Appendix A

User Manual: A

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 43

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

common core state STANDARDS FOR

English Language Arts
&
Literacy in
History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects
Appendix A:
Research Supporting
Key Elements of the Standards
Glossary of Key Terms

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Reading
One of the key requirements of the Common Core State Standards for Reading is that all students must be able to
comprehend texts of steadily increasing complexity as they progress through school. By the time they complete the
core, students must be able to read and comprehend independently and proficiently the kinds of complex texts commonly found in college and careers. The first part of this section makes a research-based case for why the complexity of what students read matters. In brief, while reading demands in college, workforce training programs, and life in
general have held steady or increased over the last half century, K–12 texts have actually declined in sophistication,
and relatively little attention has been paid to students’ ability to read complex texts independently. These conditions
have left a serious gap between many high school seniors’ reading ability and the reading requirements they will face
after graduation. The second part of this section addresses how text complexity can be measured and made a regular
part of instruction. It introduces a three-part model that blends qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity with reader and task considerations. The section concludes with three annotated examples showing how the
model can be used to assess the complexity of various kinds of texts appropriate for different grade levels.

Why Text Complexity Matters
In 2006, ACT, Inc., released a report called Reading Between the Lines that showed which skills differentiated those
students who equaled or exceeded the benchmark score (21 out of 36) in the reading section of the ACT college admissions test from those who did not. Prior ACT research had shown that students achieving the benchmark score or
better in reading—which only about half (51 percent) of the roughly half million test takers in the 2004–2005 academic year had done—had a high probability (75 percent chance) of earning a C or better in an introductory, credit-bearing course in U.S. history or psychology (two common reading-intensive courses taken by first-year college students)
and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in such a course.1
Surprisingly, what chiefly distinguished the performance of those students who had earned the benchmark score or
better from those who had not was not their relative ability in making inferences while reading or answering questions
related to particular cognitive processes, such as determining main ideas or determining the meaning of words and
phrases in context. Instead, the clearest differentiator was students’ ability to answer questions associated with complex texts. Students scoring below benchmark performed no better than chance (25 percent correct) on four-option
multiple-choice questions pertaining to passages rated as “complex” on a three-point qualitative rubric described in
the report. These findings held for male and female students, students from all racial/ethnic groups, and students from
families with widely varying incomes. The most important implication of this study was that a pedagogy focused only
on “higher-order” or “critical” thinking was insufficient to ensure that students were ready for college and careers:
what students could read, in terms of its complexity, was at least as important as what they could do with what they
read.
The ACT report is one part of an extensive body of research attesting to the importance of text complexity in reading
achievement. The clear, alarming picture that emerges from the evidence, briefly summarized below2, is that while the
reading demands of college, workforce training programs, and citizenship have held steady or risen over the past fifty
years or so, K–12 texts have, if anything, become less demanding. This finding is the impetus behind the Standards’
strong emphasis on increasing text complexity as a key requirement in reading.

College, Careers, and Citizenship: Steady or Increasing Complexity of Texts and Tasks
Research indicates that the demands that college, careers, and citizenship place on readers have either held steady or
increased over roughly the last fifty years. The difficulty of college textbooks, as measured by Lexile scores, has not
decreased in any block of time since 1962; it has, in fact, increased over that period (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press).
The word difficulty of every scientific journal and magazine from 1930 to 1990 examined by Hayes and Ward (1992)
had actually increased, which is important in part because, as a 2005 College Board study (Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, &
Kubota, 2005) found, college professors assign more readings from periodicals than do high school teachers. Workplace reading, measured in Lexiles, exceeds grade 12 complexity significantly, although there is considerable variation
(Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). The vocabulary difficulty of newspapers remained stable over the 1963–1991 period
Hayes and his colleagues (Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolfe, 1996) studied.
Furthermore, students in college are expected to read complex texts with substantially greater independence (i.e.,
much less scaffolding) than are students in typical K–12 programs. College students are held more accountable for
what they read on their own than are most students in high school (Erickson & Strommer, 1991; Pritchard, Wilson, &
Yamnitz, 2007). College instructors assign readings, not necessarily explicated in class, for which students might be
held accountable through exams, papers, presentations, or class discussions. Students in high school, by contrast, are
appendix A |

1
In the 2008–2009 academic year, only 53 percent of students achieved the reading benchmark score or higher; the increase
from 2004–2005 was not statistically significant. See ACT, Inc. (2009).
2
Much of the summary found in the next two sections is heavily influenced by Marilyn Jager Adams’s painstaking review of
the relevant literature. See Adams (2009).

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

rarely held accountable for what they are able to read independently (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). This discrepancy in
task demand, coupled with what we see below is a vast gap in text complexity, may help explain why only about half
of the students taking the ACT Test in the 2004–2005 academic year could meet the benchmark score in reading
(which also was the case in 2008–2009, the most recent year for which data are available) and why so few students
in general are prepared for postsecondary reading (ACT, Inc., 2006, 2009).

K–12 Schooling: Declining Complexity of Texts
and a Lack of Reading of Complex Texts Independently
Despite steady or growing reading demands from various sources, K–12 reading texts have actually trended downward
in difficulty in the last half century. Jeanne Chall and her colleagues (Chall, Conard, & Harris, 1977) found a thirteenyear decrease from 1963 to 1975 in the difficulty of grade 1, grade 6, and (especially) grade 11 texts. Extending the
period to 1991, Hayes, Wolfer, and Wolfe (1996) found precipitous declines (relative to the period from 1946 to 1962) in
average sentence length and vocabulary level in reading textbooks for a variety of grades. Hayes also found that while
science books were more difficult to read than literature books, only books for Advanced Placement (AP) classes had
vocabulary levels equivalent to those of even newspapers of the time (Hayes & Ward, 1992). Carrying the research
closer to the present day, Gary L. Williamson (2006) found a 350L (Lexile) gap between the difficulty of end-of-high
school and college texts—a gap equivalent to 1.5 standard deviations and more than the Lexile difference between
grade 4 and grade 8 texts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although legitimate questions
can be raised about the tools used to measure text complexity (e.g., Mesmer, 2008), what is relevant in these numbers
is the general, steady decline—over time, across grades, and substantiated by several sources—in the difficulty and
likely also the sophistication of content of the texts students have been asked to read in school since 1962.
There is also evidence that current standards, curriculum, and instructional practice have not done enough to foster
the independent reading of complex texts so crucial for college and career readiness, particularly in the case of informational texts. K–12 students are, in general, given considerable scaffolding—assistance from teachers, class discussions, and the texts themselves (in such forms as summaries, glossaries, and other text features)—with reading that is
already less complex overall than that typically required of students prior to 1962.3 What is more, students today are
asked to read very little expository text—as little as 7 and 15 percent of elementary and middle school instructional
reading, for example, is expository (Hoffman, Sabo, Bliss, & Hoy, 1994; Moss & Newton, 2002; Yopp & Yopp, 2006)—
yet much research supports the conclusion that such text is harder for most students to read than is narrative text
(Bowen & Roth, 1999; Bowen, Roth, & McGinn, 1999, 2002; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008),
that students need sustained exposure to expository text to develop important reading strategies (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008; Kintsch, 1998, 2009; McNamara, Graesser, & Louwerse, in press; Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005;
van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001; van den Broek, Risden, & Husebye-Hartmann, 1995), and that
expository text makes up the vast majority of the required reading in college and the workplace (Achieve, Inc., 2007).
Worse still, what little expository reading students are asked to do is too often of the superficial variety that involves
skimming and scanning for particular, discrete pieces of information; such reading is unlikely to prepare students for
the cognitive demand of true understanding of complex text.

The Consequences: Too Many Students Reading at Too Low a Level
The impact that low reading achievement has on students’ readiness for college, careers, and life in general is significant. To put the matter bluntly, a high school graduate who is a poor reader is a postsecondary student who must
struggle mightily to succeed. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Wirt, Choy, Rooney, Provasnik, Sen,
& Tobin, 2004) reports that although needing to take one or more remedial/developmental courses of any sort lowers a student’s chance of eventually earning a degree or certificate, “the need for remedial reading appears to be the
most serious barrier to degree completion” (p. 63). Only 30 percent of 1992 high school seniors who went on to enroll
in postsecondary education between 1992 and 2000 and then took any remedial reading course went on to receive a
degree or certificate, compared to 69 percent of the 1992 seniors who took no postsecondary remedial courses and
57 percent of those who took one remedial course in a subject other than reading or mathematics. Considering that 11
percent of those high school seniors required at least one remedial reading course, the societal impact of low reading
achievement is as profound as its impact on the aspirations of individual students.
Reading levels among the adult population are also disturbingly low. The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, Boyle, Hsu, & Dunleavy, 2007) reported that 14 percent of adults read prose texts at “below
basic” level, meaning they could exhibit “no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills”; a similarly small
number (13 percent) could read prose texts at the “proficient level,” meaning they could perform “more complex
and challenging literacy activities” (p. 4). The percent of “proficient” readers had actually declined in a statistically
significant way from 1992 (15 percent). This low and declining achievement rate may be connected to a general lack
of reading. As reported by the National Endowment for the Arts (2004), the percent of U.S. adults reading literature
dropped from 54.0 in 1992 to 46.7 in 2002, while the percent of adults reading any book also declined by 7 percent
As also noted in “Key Considerations in Implementing Text Complexity,” below, it is important to recognize that scaffolding
often is entirely appropriate. The expectation that scaffolding will occur with particularly challenging texts is built into the
Standards’ grade-by-grade text complexity expectations, for example. The general movement, however, should be toward decreasing scaffolding and increasing independence both within and across the text complexity bands defined in the Standards.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

during the same time period. Although the decline occurred in all demographic groups, the steepest decline by far
was among 18-to-24- and 25-to-34-year-olds (28 percent and 23 percent, respectively). In other words, the problem
of lack of reading is not only getting worse but doing so at an accelerating rate. Although numerous factors likely
contribute to the decline in reading, it is reasonable to conclude from the evidence presented above that the deterioration in overall reading ability, abetted by a decline in K–12 text complexity and a lack of focus on independent reading of complex texts, is a contributing factor.
Being able to read complex text independently and proficiently is essential for high achievement in college and
the workplace and important in numerous life tasks. Moreover, current trends suggest that if students cannot read
challenging texts with understanding—if they have not developed the skill, concentration, and stamina to read such
texts—they will read less in general. In particular, if students cannot read complex expository text to gain information, they will likely turn to text-free or text-light sources, such as video, podcasts, and tweets. These sources, while
not without value, cannot capture the nuance, subtlety, depth, or breadth of ideas developed through complex text.
As Adams (2009) puts it, “There may one day be modes and methods of information delivery that are as efficient
and powerful as text, but for now there is no contest. To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically they
must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought”
(p. 182). A turning away from complex texts is likely to lead to a general impoverishment of knowledge, which, because knowledge is intimately linked with reading comprehension ability, will accelerate the decline in the ability to
comprehend complex texts and the decline in the richness of text itself. This bodes ill for the ability of Americans to
meet the demands placed upon them by citizenship in a democratic republic and the challenges of a highly competitive global marketplace of goods, services, and ideas.
It should be noted also that the problems with reading achievement are not “equal opportunity” in their effects:
students arriving at school from less-educated families are disproportionately represented in many of these statistics (Bettinger & Long, 2009). The consequences of insufficiently high text demands and a lack of accountability for
independent reading of complex texts in K–12 schooling are severe for everyone, but they are disproportionately so for
those who are already most isolated from text before arriving at the schoolhouse door.

