators could place considerable weight on Lexiles in choosing texts for instruction and assessment" (33).
Here is a copy of the chart of recalibrated lexile ranges from Hiebert's article:
If we are trying to "ensure" that students reach a certain reading level, though, would ask--what happens to the students who are left behind? I know there are plenty of students at my school who do not measure up to these ideals. What are we to do for them?
Hiebert takes issue with the way lexiles are measured in the first place. She argues:
"In narrative texts with substantial amounts of dialogue, average sentence length can be influenced by the author's awareness that people typically use relatively short sentences in conversations. As a result, the difficulty of narrative text is typically underestimated. Such underestimations are most evident in texts such as the classic Old Man and the Sea (Hemingway, 1952) that has a exile of 940 (which falls into the grade 4-5 band of the recalibrated Lexile levels)" (34).
This is an excellent point. No educator would give fifth graders Old Man and the Sea as an exemplar text. As an English teacher, I taught this novel to a talented group of freshmen, many of whom still struggled with the novel's larger concepts. Clearly, lexile measures cannot stand alone.
Hiebert goes on to examine MetaMetrics' methods for examining text complexity. Through using charts, exemplars, and detailed analysis, Hiebert convincingly argues that MetaMetrics' methods are flawed. Hiebert concludes that teachers must rely on their own skills and "in-depth knowledge that comes from their experience with students and books" (39) rather than the Lexile system to match students with appropriate reading materials.
Hiebert sums up by writing:
"The important fact to remember is that a readability formula can only provide a rough estimate of a text's difficulty. Quantitative data must be followed by qualitative analyses that examine the complexity of themes and style, and texts should be considered relative to the strengths and needs of the students who will be reading them and to the contexts in which they will be used" (40).
Yes!!
Hiebert, Elfrieda H. "Beyond Single Readability Measure: Using Multiple Sources of Information in Establishing Text Complexity." Journal of Education. 2010/2011, Vol. 191 Issue 2, p 33-42.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Retrieving: Reading in the Wild
For one of my grad courses, I'm currently reading Reading in the Wild by Donalyn Miller. I absolutely LOVE this book. It is filled simply fantastic, revolutionary, hands-on ideas about changing the way we teach reading that really resonate with me. While reading this week, I was surprised and pleased to run across a section where Miller shares her thoughts on lexile.
Echoing my own feelings, Miller writes:
"I have no issue with assessing students' reading levels and identifying text complexity. As a teacher, I find such information helpful when determining my students' reading ability and what books might fit them. What concerns me is that in many situations, Lexile measures become the sole factor in book selection and recommendation" (63).
Miller goes on:
"While identifying readability can be useful when evaluating textbooks, guided reading texts, or other teaching materials, selecting books for classroom instruction and recommending books for independent reading are two different processes. Avid readers do not always read at the edge of their competence, traveling through increasingly more difficult texts as leveling systems prescribe. Given free choice, readers select reading material according to their interests, preferences, background knowledge, purposes for reading, and personal motivation" (63).
This description matches my daughter perfectly. Indeed, it accurately describes nearly all of the children who come into my school library, seeking books that will interest them. Very rarely do I have a child ask for a "hard" book.
Miller writes:
"I hear horrifying stories about teachers and librarians who rigidly enforce Lexile bands, preventing children from reading books that aren't at their Lexile level; for example, they won't let students read an entire series because every book isn't at their Lexile, or students can't use sections of school and classroom libraries because the books are too easy or too hard according to Lexile measures" (63).
Yes, these stories are true. I've seen these things happen myself, sometimes at my own school. When we turn students away from books that they truly want to read, what kind of message are we sending them? Are we fostering a love for reading or squelching it?
Miller continues her argument:
"According to MetaMetric's website, 'Many other factors affect the relationship between a reader and a book, including its content, the age and interests of the reader, and the design of the actual book. The Lexile text measure is a good starting point in the book-selection process, with these other factors then being considered.' With Lexile measures touted as one key indicator of text complexity as defined by Common Core State Standards, we must critically consider what Lexile bands offer teachers and students and what they don't. Overreliance on reading level systems hinders children from learning how to self-select books. Bookstores, [public] libraries, and Grandma's bookshelf aren't leveled. Beyond students' and books' reading levels, we must consider content and interests when selecting materials and recommending books for independent reading. Slavish devotion to numbers doesn't benefit readers. We can't shortcut or disregard knowing books and knowing readers, and then building connections between them" (64).
I believe that Miller is absolutely right. Even if we were to execute the Lexile system effectively in our elementary schools (which we are currently not doing), it is not a system that can follow students through their lives. If we teach students to rely on picking books only from a leveled list, they will lack the ability to select books based on interest and content, which is a skill they will need for the rest of their lives. Isn't this the skill we should be teaching?
Miller, Donalyn and Susan Kelley. Reading in the Wild: The Book Whisperer's Keys to Cultivating Lifelong Reading Habits. New York: Scholastic Inc., 2014.
Echoing my own feelings, Miller writes:
"I have no issue with assessing students' reading levels and identifying text complexity. As a teacher, I find such information helpful when determining my students' reading ability and what books might fit them. What concerns me is that in many situations, Lexile measures become the sole factor in book selection and recommendation" (63).
Miller goes on:
"While identifying readability can be useful when evaluating textbooks, guided reading texts, or other teaching materials, selecting books for classroom instruction and recommending books for independent reading are two different processes. Avid readers do not always read at the edge of their competence, traveling through increasingly more difficult texts as leveling systems prescribe. Given free choice, readers select reading material according to their interests, preferences, background knowledge, purposes for reading, and personal motivation" (63).
This description matches my daughter perfectly. Indeed, it accurately describes nearly all of the children who come into my school library, seeking books that will interest them. Very rarely do I have a child ask for a "hard" book.
Miller writes:
"I hear horrifying stories about teachers and librarians who rigidly enforce Lexile bands, preventing children from reading books that aren't at their Lexile level; for example, they won't let students read an entire series because every book isn't at their Lexile, or students can't use sections of school and classroom libraries because the books are too easy or too hard according to Lexile measures" (63).
Yes, these stories are true. I've seen these things happen myself, sometimes at my own school. When we turn students away from books that they truly want to read, what kind of message are we sending them? Are we fostering a love for reading or squelching it?
Miller continues her argument:
"According to MetaMetric's website, 'Many other factors affect the relationship between a reader and a book, including its content, the age and interests of the reader, and the design of the actual book. The Lexile text measure is a good starting point in the book-selection process, with these other factors then being considered.' With Lexile measures touted as one key indicator of text complexity as defined by Common Core State Standards, we must critically consider what Lexile bands offer teachers and students and what they don't. Overreliance on reading level systems hinders children from learning how to self-select books. Bookstores, [public] libraries, and Grandma's bookshelf aren't leveled. Beyond students' and books' reading levels, we must consider content and interests when selecting materials and recommending books for independent reading. Slavish devotion to numbers doesn't benefit readers. We can't shortcut or disregard knowing books and knowing readers, and then building connections between them" (64).
I believe that Miller is absolutely right. Even if we were to execute the Lexile system effectively in our elementary schools (which we are currently not doing), it is not a system that can follow students through their lives. If we teach students to rely on picking books only from a leveled list, they will lack the ability to select books based on interest and content, which is a skill they will need for the rest of their lives. Isn't this the skill we should be teaching?
Miller, Donalyn and Susan Kelley. Reading in the Wild: The Book Whisperer's Keys to Cultivating Lifelong Reading Habits. New York: Scholastic Inc., 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)