The Standards’ Approach to Text Complexity
To help redress the situation described above, the Standards define a three-part model for determining how easy or
difficult a particular text is to read as well as grade-by-grade specifications for increasing text complexity in successive years of schooling (Reading standard 10). These are to be used together with grade-specific standards that
require increasing sophistication in students’ reading comprehension ability (Reading standards 1–9). The Standards
thus approach the intertwined issues of what and how student read.

A Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity
As signaled by the graphic at right, the Standards’ model of
text complexity consists of three equally important parts.
(1) Qualitative dimensions of text complexity. In the Standards, qualitative dimensions and qualitative factors refer
to those aspects of text complexity best measured or only
measurable by an attentive human reader, such as levels of
meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and
clarity; and knowledge demands.
(2) Quantitative dimensions of text complexity. The terms
quantitative dimensions and quantitative factors refer to
those aspects of text complexity, such as word length or frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion, that are difficult
if not impossible for a human reader to evaluate efficiently,
especially in long texts, and are thus today typically measured by computer software.

appendix A |

(3) Reader and task considerations. While the prior two
elements of the model focus on the inherent complexity of
text, variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks
Figure 1: The Standards’ Model of Text Complexity
(such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned
and the questions posed) must also be considered when determining whether a text is appropriate for a given student. Such assessments are best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

The Standards presume that all three elements will come into play when text complexity and appropriateness are
determined. The following pages begin with a brief overview of just some of the currently available tools, both qualitative and quantitative, for measuring text complexity, continue with some important considerations for using text
complexity with students, and conclude with a series of examples showing how text complexity measures, balanced
with reader and task considerations, might be used with a number of different texts.

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of Text Complexity
The qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity described below are representative of the best tools
presently available. However, each should be considered only provisional; more precise, more accurate, and easierto-use tools are urgently needed to help make text complexity a vital, everyday part of classroom instruction and
curriculum planning.
Qualitative Measures of Text Complexity
Using qualitative measures of text complexity involves making an informed decision about the difficulty of a text in
terms of one or more factors discernible to a human reader applying trained judgment to the task. In the Standards,
qualitative measures, along with professional judgment in matching a text to reader and task, serve as a necessary
complement and sometimes as a corrective to quantitative measures, which, as discussed below, cannot (at least at
present) capture all of the elements that make a text easy or challenging to read and are not equally successful in rating the complexity of all categories of text.
Built on prior research, the four qualitative factors described below are offered here as a first step in the development
of robust tools for the qualitative analysis of text complexity. These factors are presented as continua of difficulty
rather than as a succession of discrete “stages” in text complexity. Additional development and validation would be
needed to translate these or other dimensions into, for example, grade-level- or grade-band-specific rubrics. The
qualitative factors run from easy (left-hand side) to difficult (right-hand side). Few, if any, authentic texts will be low
or high on all of these measures, and some elements of the dimensions are better suited to literary or to informational
texts.
(1) Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts). Literary texts with a single level of meaning tend
to be easier to read than literary texts with multiple levels of meaning (such as satires, in which the author’s literal message is intentionally at odds with his or her underlying message). Similarily, informational texts with an explicitly stated
purpose are generally easier to comprehend than informational texts with an implicit, hidden, or obscure purpose.
(2) Structure. Texts of low complexity tend to have simple, well-marked, and conventional structures, whereas texts
of high complexity tend to have complex, implicit, and (particularly in literary texts) unconventional structures. Simple
literary texts tend to relate events in chronological order, while complex literary texts make more frequent use of
flashbacks, flash-forwards, and other manipulations of time and sequence. Simple informational texts are likely not to
deviate from the conventions of common genres and subgenres, while complex informational texts are more likely to
conform to the norms and conventions of a specific discipline. Graphics tend to be simple and either unnecessary or
merely supplementary to the meaning of texts of low complexity, whereas texts of high complexity tend to have similarly complex graphics, graphics whose interpretation is essential to understanding the text, and graphics that provide
an independent source of information within a text. (Note that many books for the youngest students rely heavily on
graphics to convey meaning and are an exception to the above generalization.)
(3) Language Conventionality and Clarity. Texts that rely on literal, clear, contemporary, and conversational language tend
to be easier to read than texts that rely on figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic or otherwise unfamiliar language or on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary.
(4) Knowledge Demands. Texts that make few assumptions about the extent of readers’ life experiences and the
depth of their cultural/literary and content/discipline knowledge are generally less complex than are texts that make
many assumptions in one or more of those areas.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Figure 2: Qualitative Dimensions of Text Complexity

Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts)
•

Single level of meaning  Multiple levels of meaning

•

Explicitly stated purpose  Implicit purpose, may be hidden or obscure

Structure
•

Simple  Complex

•

Explicit  Implicit

•

Conventional  Unconventional (chiefly literary texts)

•

Events related in chronological order  Events related out of chronological order (chiefly literary texts)

•

Traits of a common genre or subgenre  Traits specific to a particular discipline (chiefly informational texts)

•

Simple graphics  Sophisticated graphics

•

Graphics unnecessary or merely supplementary to understanding the text  Graphics essential to understanding the text
and may provide information not otherwise conveyed in the text

Language Conventionality and Clarity
•

Literal  Figurative or ironic

•

Clear  Ambiguous or purposefully misleading

•

Contemporary, familiar  Archaic or otherwise unfamiliar

•

Conversational  General academic and domain-specific

Knowledge Demands: Life Experiences (literary texts)
•

Simple theme  Complex or sophisticated themes

•

Single themes  Multiple themes

•

Common, everyday experiences or clearly fantastical situations  Experiences distinctly different from one’s own

•

Single perspective  Multiple perspectives

•

Perspective(s) like one’s own  Perspective(s) unlike or in opposition to one’s own

Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge (chiefly literary texts)
•

Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required  Cultural and literary knowledge useful

•

Low intertextuality (few if any references/allusions to other texts)  High intertextuality (many references/allusions to other
texts)

Knowledge Demands: Content/Discipline Knowledge (chiefly informational texts)
•

Everyday knowledge and familiarity with genre conventions required  Extensive, perhaps specialized discipline-specific
content knowledge required

•

Low intertextuality (few if any references to/citations of other texts)  High intertextuality (many references to/citations of
other texts)

appendix A |

Adapted from ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author; Carnegie
Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York; Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text
difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge, UK: Brookline Books; Hess, K., & Biggam, S. (2004). A discussion of “increasing
text complexity.” Published by the New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont departments of education as part of the New England Common
Assessment Program (NECAP). Retrieved from www.nciea.org/publications/TextComplexity_KH05.pdf

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Quantitative Measures of Text Complexity
A number of quantitative tools exist to help educators assess aspects of text complexity that are better measured
by algorithm than by a human reader. The discussion is not exhaustive, nor is it intended as an endorsement of one
method or program over another. Indeed, because of the limits of each of the tools, new or improved ones are needed
quickly if text complexity is to be used effectively in the classroom and curriculum.
Numerous formulas exist for measuring the readability of various types of texts. Such formulas, including the widely
used Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test, typically use word length and sentence length as proxies for semantic and
syntactic complexity, respectively (roughly, the complexity of the meaning and sentence structure). The assumption behind these formulas is that longer words and longer sentences are more difficult to read than shorter ones; a
text with many long words and/or sentences is thus rated by these formulas as harder to read than a text with many
short words and/or sentences would be. Some formulas, such as the Dale-Chall Readability Formula, substitute word
frequency for word length as a factor, the assumption here being that less familiar words are harder to comprehend
than familiar words. The higher the proportion of less familiar words in a text, the theory goes, the harder that text is
to read. While these readability formulas are easy to use and readily available—some are even built into various word
processing applications—their chief weakness is that longer words, less familiar words, and longer sentences are not
inherently hard to read. In fact, series of short, choppy sentences can pose problems for readers precisely because
these sentences lack the cohesive devices, such as transition words and phrases, that help establish logical links
among ideas and thereby reduce the inference load on readers.
Like Dale-Chall, the Lexile Framework for Reading, developed by MetaMetrics, Inc., uses word frequency and sentence
length to produce a single measure, called a Lexile, of a text’s complexity. The most important difference between the
Lexile system and traditional readability formulas is that traditional formulas only assign a score to texts, whereas the
Lexile Framework can place both readers and texts on the same scale. Certain reading assessments yield Lexile scores
based on student performance on the instrument; some reading programs then use these scores to assign texts to
students. Because it too relies on word familiarity and sentence length as proxies for semantic and syntactic complexity, the Lexile Framework, like traditional formulas, may underestimate the difficulty of texts that use simple, familiar
language to convey sophisticated ideas, as is true of much high-quality fiction written for adults and appropriate for
older students. For this reason and others, it is possible that factors other than word familiarity and sentence length
contribute to text difficulty. In response to such concerns, MetaMetrics has indicated that it will release the qualitative ratings it assigns to some of the texts it rates and will actively seek to determine whether one or more additional
factors can and should be added to its quantitative measure. Other readability formulas also exist, such as the ATOS
formula associated with the Accelerated Reader program developed by Renaissance Learning. ATOS uses word difficulty (estimated grade level), word length, sentence length, and text length (measured in words) as its factors. Like
the Lexile Framework, ATOS puts students and texts on the same scale.
A nonprofit service operated at the University of Memphis, Coh-Metrix attempts to account for factors in addition to
those measured by readability formulas. The Coh-Metrix system focuses on the cohesiveness of a text—basically, how
tightly the text holds together. A high-cohesion text does a good deal of the work for the reader by signaling relationships among words, sentences, and ideas using repetition, concrete language, and the like; a low-cohesion text, by
contrast, requires the reader him- or herself to make many of the connections needed to comprehend the text. Highcohesion texts are not necessarily “better” than low-cohesion texts, but they are easier to read.
The standard Coh-Metrix report includes information on more than sixty indices related to text cohesion, so it can be
daunting to the layperson or even to a professional educator unfamiliar with the indices. Coh-Metrix staff have worked
to isolate the most revealing, informative factors from among the many they consider, but these “key factors” are not
yet widely available to the public, nor have the results they yield been calibrated to the Standards’ text complexity
grade bands. The greatest value of these factors may well be the promise they offer of more advanced and usable
tools yet to come.
Reader and Task Considerations
The use of qualitative and quantitative measures to assess text complexity is balanced in the Standards’ model by the
expectation that educators will employ professional judgment to match texts to particular students and tasks. Numerous considerations go into such matching. For example, harder texts may be appropriate for highly knowledgeable or
skilled readers, and easier texts may be suitable as an expedient for building struggling readers’ knowledge or reading
skill up to the level required by the Standards. Highly motivated readers are often willing to put in the extra effort required to read harder texts that tell a story or contain information in which they are deeply interested. Complex tasks
may require the kind of information contained only in similarly complex texts.
Numerous factors associated with the individual reader are relevant when determining whether a given text is appropriate for him or her. The RAND Reading Study Group identified many such factors in the 2002 report Reading for
Understanding:
appendix A |

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic
ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as
a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

comprehension strategies); and experiences.
As part of describing the activity of reading, the RAND group also named important task-related variables, including the reader’s purpose (which might shift over the course of reading), “the type of reading being done, such as
skimming (getting the gist of the text) or studying (reading the text with the intent of retaining the information for a
period of time),” and the intended outcome, which could include “an increase in knowledge, a solution to some realworld problem, and/or engagement with the text.”4

Key Considerations in Implementing Text Complexity
Texts and Measurement Tools
The tools for measuring text complexity are at once useful and imperfect. Each of the qualitative and quantitative
tools described above has its limitations, and none is completely accurate. The development of new and improved
text complexity tools should follow the release of the Standards as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Standards recommend that multiple quantitative measures be used whenever possible and that their results be confirmed
or overruled by a qualitative analysis of the text in question.
Certain measures are less valid or inappropriate for certain kinds of texts. Current quantitative measures are suitable
for prose and dramatic texts. Until such time as quantitative tools for capturing poetry’s difficulty are developed, determining whether a poem is appropriately complex for a given grade or grade band will necessarily be a matter of a
qualitative assessment meshed with reader-task considerations. Furthermore, texts for kindergarten and grade 1 may
not be appropriate for quantitative analysis, as they often contain difficult-to-assess features designed to aid early
readers in acquiring written language. The Standards’ poetry and K–1 text exemplars were placed into grade bands by
expert teachers drawing on classroom experience.
Many current quantitative measures underestimate the challenge posed by complex narrative fiction. Quantitative
measures of text complexity, particularly those that rely exclusively or in large part on word- and sentence-level factors, tend to assign sophisticated works of literature excessively low scores. For example, as illustrated in example 2
below, some widely used quantitative measures, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test and the Lexile Framework for Reading, rate the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel Grapes of Wrath as appropriate for grades 2–3. This counterintuitive result emerges because works such as Grapes often express complex ideas in relatively commonplace
language (familiar words and simple syntax), especially in the form of dialogue that mimics everyday speech. Until
widely available quantitative tools can better account for factors recognized as making such texts challenging, including multiple levels of meaning and mature themes, preference should likely be given to qualitative measures of text
complexity when evaluating narrative fiction intended for students in grade 6 and above.
Measures of text complexity must be aligned with college and career readiness expectations for all students. Qualitative scales of text complexity should be anchored at one end by descriptions of texts representative of those required in typical first-year credit-bearing college courses and in workforce training programs. Similarly, quantitative
measures should identify the college- and career-ready reading level as one endpoint of the scale. MetaMetrics, for
example, has realigned its Lexile ranges to match the Standards’ text complexity grade bands and has adjusted upward its trajectory of reading comprehension development through the grades to indicate that all students should be
reading at the college and career readiness level by no later than the end of high school.
Figure 3: Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges (in Lexiles)
Text Complexity Grade
Band in the Standards

Old Lexile Ranges

Lexile Ranges Aligned
to
CCR expectations

K–1

N/A

2–3

450–725

450–790

4–5

645–845

770–980

6–8

860–1010

955–1155

9–10

960–1115

1080–1305

11–CCR

1070–1220

1215–1355

appendix A |

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND. The quoted text appears in pages xiii–xvi.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Readers and Tasks
Students’ ability to read complex text does not always develop in a linear fashion. Although the progression of Reading standard 10 (see below) defines required grade-by-grade growth in students’ ability to read complex text, the
development of this ability in individual students is unlikely to occur at an unbroken pace. Students need opportunities to stretch their reading abilities but also to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within
them, both of which the Standards allow for. As noted above, such factors as students’ motivation, knowledge, and
experiences must also come into play in text selection. Students deeply interested in a given topic, for example, may
engage with texts on that subject across a range of complexity. Particular tasks may also require students to read
harder texts than they would normally be required to. Conversely, teachers who have had success using particular
texts that are easier than those required for a given grade band should feel free to continue to use them so long as
the general movement during a given school year is toward texts of higher levels of complexity.
Students reading well above and well below grade-band level need additional support. Students for whom texts within
their text complexity grade band (or even from the next higher band) present insufficient challenge must be given the
attention and resources necessary to develop their reading ability at an appropriately advanced pace. On the other
hand, students who struggle greatly to read texts within (or even below) their text complexity grade band must be
given the support needed to enable them to read at a grade-appropriate level of complexity.
Even many students on course for college and career readiness are likely to need scaffolding as they master higher
levels of text complexity. As they enter each new grade band, many students are likely to need at least some extra
help as they work to comprehend texts at the high end of the range of difficulty appropriate to the band. For example, many students just entering grade 2 will need some support as they read texts that are advanced for the
grades 2–3 text complexity band. Although such support is educationally necessary and desirable, instruction must
move generally toward decreasing scaffolding and increasing independence, with the goal of students reading independently and proficiently within a given grade band by the end of the band’s final year (continuing the previous
example, the end of grade 3).

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

The Standards’ Grade-Specific Text Complexity Demands
As illustrated in figure 4, text complexity in the Standards is defined in grade bands: grades 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–10, and
11–CCR.5 Students in the first year(s) of a given band are expected by the end of the year to read and comprehend
proficiently within the band, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. Students in the last year of a
band are expected by the end of the year to read and comprehend independently and proficiently within the band.
Figure 4: The Progression of Reading Standard 10
Grade(s)

Reading Standard 10 (individual text types omitted)

Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.

With prompting and support, read prose and poetry [informational texts] of appropriate complexity
for grade 1.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 2–3 text
complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the
grades 2–3 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 4–5 text
complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] at the high end of the
grades 4–5 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as
needed at the high end of the range.

By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 6–8 text complexity band independently
and proficiently.
By the end of grade 9, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 9–10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as
needed at the high end of the range.

9–10
By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently
and proficiently.
By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] in the grades 11–CCR text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding
as needed at the high end of the range.
11–12
By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature [informational texts, history/social studies
texts, science/technical texts] at the high end of the grades 11–CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently.

appendix A |

5
As noted above in “Key Considerations in Implementing Text Complexity,” K–1 texts are not amenable to quantitative measure. Furthermore, students in those grades are acquiring the code at varied rates. Hence, the Standards’ text complexity
requirements begin formally with grade 2.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

The Model in Action: Sample Annotated Reading Texts
The following examples demonstrate how qualitative and quantitative measures of text complexity can be used along
with reader and task considerations to make informed decisions about whether a particular text is an appropriate
challenge for particular students. The cases below illustrate some of the possibilities that can arise when multiple
measures are used to assess text complexity and how discrepancies among those measures might be resolved. It
is important to note that the conclusions offered below concerning the texts’ appropriateness for particular grade
bands are informed judgments based on qualitative and quantitative assessments of text complexity. Different
conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the same data, and reader and task considerations may also warrant a
higher or lower placement.
Example 1: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (Grades 6–8 Text Complexity Band)
Excerpt
The plan which I adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of making friends
of all the little white boys whom I met in the street. As many of these as I could, I converted into
teachers. With their kindly aid, obtained at different times and in different places, I finally succeeded in learning to read. When I was sent of errands, I always took my book with me, and by going
one part of my errand quickly, I found time to get a lesson before my return. I used also to carry
bread with me, enough of which was always in the house, and to which I was always welcome; for I
was much better off in this regard than many of the poor white children in our neighborhood. This
bread I used to bestow upon the hungry little urchins, who, in return, would give me that more valuable bread of knowledge. I am strongly tempted to give the names of two or three of those little
boys, as a testimonial of the gratitude and affection I bear them; but prudence forbids;—not that
it would injure me, but it might embarrass them; for it is almost an unpardonable offence to teach
slaves to read in this Christian country. It is enough to say of the dear little fellows, that they lived
on Philpot Street, very near Durgin and Bailey’s ship-yard. I used to talk this matter of slavery over
with them. I would sometimes say to them, I wished I could be as free as they would be when they
got to be men. “You will be free as soon as you are twenty-one, but I am a slave for life! Have not I
as good a right to be free as you have?” These words used to trouble them; they would express for
me the liveliest sympathy, and console me with the hope that something would occur by which I
might be free.
I was now about twelve years old, and the thought of being a slave for life began to bear heavily
upon my heart. Just about this time, I got hold of a book entitled “The Columbian Orator.” Every
opportunity I got, I used to read this book. Among much of other interesting matter, I found in it a
dialogue between a master and his slave. The slave was represented as having run away from his
master three times. The dialogue represented the conversation which took place between them,
when the slave was retaken the third time. In this dialogue, the whole argument in behalf of slavery
was brought forward by the master, all of which was disposed of by the slave. The slave was made
to say some very smart as well as impressive things in reply to his master—things which had the
desired though unexpected effect; for the conversation resulted in the voluntary emancipation of
the slave on the part of the master.

appendix A |

In the same book, I met with one of Sheridan’s mighty speeches on and in behalf of Catholic
emancipation. These were choice documents to me. I read them over and over again with unabated
interest. They gave tongue to interesting thoughts of my own soul, which had frequently flashed
through my mind, and died away for want of utterance. The moral which I gained from the dialogue
was the power of truth over the conscience of even a slaveholder. What I got from Sheridan was
a bold denunciation of slavery, and a powerful vindication of human rights. The reading of these
documents enabled me to utter my thoughts, and to meet the arguments brought forward to sustain slavery; but while they relieved me of one difficulty, they brought on another even more painful
than the one of which I was relieved. The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my
enslavers. I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers, who had left
their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes, and in a strange land reduced us
to slavery. I loathed them as being the meanest as well as the most wicked of men. As I read and
contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted
would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable
anguish. As I writhed under it, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather
than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened
my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out. In moments of agony, I envied
my fellow-slaves for their stupidity. I have often wished myself a beast. I preferred the condition of
the meanest reptile to my own. Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking! It was this everlasting thinking of my condition that tormented me. There was no getting rid of it. It was pressed

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

upon me by every object within sight or hearing, animate or inanimate. The silver trump of freedom
had roused my soul to eternal wakefulness. Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever.
It was heard in every sound, and seen in every thing. It was ever present to torment me with a sense
of my wretched condition. I saw nothing without seeing it, I heard nothing without hearing it, and
felt nothing without feeling it. It looked from every star, it smiled in every calm, breathed in every
wind, and moved in every storm.
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,
an American Slave. Written by Himself.
Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845.
Figure 5: Annotation of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

Qualitative Measures
Levels of Meaning
While the apparent aim of the text is to convince readers
of the day of the evils of slavery, there are other aims as
well; among the latter, not fully revealed in the excerpt,
are Douglass’s efforts to assert his own manhood (and
that of other black men) and to create an extended
analogy between his own literal rise to freedom and a
spiritual awakening.

Structure
The Narrative uses a fairly simple, explicit, and conventional story structure, with events largely related chronologically by a narrator recounting his past. There are
some philosophical discussions that may, to the reader
just looking for a story, seem like digressions.

Quantitative Measures
Various readability measures of the Narrative are largely
in agreement that it is of appropriate complexity for
grades 6–8. A Coh-Metrix analysis calls attention to this
excerpt’s complex syntax and the abstractness of some
of the language (e.g., hard-to-define concepts such
as slavery and freedom). Helping to balance out that
challenge are the text’s storylike structure and the way
the text draws clear connections between words and
sentences. Readers will still have to make many inferences to interpret and connect the text’s central ideas,
however.

Reader-Task Considerations
These are to be determined locally with reference to
such variables as a student’s motivation, knowledge, and
experiences as well as purpose and the complexity of
the task assigned and the questions posed.

Language Conventionality and Clarity
Douglass’s language is largely clear and meant to be accessible. He does, however, use some figurative language
(e.g., juxtaposing literal bread with the metaphorical
bread of knowledge) and literary devices (e.g., personifying freedom). There are also some now-archaic and
unusual words and phrasings (e.g., choice documents).

Knowledge Demands
The Narrative discusses moderately sophisticated
themes. The experiences of slavery Douglass describes
are obviously outside students’ own experiences, but
Douglass renders them vivid. The text is bound by Douglass’s authoritative perspective. General background
knowledge about slavery and race in mid-nineteenthcentury America is helpful, as is knowledge of Christianity, to which Douglass makes frequent reference throughout the excerpt and the work as a whole.

Recommended Placement
Both the qualitative and quantitative measures support
the Standards’ inclusion of the Narrative in the grades
6–8 text complexity band, with the understanding that
the text sits at the high end of the range and that it
can be reread profitably in later years by more mature
students capable of appreciating the deeper messages
embedded in the story
.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Example 2: The Grapes of Wrath (Grades 9–10 Text Complexity Band)
Excerpt
The man took off his dark, stained hat and stood with a curious humility in front of the screen.
“Could you see your way to sell us a loaf of bread, ma’am?”
Mae said, “This ain’t a grocery store. We got bread to make san’widges.”
“I know, ma’am.” His humility was insistent. “We need bread and there ain’t nothin’ for quite a piece,
they say.”
“’F we sell bread we gonna run out.” Mae’s tone was faltering.
“We’re hungry,” the man said.
“Whyn’t you buy a san’widge? We got nice san’widges, hamburgs.”
“We’d sure admire to do that, ma’am. But we can’t. We got to make a dime do all of us.” And he
said embarrassedly, “We ain’t got but a little.”
Mae said, “You can’t get no loaf a bread for a dime. We only got fifteen-cent loafs.”
From behind her Al growled, “God Almighty, Mae, give ‘em bread.”
“We’ll run out ‘fore the bread truck comes.”
“Run out then, goddamn it,” said Al. He looked sullenly down at the potato salad he was mixing.
Mae shrugged her plump shoulders and looked to the truck drivers to show them what she was up
against.
She held the screen door open and the man came in, bringing a smell of sweat with him. The boys
edged behind him and they went immediately to the candy case and stared in—not with craving or
with hope or even with desire, but just with a kind of wonder that such things could be. They were
alike in size and their faces were alike. One scratched his dusty ankle with the toe nails of his other
foot. The other whispered some soft message and then they straightened their arms so that their
clenched fists in the overall pockets showed through the thin blue cloth.
Mae opened a drawer and took out a long waxpaper-wrapped loaf. “This here is a fifteen-cent loaf.”
The man put his hat back on his head. He answered with inflexible humility, “Won’t you—can’t you
see your way to cut off ten cents’ worth?”
Al said snarlingly, “Goddamn it, Mae. Give ‘em the loaf.”
The man turned toward Al. “No, we want ta buy ten cents’ worth of it. We got it figgered awful
close, mister, to get to California.”
Mae said resignedly, “You can have this for ten cents.”
“That’d be robbin’ you, ma’am.”
“Go ahead—Al says to take it.” She pushed the waxpapered loaf across the counter. The man took
a deep leather pouch from his rear pocket, untied the strings, and spread it open. It was heavy with
silver and with greasy bills.

appendix A |

“May soun’ funny to be so tight,” he apologized. “We got a thousan’ miles to go, an’ we don’ know
if we’ll make it.” He dug in the pouch with a forefinger, located a dime, and pinched in for it. When
he put it down on the counter he had a penny with it. He was about to drop the penny back into
the pouch when his eye fell on the boys frozen before the candy counter. He moved slowly down
to them. He pointed in the case at big long sticks of striped peppermint. “Is them penny candy,
ma’am?”

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Mae moved down and looked in. “Which ones?”
“There, them stripy ones.”
The little boys raised their eyes to her face and they stopped breathing; their mouths were partly
opened, their half-naked bodies were rigid.
“Oh—them. Well, no—them’s two for a penny.”
“Well, gimme two then, ma’am.” He placed the copper cent carefully on the counter. The boys expelled their held breath softly. Mae held the big sticks out.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath.
New York: Viking, 1967 (1939).
Figure 6: Annotation of The Grapes of Wrath

Qualitative Measures
Levels of Meaning
There are multiple and often implicit levels of meaning
within the excerpt and the novel as a whole. The surface
level focuses on the literal journey of the Joads, but the
novel also works on metaphorical and philosophical
levels.

Structure
The text is relatively simple, explicit, and conventional in
form. Events are largely related in chronological order.

Language Conventionality and Clarity
Although the language used is generally familiar, clear,
and conversational, the dialect of the characters may
pose a challenge for some readers. Steinbeck also puts a
great deal of weight on certain less familiar words, such
as faltering. In various portions of the novel not fully represented in the excerpt, the author combines rich, vivid,
and detailed description with an economy of words that
requires heavy inferencing.

Knowledge Demands
The themes are sophisticated. The experiences and perspective conveyed will be different from those of many
students. Knowledge of the Great Depression, the “Okie
Migration” to California, and the religion and music of
the migrants is helpful, but the author himself provides
much of the context needed for comprehension.

Quantitative Measures
The quantitative assessment of The Grapes of Wrath
demonstrates the difficulty many currently existing
readability measures have in capturing adequately the
richness of sophisticated works of literature, as various ratings suggest a placement within the grades 2–3
text complexity band. A Coh-Metrix analysis also tends
to suggest the text is an easy one since the syntax is
uncomplicated and the author uses a conventional
story structure and only a moderate number of abstract
words. (The analysis does indicate, however, that a great
deal of inferencing will be required to interpret and connect the text’s words, sentences, and central ideas.)

Recommended Placement
Though considered extremely easy by many quantitative
measures, The Grapes of Wrath has a sophistication of
theme and content that makes it more suitable for early
high school (grades 9–10), which is where the Standards
have placed it. In this case, qualitative measures have
overruled the quantitative measures.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Example 3: The Longitude Prize (Grades 9–10 Text Complexity Band)
Excerpt
From Chapter 1: “A Most Terrible Sea”
At six in the morning I was awaked by a great shock, and a confused noise of the men on
deck. I ran up, thinking some ship had run foul of us, for by my own reckoning, and that of
every other person in the ship, we were at least thirty-five leagues distant from land; but,
before I could reach the quarter-deck, the ship gave a great stroke upon the ground, and the
sea broke over her. Just after this I could perceive the land, rocky, rugged and uneven, about
two cables’ length from us . . . the masts soon went overboard, carrying some men with them
. . . notwithstanding a most terrible sea, one of the [lifeboats] was launched, and eight of the
best men jumped into her; but she had scarcely got to the ship’s stern when she was hurled
to the bottom, and every soul in her perished. The rest of the boats were soon washed to
pieces on the deck. We then made a raft . . . and waited with resignation for Providence to
assist us.
—From an account of the wreck of HMS Litchfield off the coast of North Africa, 1758
The Litchfield came to grief because no one aboard knew where they were. As the narrator tells us,
by his own reckoning and that of everyone else they were supposed to be thirty-five leagues, about
a hundred miles, from land. The word “reckoning” was short for “dead reckoning”—the system
used by ships at sea to keep track of their position, meaning their longitude and latitude. It was an
intricate system, a craft, and like every other craft involved the mastery of certain tools, in this case
such instruments as compass, hourglass, and quadrant. It was an art as well.
Latitude, the north-south position, had always been the navigator’s faithful guide. Even in ancient
times, a Greek or Roman sailor could tell how far north of the equator he was by observing the
North Star’s height above the horizon, or the sun’s at noon. This could be done without instruments,
trusting in experience and the naked eye, although it is believed that an ancestor of the quadrant
called the astrolabe—“star-measurer”—was known to the ancients, and used by them to measure
the angular height of the sun or a star above the horizon.
Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans tended to sail along the coasts and were rarely out of sight of
land. As later navigators left the safety of the Mediterranean to plunge into the vast Atlantic—far
from shore, and from the shorebirds that led them to it—they still had the sun and the North Star.
And these enabled them to follow imagined parallel lines of latitude that circle the globe. Following a line of latitude—“sailing the parallel”—kept a ship on a steady east-west course. Christopher
Columbus, who sailed the parallel in 1492, held his ships on such a safe course, west and west again,
straight on toward Asia. When they came across an island off the coast of what would later be
called America, Columbus compelled his crew to sign an affidavit stating that this island was no
island but mainland Asia.
Dash, Joan. The Longitude Prize.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000. (2000)

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Figure 7: Annotation of The Longitude Prize

Qualitative Measures
Purpose
The single, relatively clear purpose of the text (not fully
apparent in the excerpt but signaled by the title) is to
recount the discovery of the concept of longitude.

Structure
The text is moderately complex and subtle in structure.
Although the text may appear at first glance to be a
conventional narrative, Dash mainly uses narrative elements in the service of illustrating historical and technical points.

Language Conventionality and Clarity
Language is used literally and is relatively clear, but
numerous archaic, domain-specific, and otherwise
unfamiliar terms are introduced in the course of citing
primary historical sources and discussing the craft, art,
and science of navigation.

Knowledge Demands
The text assumes relatively little prior knowledge
regarding seafaring and navigation, but some general
sense of the concepts of latitude and longitude, the
nature of sailing ships, and the historical circumstances
that promoted exploration and trade is useful to comprehending the text.

Quantitative Measures
Various readability measures of The Longitude Prize
are largely in agreement that the text is appropriate for
the grades 9–10 text complexity band. The Coh-Metrix
analysis notes that the text is primarily informational in
structure despite the narrative opening. (Recall from
“Why Text Complexity Matters,” above, that research
indicates that informational texts are generally harder to
read than narratives.) While the text relies on concrete
language and goes to some effort to connect central
ideas for the reader, it also contains complex syntax and
few explicit connections between words and sentences.

Recommended Placement
The qualitative and quantitative measures by and large
agree on the placement of The Longitude Prize into the
grades 9–10 text complexity band, which is where the
Standards have it.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Reading Foundational Skills
The following supplements the Reading Standards: Foundational Skills (K–5) in the main document (pp. 15–17). See
page 37 in the bibliography of this appendix for sources used in helping construct the foundational skills and the
material below.

Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences
Consonants
Common graphemes (spellings) are listed in the following table for each of the consonant sounds. Note that the term
grapheme refers to a letter or letter combination that corresponds to one speech sound.
Figure 8: Consonant Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in English
Phoneme

Common Graphemes (Spellings)
for the Phoneme*

Word Examples

/p/

pit, spider, stop

/b/

bit, brat, bubble

/m/

mitt, comb, hymn

m, mb, mn

/t/

tickle, mitt, sipped

t, tt, ed

/d/

die, loved

d, ed

/n/

nice, knight, gnat

n, kn, gn

/k/

cup, kite, duck, chorus, folk, quiet

k, c, ck, ch, lk, q

/g/

girl, Pittsburgh

g, gh

/ng/

sing, bank

ng, n

/f/

fluff, sphere, tough, calf

f, ff, gh, ph, lf

/v/

van, dove

v, ve

/s/

sit, pass, science, psychic

s, ss, sc, ps

/z/

zoo, jazz, nose, as, xylophone

z, zz, se, s, x

/th/

thin, breath, ether

/th/

this, breathe, either

/sh/

shoe, mission, sure, charade, precious, notion, mission,
special

sh, ss, s, ch, sc, ti, si, ci

/zh/

measure, azure

s, z

/ch/

cheap, future, etch

ch, tch

/j/

judge, wage

j, dge, ge

/l/

lamb, call, single

l, ll, le

/r/

reach, wrap, her, fur, stir

r, wr, er/ur/ir

/y/

you, use, feud, onion

y, (u, eu), i

/w/

witch, queen

w, (q)u

/wh/

where

/h/

house, whole

h, wh

*Graphemes in the word list are among the most common spellings, but the list does not include all possible graphemes for a given consonant. Most graphemes are more than one letter.
appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Vowels
Common graphemes (spellings) are listed in the following table for each of the vowel sounds. Note that the term
grapheme refers to a letter or letter combination that corresponds to one speech sound.
Figure 9: Vowel Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences in English

Common Graphemes (Spellings)
for the Phoneme*

Word Examples

Phoneme
/ē/

see, these, me, eat, key, happy, chief, either

ee, e_e, -e, ea, ey, -y, ie, ei

/ĭ/

sit, gym

i, y

/ā/

make, rain, play, great, baby, eight, vein, they

a_e, ai, ay, ea, -y, eigh, ei, ey

/ĕ/

bed, breath

e, ea

/ă/

cat

/ī/

time, pie, cry, right, rifle

i_e, ie, -y, igh, -i

/ŏ/

fox, swap, palm

o, wa, al

/ŭ/

cup, cover, flood, tough

u, o, oo, ou

/aw/

saw, pause, call, water, bought

aw, au, all, wa, ough

/ō.

vote, boat, toe, snow, open

o_e, oa, oe, ow, o-,

/oo/
˘

took, put, could

oo, u, ou

/ū/ [oo]
¯

moo, tube, blue, chew, suit, soup

oo, u_e, ue, ew, ui, ou

/y//ū/

use, few, cute

u, ew, u_e

/oi/

boil, boy

oi, oy

/ow/

out, cow

ou, ow

her, fur, sir

er, ur, ir

cart

sport

Graphemes in the word list are among the most common spellings, but the list does not include all possible graphemes for a given vowel. Many graphemes are more than one letter.
*

Phonological Awareness
General Progression of Phonological Awareness Skills (PreK–1)
Word Awareness (Spoken Language)
Move a chip or marker to stand for each word in a spoken sentence.
The dog barks. (3)
The brown dog barks. (4)
The brown dog barks loudly. (5)
Rhyme Recognition during Word Play
Say “yes” if the words have the same last sounds (rhyme):
clock/dock (y)
red/said (y)
down/boy (n)

Nice, neat Nathan
Chewy, chunky chocolate

appendix A |

Repetition and Creation of Alliteration during Word Play

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Syllable Counting or Identification (Spoken Language)
A spoken syllable is a unit of speech organized around a vowel sound.
Repeat the word, say each syllable loudly, and feel the jaw drop on the vowel sound:
chair (1)

table (2)

gymnasium (4)

Onset and Rime Manipulation (Spoken Language)
Within a single syllable, onset is the consonant sound or sounds that may precede the vowel; rime is the vowel and all
other consonant sounds that may follow the vowel.
Say the two parts slowly and then blend into a whole word:
school
star
place
all

onset
onset
onset
onset

- /sch/; rime - /ool/
- /st/; rime - /ar/
- /pl/; rime - /ace/
(none); rime - /all/

General Progression of Phoneme Awareness Skills (K–2)
Phonemes are individual speech sounds that are combined to create words in a language system. Phoneme awareness requires progressive differentiation of sounds in spoken words and the ability to think about and manipulate
those sounds. Activities should lead to the pairing of phonemes (speech sounds) with graphemes (letters and letter
combinations that represent those sounds) for the purposes of word recognition and spelling.
Phoneme Identity
Say the sound that begins these words. What is your mouth doing when you make that sound?
milk, mouth, monster /m/ — The lips are together, and the sound goes through the nose.
thick, thimble, thank /th/ — The tongue is between the teeth, and a hissy sound is produced.
octopus, otter, opposite /o/ — The mouth is wide open, and we can sing that sound.
Phoneme Isolation
What is the first speech sound in this word?
ship
van
king
echo

/sh/
/v/
/k/
/e/

What is the last speech sound in this word?
comb
sink
rag
go

/m/
/k/
/g/
/o/

Phoneme Blending (Spoken Language)
Blend the sounds to make a word:
(Provide these sounds slowly.)
/s/ /ay/
/ou/ /t/
/sh/ /ar/ /k/
/p/ /o/ /s/ /t/

say
out
shark
post

Say each sound as you move a chip onto a line or sound box:
/n/ /o/
/r/ /a/ /g/
/s/ /o/ /k/ /s/
/f/ /l/ /oa/ /t/

no
rag
socks
float

appendix A |

Phoneme Segmentation (Spoken Language)

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Phoneme Addition (Spoken Language)
What word would you have if you added /th/ to the beginning of “ink”? (think)
What word would you have if you added /d/ to the end of the word “fine”? (find)
What word would you have if you added /z/ to the end of the word “frog”? (frogs)
Phoneme Substitution (Spoken Language)
Say “rope.” Change /r/ to /m/. What word would you get? (mope)
Say “chum.” Change /u/ to /ar/. What word would you get? (charm)
Say “sing.” Change /ng/ to /t/. What word would you get? (sit)
Phoneme Deletion (Spoken Language)
Say “park.” Now say “park” without /p/. (ark)
Say “four.” Now say “four” without /f/. (or)

Orthography
Categories of Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences
Figure 10: Consonant Graphemes with Definitions and Examples
Grapheme Type
Single letters

Definition
A single consonant letter can represent a conso-

Examples
b, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, y, z

nant phoneme.
Doublets

A doublet uses two of the same letter to spell

ff, ll, ss, zz

one consonant phoneme.
Digraphs

A digraph is a two- (di-) letter combination that

th, sh, ch, wh

stands for one phoneme; neither letter acts

ph, ng (sing)

alone to represent the sound.

gh (cough)
[ck is a guest in this category]

Trigraphs

A trigraph is a three- (tri-) letter combination

-tch

that stands for one phoneme; none of the letters

-dge

acts alone to represent the sound.
Consonants in blends

A blend contains two or three graphemes be-

s-c-r (scrape)

th-r (thrush)

cause the consonant sounds are separate and

c-l (clean)

f-t (sift)

identifiable. A blend is not “one sound.”

l-k (milk)

s-t (most)

and many more
Silent letter

Silent letter combinations use two letters: one

kn (knock), wr (wrestle), gn (gnarl), ps

combinations

represents the phoneme, and the other is silent.

(psychology), rh (rhythm), -mb (crumb),

Most of these are from Anglo-Saxon or Greek.

-lk (folk), -mn (hymn), -st (listen)

These two letters, always together, usually stand

quickly

Combination qu

for two sounds, /k/ /w/.
appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Figure 11: Vowel Graphemes with Definitions and Examples
Grapheme Type
Single letters

Definition
A single vowel letter stands for a vowel sound.

Examples
(short vowels) cap, hit, gem, clod,
muss
(long vowels) me, no, music

A combination of two, three, or four letters
stands for a vowel.

Vowel teams

(short vowels) head, hook
(long vowels) boat, sigh, weigh
(diphthongs) toil, bout

Vowel-r combinations

A vowel, followed by r, works in combination
with /r/ to make a unique vowel sound.

car, sport, her, burn, first

Vowel-consonant-e (VCe)

The vowel–consonant–silent e pattern is
common for spelling a long vowel sound.

gate, eve, rude, hope, five

Figure 12: Six Types of Written Syllable Patterns
Syllable Type

Definition

Examples

Closed

A syllable with a short vowel spelled with a
single vowel letter ending in one or more consonants

dap-ple
hos-tel
bev-erage

Vowel-C-e

A syllable with a long vowel spelled with one
vowel + one consonant + silent e

compete
despite

Open

A syllable that ends with a long vowel sound,
spelled with a single vowel letter

program
table
recent

Vowel Team

Syllables that use two to four letters to spell the
vowel

beau-ti-ful
train-er
con-geal
spoil-age

Vowel-r
(r-controlled)

A syllable with er, ir, or, ar, or ur
Vowel pronunciation often changes before /r/.

in-jur-ious
con-sort
char-ter

Consonant-le

An unaccented final syllable containing a consonant before /l/ followed by a silent e

dribble
beagle
little

(“Magic e”)

Three Useful Principles for Chunking Longer Words into Syllables
1. VC-CV: Two or more consonants between two vowels
When syllables have two or more adjacent consonants between them, we divide between the consonants. The first
syllable will be closed (with a short vowel).
sub-let

nap-kin

pen-ny

emp-ty

2. V-CV and VC-V: One consonant between two vowels

work 75 percent of the time with VCV syllable division.
e-ven

ra-bies

de-cent

ri-val

appendix A |

a) First try dividing before the consonant. This makes the first syllable open and the vowel long. This strategy will

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

b) If the word is not recognized, try dividing after the consonant. This makes the first syllable closed and the vowel
sound short. This strategy will work 25 percent of the time with VCV syllable division.
ev-er

rab-id

dec-ade

riv-er

3. Consonant blends usually stick together. Do not separate digraphs when using the first two principles for decoding.
e-ther

spec-trum

se-quin

Morphemes Represented in English Orthography
Figure 13: Examples of Inflectional Suffixes in English

Inflection

Example

-s plural noun

I had two eggs for breakfast.

-s third person
singular verb

She gets what she wants.

-ed past tense verb

We posted the notice.

-ing progressive tense verb

We will be waiting a long time.

-en past participle

He had eaten his lunch.

’s possessive singular

The frog’s spots were brown.

-er comparative adjective

He is taller than she is.

-est superlative adjective

Tom is the tallest of all.

Examples of Derivational Suffixes in English
Derivational suffixes, such as -ful, -ation, and -ity, are more numerous than inflections and work in ways that inflectional suffixes do not. Most derivational suffixes in English come from the Latin layer of language. Derivational suffixes
mark or determine part of speech (verb, noun, adjective, adverb) of the suffixed word. Suffixes such as -ment, -ity,
and -tion turn words into nouns; -ful, -ous, and -al turn words into adjectives; -ly turns words into adverbs.
nature (n. — from nat, birth)

permit (n. or v.)

natural (adj.)

permission (n.)

naturalize (v.)

permissive (adj.)

naturalizing (v.)

permissible (adj.)

naturalistic (adj.)

permissibly (adv.)

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Writing
Definitions of the Standards’ Three Text Types
Argument
Arguments are used for many purposes—to change the reader’s point of view, to bring about some action on the
reader’s part, or to ask the reader to accept the writer’s explanation or evaluation of a concept, issue, or problem.
An argument is a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid. In
English language arts, students make claims about the worth or meaning of a literary work or works. They defend
their interpretations or judgments with evidence from the text(s) they are writing about. In history/social studies,
students analyze evidence from multiple primary and secondary sources to advance a claim that is best supported by
the evidence, and they argue for a historically or empirically situated interpretation. In science, students make claims
in the form of statements or conclusions that answer questions or address problems. Using data in a scientifically acceptable form, students marshal evidence and draw on their understanding of scientific concepts to argue in support
of their claims. Although young children are not able to produce fully developed logical arguments, they develop a
variety of methods to extend and elaborate their work by providing examples, offering reasons for their assertions,
and explaining cause and effect. These kinds of expository structures are steps on the road to argument. In grades
K–5, the term “opinion” is used to refer to this developing form of argument.

Informational/Explanatory Writing
Informational/explanatory writing conveys information accurately. This kind of writing serves one or more closely
related purposes: to increase readers’ knowledge of a subject, to help readers better understand a procedure or process, or to provide readers with an enhanced comprehension of a concept. Informational/explanatory writing addresses matters such as types (What are the different types of poetry?) and components (What are the parts of a motor?);
size, function, or behavior (How big is the United States? What is an X-ray used for? How do penguins find food?);
how things work (How does the legislative branch of government function?); and why things happen (Why do some
authors blend genres?). To produce this kind of writing, students draw from what they already know and from primary
and secondary sources. With practice, students become better able to develop a controlling idea and a coherent focus on a topic and more skilled at selecting and incorporating relevant examples, facts, and details into their writing.
They are also able to use a variety of techniques to convey information, such as naming, defining, describing, or differentiating different types or parts; comparing or contrasting ideas or concepts; and citing an anecdote or a scenario
to illustrate a point. Informational/explanatory writing includes a wide array of genres, including academic genres
such as literary analyses, scientific and historical reports, summaries, and précis writing as well as forms of workplace
and functional writing such as instructions, manuals, memos, reports, applications, and résumés. As students advance
through the grades, they expand their repertoire of informational/explanatory genres and use them effectively in a
variety of disciplines and domains.
Although information is provided in both arguments and explanations, the two types of writing have different aims.
Arguments seek to make people believe that something is true or to persuade people to change their beliefs or behavior. Explanations, on the other hand, start with the assumption of truthfulness and answer questions about why or
how. Their aim is to make the reader understand rather than to persuade him or her to accept a certain point of view.
In short, arguments are used for persuasion and explanations for clarification.
Like arguments, explanations provide information about causes, contexts, and consequences of processes, phenomena, states of affairs, objects, terminology, and so on. However, in an argument, the writer not only gives information
but also presents a case with the “pros” (supporting ideas) and “cons” (opposing ideas) on a debatable issue. Because an argument deals with whether the main claim is true, it demands empirical descriptive evidence, statistics, or
definitions for support. When writing an argument, the writer supports his or her claim(s) with sound reasoning and
relevant and sufficient evidence.

Narrative Writing
Creative Writing beyond Narrative
The narrative category does not include all of the possible forms of creative writing, such as many types of
poetry. The Standards leave the inclusion and evaluation
of other such forms to teacher discretion.

appendix A |

Narrative writing conveys experience, either real or
imaginary, and uses time as its deep structure. It
can be used for many purposes, such as to inform,
instruct, persuade, or entertain. In English language
arts, students produce narratives that take the form
of creative fictional stories, memoirs, anecdotes, and
autobiographies. Over time, they learn to provide
visual details of scenes, objects, or people; to depict
specific actions (for example, movements, gestures,

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

postures, and expressions); to use dialogue and interior monologue that provide insight into the narrator’s and characters’ personalities and motives; and to manipulate pace to highlight the significance of events and create tension
and suspense. In history/social studies, students write narrative accounts about individuals. They also construct event
models of what happened, selecting from their sources only the most relevant information. In science, students write
narrative descriptions of the step-by-step procedures they follow in their investigations so that others can replicate
their procedures and (perhaps) reach the same results. With practice, students expand their repertoire and control of
different narrative strategies.

Texts that Blend Types
Skilled writers many times use a blend of these three text types to accomplish their purposes. For example, The Longitude
Prize, included above and in Appendix B, embeds narrative elements within a largely expository structure. Effective student writing can also cross the boundaries of type, as does the grade 12 student sample “Fact vs. Fiction and All the Grey
Space In Between” found in Appendix C.

The Special Place of Argument in the Standards
While all three text types are important, the Standards put
particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical
to college and career readiness. English and education professor
Gerald Graff (2003) writes that “argument literacy” is fundamental to being educated. The university is largely an “argument culture,” Graff contends; therefore, K–12 schools should “teach the
conflicts” so that students are adept at understanding and engaging in argument (both oral and written) when they enter college. He claims that because argument is not standard in most
school curricula, only 20 percent of those who enter college are
prepared in this respect. Theorist and critic Neil Postman (1997)
calls argument the soul of an education because argument
forces a writer to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of multiple perspectives. When teachers ask students to consider two
or more perspectives on a topic or issue, something far beyond
surface knowledge is required: students must think critically and
deeply, assess the validity of their own thinking, and anticipate
counterclaims in opposition to their own assertions.

“Argument” and “Persuasion”
When writing to persuade, writers employ a
variety of persuasive strategies. One common
strategy is an appeal to the credibility, character, or authority of the writer (or speaker).
When writers establish that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy, audiences are
more likely to believe what they say. Another
is an appeal to the audience’s self-interest,
sense of identity, or emotions, any of which
can sway an audience. A logical argument, on
the other hand, convinces the audience because of the perceived merit and reasonableness of the claims and proofs offered rather
than either the emotions the writing evokes in
the audience or the character or credentials
of the writer. The Standards place special
emphasis on writing logical arguments as a
particularly important form of college- and
career-ready writing.

The unique importance of argument in college and careers is asserted eloquently by Joseph M. Williams and Lawrence McEnerney (n.d.) of the University of Chicago Writing Program. As part
of their attempt to explain to new college students the major
differences between good high school and college writing, Williams and McEnerney define argument not as “wrangling” but as “a serious and focused conversation among people
who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively”:
Those values are also an integral part of your education in college. For four years, you are asked to
read, do research, gather data, analyze it, think about it, and then communicate it to readers in a
form . . . which enables them to assess it and use it. You are asked to do this not because we expect
you all to become professional scholars, but because in just about any profession you pursue, you
will do research, think about what you find, make decisions about complex matters, and then explain those decisions—usually in writing—to others who have a stake in your decisions being sound
ones. In an Age of Information, what most professionals do is research, think, and make arguments.
(And part of the value of doing your own thinking and writing is that it makes you much better at
evaluating the thinking and writing of others.) (ch. 1)
In the process of describing the special value of argument in college- and career-ready writing, Williams and McEnerney also establish argument’s close links to research in particular and to knowledge building in general, both of which
are also heavily emphasized in the Standards.

appendix A |

Much evidence supports the value of argument generally and its particular importance to college and career readiness. A 2009 ACT national curriculum survey of postsecondary instructors of composition, freshman English, and survey of American literature courses (ACT, Inc., 2009) found that “write to argue or persuade readers” was virtually tied
with “write to convey information” as the most important type of writing needed by incoming college students. Other
curriculum surveys, including those conducted by the College Board (Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005) and

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

the states of Virginia and Florida6, also found strong support for writing arguments as a key part of instruction. The
2007 writing framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (National Assessment Governing Board, 2006) assigns persuasive writing the single largest targeted allotment of assessment time at grade 12
(40 percent, versus 25 percent for narrative writing and 35 percent for informative writing). (The 2011 prepublication
framework [National Assessment Governing Board, 2007] maintains the 40 percent figure for persuasive writing at
grade 12, allotting 40 percent to writing to explain and 20 percent to writing to convey experience.) Writing arguments or writing to persuade is also an important element in standards frameworks for numerous high-performing
nations.7
Specific skills central to writing arguments are also highly valued by postsecondary educators. A 2002 survey of
instructors of freshman composition and other introductory courses across the curriculum at California’s community
colleges, California State University campuses, and University of California campuses (Intersegmental Committee of
the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of
California, 2002) found that among the most important skills expected of incoming students were articulating a clear
thesis; identifying, evaluating, and using evidence to support or challenge the thesis; and considering and incorporating counterarguments into their writing. On the 2009 ACT national curriculum survey (ACT, Inc., 2009), postsecondary faculty gave high ratings to such argument-related skills as “develop ideas by using some specific reasons, details,
and examples,” “take and maintain a position on an issue,” and “support claims with multiple and appropriate sources
of evidence.”
The value of effective argument extends well beyond the classroom or workplace, however. As Richard Fulkerson
(1996) puts it in Teaching the Argument in Writing, the proper context for thinking about argument is one “in which
the goal is not victory but a good decision, one in which all arguers are at risk of needing to alter their views, one in
which a participant takes seriously and fairly the views different from his or her own” (pp. 16–17). Such capacities are
broadly important for the literate, educated person living in the diverse, information-rich environment of the twentyfirst century.

appendix A |

Unpublished data collected by Achieve, Inc.
See, for example, frameworks from Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore as well as Victoria and New South Wales in Australia.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Speaking and Listening
The Special Role of Speaking and Listening in K–5 Literacy
If literacy levels are to improve, the aims of the English language arts classroom, especially in the earliest grades, must
include oral language in a purposeful, systematic way, in part because it helps students master the printed word. Besides having intrinsic value as modes of communication, listening and speaking are necessary prerequisites of reading
and writing (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2006; Hulit, Howard, & Fahey, 2010; Pence & Justice, 2007; Stuart, Wright,
Grigor, & Howey, 2002). The interrelationship between oral and written language is illustrated in the table below, using
the distinction linguists make between receptive language (language that is heard, processed, and understood by an
individual) and expressive language (language that is generated and produced by an individual).
Figure 14: Receptive and Expressive Oral and Written Language
Receptive Language

Expressive Language

Oral
Language

Listening

Speaking

Written
Language

Reading
(decoding + comprehension)

Writing
(handwriting, spelling,
written composition)

Oral language development precedes and is the foundation for written language development; in other words, oral
language is primary and written language builds on it. Children’s oral language competence is strongly predictive of
their facility in learning to read and write: listening and speaking vocabulary and even mastery of syntax set boundaries as to what children can read and understand no matter how well they can decode (Catts, Adolf, & Weismer, 2006;
Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoover & Gough, 1990: Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
For children in preschool and the early grades, receptive and expressive abilities do not develop simultaneously or at
the same pace: receptive language generally precedes expressive language. Children need to be able to understand
words before they can produce and use them.
Oral language is particularly important for the youngest students. Hart and Risley (1995), who studied young children
in the context of their early family life and then at school, found that the total number of words children had heard
as preschoolers predicted how many words they understood and how fast they could learn new words in kindergarten. Preschoolers who had heard more words had larger vocabularies once in kindergarten. Furthermore, when the
students were in grade 3, their early language competence from the preschool years still accurately predicted their
language and reading comprehension. The preschoolers who had heard more words, and subsequently had learned
more words orally, were better readers. In short, early language advantage persists and manifests itself in higher levels of literacy. A meta-analysis by Sticht and James (1984) indicates that the importance of oral language extends well
beyond the earliest grades. As illustrated in the graphic below, Sticht and James found evidence strongly suggesting
that children’s listening comprehension outpaces reading comprehension until the middle school years (grades 6–8).
Figure 15: Listening and Reading Comprehension, by Age

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

The research strongly suggests that the English language arts classroom should explicitly address the link between
oral and written language, exploiting the influence of oral language on a child’s later ability to read by allocating instructional time to building children’s listening skills, as called for in the Standards. The early grades should not focus
on decoding alone, nor should the later grades pay attention only to building reading comprehension. Time should be
devoted to reading fiction and content-rich selections aloud to young children, just as it is to providing those same
children with the skills they will need to decode and encode.
This focus on oral language is of greatest importance for the children most at risk—children for whom English is a
second language and children who have not been exposed at home to the kind of language found in written texts
(Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Ensuring that all children in the United States have access to an excellent education requires that issues of oral language come to the fore in elementary classrooms.

Read-Alouds and the Reading-Speaking-Listening Link
Generally, teachers will encourage children in the upper elementary grades to read texts independently and reflect
on them in writing. However, children in the early grades—particularly kindergarten through grade 3—benefit from
participating in rich, structured conversations with an adult in response to written texts that are read aloud, orally
comparing and contrasting as well as analyzing and synthesizing (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Feitelstein,
Goldstein, Iraqui, & Share, 1993; Feitelstein, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986; Whitehurst et al., 1988). The Standards acknowledge the importance of this aural dimension of early learning by including a robust set of K–3 Speaking and Listening
standards and by offering in Appendix B an extensive number of read-aloud text exemplars appropriate for K–1 and
for grades 2–3.
Because, as indicated above, children’s listening comprehension likely outpaces reading comprehension until the
middle school years, it is particularly important that students in the earliest grades build knowledge through being
read to as well as through reading, with the balance gradually shifting to reading independently. By reading a story
or nonfiction selection aloud, teachers allow children to experience written language without the burden of decoding, granting them access to content that they may not be able to read and understand by themselves. Children are
then free to focus their mental energy on the words and ideas presented in the text, and they will eventually be better
prepared to tackle rich written content on their own. Whereas most titles selected for kindergarten and grade 1 will
need to be read aloud exclusively, some titles selected for grades 2–5 may be appropriate for read-alouds as well as
for reading independently. Reading aloud to students in the upper grades should not, however, be used as a substitute
for independent reading by students; read-alouds at this level should supplement and enrich what students are able to
read by themselves.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Language
Overview
The Standards take a hybrid approach to matters of conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary. As noted
in the table below, certain elements important to reading, writing, and speaking and listening are included in those
strands to help provide a coherent set of expectations for those modes of communication.
Figure 16: Elements of the Language Standards
in the Reading, Writing, and Speaking and Listening Strands
Strand

Standard

Reading

R.CCR.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.

Writing

W.CCR.5. Develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or
trying a new approach.

Speaking
and Listening

SL.CCR.6. Adapt speech to a variety of contexts
and communicative tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.

In many respects, however, conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary extend across reading, writing,
speaking, and listening. Many of the conventions-related standards are as appropriate to formal spoken English as
they are to formal written English. Language choice is a matter of craft for both writers and speakers. New words and
phrases are acquired not only through reading and being read to but also through direct vocabulary instruction and
(particularly in the earliest grades) through purposeful classroom discussions around rich content.
The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to
conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening;
indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.

Conventions and Knowledge of Language
Teaching and Learning the Conventions of Standard English
Development of Grammatical Knowledge

Though progressive and perfect are more correctly aspects of verbs rather than tenses, the Standards use the more familiar
notion here and throughout for the sake of accessibility.

appendix A |

Grammar and usage development in children and in adults rarely follows a linear path. Native speakers and language
learners often begin making new errors and seem to lose their mastery of particular grammatical structures or print
conventions as they learn new, more complex grammatical structures or new usages of English, such as in collegelevel persuasive essays (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Bartholomae, 1980; DeVilliers & DeVilliers, 1973; Shaughnessy, 1979).
These errors are often signs of language development as learners synthesize new grammatical and usage knowledge
with their current knowledge. Thus, students will often need to return to the same grammar topic in greater complexity as they move through K–12 schooling and as they increase the range and complexity of the texts and communicative contexts in which they read and write. The Standards account for the recursive, ongoing nature of grammatical
knowledge in two ways. First, the Standards return to certain important language topics in higher grades at greater
levels of sophistication. For instance, instruction on verbs in early elementary school (K–3) should address simple
present, past, and future tenses; later instruction should extend students’ knowledge of verbs to other tenses (progressive and perfect tenses8 in grades 4 and 5), mood (modal auxiliaries in grade 4 and grammatical mood in grade
8) and voice (active and passive voice in grade 8). Second, the Standards identify with an asterisk (*) certain skills and
understandings that students are to be introduced to in basic ways at lower grades but that are likely in need of being

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

retaught and relearned in subsequent grades as students’ writing and speaking matures and grows more complex.
(See “Progressive Language Skills in the Standards,” below.)
Making Appropriate Grammar and Usage Choices in Writing and Speaking
Students must have a strong command of the grammar and usage of spoken and written standard English to succeed
academically and professionally. Yet there is great variety in the language and grammar features of spoken and written standard English (Biber, 1991; Krauthamer, 1999), of academic and everyday standard English, and of the language
of different disciplines (Schleppegrell, 2001). Furthermore, in the twenty-first century, students must be able to communicate effectively in a wide range of print and digital texts, each of which may require different grammatical and
usage choices to be effective. Thus, grammar and usage instruction should acknowledge the many varieties of English
that exist and address differences in grammatical structure and usage between these varieties in order to help students make purposeful language choices in their writing and speaking (Fogel & Ehri, 2000; Wheeler & Swords, 2004).
Students must also be taught the purposes for using particular grammatical features in particular disciplines or texts;
if they are taught simply to vary their grammar and language to keep their writing “interesting,” they may actually
become more confused about how to make effective language choices (Lefstein, 2009). The Standards encourage
this sort of instruction in a number of ways, most directly through a series of grade-specific standards associated with
Language CCR standard 3 that, beginning in grade 1, focuses on making students aware of language variety.
Using Knowledge of Grammar and Usage for Reading and Listening Comprehension
Grammatical knowledge can also aid reading comprehension and interpretation (Gargani, 2006; Williams, 2000,
2005). Researchers recommend that students be taught to use knowledge of grammar and usage, as well as knowledge of vocabulary, to comprehend complex academic texts (García & Beltrán, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007;
RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). At the elementary level, for example, students can use knowledge of verbs to
help them understand the plot and characters in a text (Williams, 2005). At the secondary level, learning the grammatical structures of nonstandard dialects can help students understand how accomplished writers such as Harper
Lee, Langston Hughes, and Mark Twain use various dialects of English to great advantage and effect, and can help
students analyze setting, character, and author’s craft in great works of literature. Teaching about the grammatical
patterns found in specific disciplines has also been shown to help English language learners’ reading comprehension
in general and reading comprehension in history classrooms in particular (Achugar, Schleppegrell, & Oteíza, 2007;
Gargani, 2006).
As students learn more about the patterns of English grammar in different communicative contexts throughout their
K–12 academic careers, they can develop more complex understandings of English grammar and usage. Students can
use this understanding to make more purposeful and effective choices in their writing and speaking and more accurate and rich interpretations in their reading and listening.

Progressive Language Skills in the Standards
While all of the Standards are cumulative, certain Language skills and understandings are more likely than others to
need to be retaught and relearned as students advance through the grades. Beginning in grade 3, the Standards note
such “progressive” skills and understandings with an asterisk (*) in the main document; they are also summarized in
the table on pages 29 and 55 of that document as well as on page 34 of this appendix. These skills and understandings should be mastered at a basic level no later than the end of the grade in which they are introduced in the Standards. In subsequent grades, as their writing and speaking become more sophisticated, students will need to learn to
apply these skills and understandings in more advanced ways.
The following example shows how one such task—ensuring subject-verb agreement, formally introduced in the Standards in grade 3—can become more challenging as students’ writing matures. The sentences in the table below are
taken verbatim from the annotated writing samples found in Appendix C. The example is illustrative only of a general
development of sophistication and not meant to be exhaustive, to set firm grade-specific expectations, or to establish
a precise hierarchy of increasing difficulty in subject-verb agreement.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Figure 17: Example of Subject-Verb Agreement Progression across Grades
Example
Horses are so beautiful and fun to ride.

Condition
Subject and verb next to each other

[Horses, grade 3]
When I started out the door, I noticed that Tigger and Max were following me to school.

Compound subject joined by and

[Glowing Shoes, grade 4]
A mother or female horse is called a mare.
[Horses, grade 3]
The first thing to do is research, research, research!
[Zoo Field Trip, grade 4]
If the watershed for the pools is changed, the condition of the pools
changes.
[A Geographical Report, grade 7]
Another was the way to the other evil places.
[Getting Shot and Living Through It, grade 5]

Compound subject joined by or; each
subject takes a singular verb1
Intervening phrase between subject and
verb
Intervening phrase between each subject
and verb suggesting a different number
for the verb than the subject calls for
Indefinite pronoun as subject, with
increasing distance between subject and
verb

All his stories are the same type.
[Author Response: Roald Dahl, grade 5]
All the characters that Roald Dahl ever made were probably fake characters.
[Author Response: Roald Dahl, grade 5]
One of the reasons why my cat Gus is the best pet is because he is a
cuddle bug.
[A Pet Story About My Cat . . . Gus, grade 6]

appendix A |

1
In this particular example, or female horse should have been punctuated by the student as a nonrestrictive appositive, but the
sentence as is illustrates the notion of a compound subject joined by or.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Figure 18: Language Progressive Skills, by Grade
The following standards, marked with an asterisk (*) in the main Standards document, are particularly likely to require
continued attention in higher grades as they are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking.

Standard

Grade(s)
3

9–10

11–12

L.3.1f. Ensure subject-verb and pronounantecedent agreement.
L.3.3a. Choose words and phrases for effect.
L.4.1f. Produce complete sentences, recognizing
and correcting inappropriate fragments and runons.
L.4.1g. Correctly use frequently confused words
(e.g., to/too/two; there/their).
L.4.3a. Choose words and phrases to convey
ideas precisely.*
L.4.3b. Choose punctuation for effect.
L.5.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts
in verb tense.
L.5.2a. Use punctuation to separate items in a
series.†
L.6.1c. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts
in pronoun number and person.
L.6.1d. Recognize and correct vague pronouns
(i.e., ones with unclear or ambiguous
antecedents).
L.6.1e. Recognize variations from standard English
in their own and others’ writing and speaking, and
identify and use strategies to improve expression
in conventional language.
L.6.2a. Use punctuation (commas, parentheses,
dashes) to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical
elements.
L.6.3a. Vary sentence patterns for meaning,
reader/listener interest, and style.‡
L.6.3b. Maintain consistency in style and tone.
L.7.1c. Place phrases and clauses within a
sentence, recognizing and correcting misplaced
and dangling modifiers.
L.7.3a. Choose language that expresses ideas
precisely and concisely, recognizing and
eliminating wordiness and redundancy.
L.8.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts
in verb voice and mood.
L.9–10.1a. Use parallel structure.
Subsumed by L.7.3a
Subsumed by L.9–10.1a
‡
Subsumed by L.11–12.3a
*
†

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Vocabulary
Acquiring Vocabulary
Words are not just words. They are the nexus—the interface—between communication and thought.
When we read, it is through words that we build, refine, and modify our knowledge. What makes
vocabulary valuable and important is not the words themselves so much as the understandings
they afford.
Marilyn Jager Adams (2009, p. 180)
The importance of students acquiring a rich and varied vocabulary cannot be overstated. Vocabulary has been empirically connected to reading comprehension since at least 1925 (Whipple, 1925) and had its importance to comprehension confirmed in recent years (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). It is widely accepted among researchers that the difference in students’ vocabulary levels is a key factor in disparities in academic
achievement (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Becker, 1977; Stanovich, 1986) but that vocabulary instruction has been
neither frequent nor systematic in most schools (Biemiller, 2001; Durkin, 1978; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010;
Scott & Nagy, 1997).
Research suggests that if students are going to grasp and retain words and comprehend text, they need incremental, repeated exposure in a variety of contexts to the words they are trying to learn. When students make multiple
connections between a new word and their own experiences, they develop a nuanced and flexible understanding of
the word they are learning. In this way, students learn not only what a word means but also how to use that word in a
variety of contexts, and they can apply appropriate senses of the word’s meaning in order to understand the word in
different contexts (Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Landauer, McNamara, Dennis, & Kintsch, 2007; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985).
Initially, children readily learn words from oral conversation because such conversations are context rich in ways that
aid in vocabulary acquisition: in discussions, a small set of words (accompanied by gesture and intonation) is used
with great frequency to talk about a narrow range of situations children are exposed to on a day-to-day basis. Yet as
children reach school age, new words are introduced less frequently in conversation, and consequently vocabulary
acquisition eventually stagnates by grade 4 or 5 unless students acquire additional words from written context (Hayes
& Ahrens, 1988).
Written language contains literally thousands of words more than are typically used in conversational language. Yet
writing lacks the interactivity and nonverbal context that make acquiring vocabulary through oral conversation relatively easy, which means that purposeful and ongoing concentration on vocabulary is needed (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988).
In fact, at most between 5 and 15 percent of new words encountered upon first reading are retained, and the weaker a
student’s vocabulary is the smaller the gain (Daneman & Green, 1986; Hayes & Ahrens, 1988; Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987; Sternberg & Powell, 1983). Yet research shows that if students are truly to understand what they
read, they must grasp upward of 95 percent of the words (Betts, 1946; Carver, 1994; Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer, 1988).
The challenge in reaching what we might call “lexical dexterity” is that, in any given instance, it is not the entire spectrum of a word’s history, meanings, usages, and features that matters but only those aspects that are relevant at that
moment. Therefore, for a reader to grasp the meaning of a word, two things must happen: first, the reader’s internal
representation of the word must be sufficiently complete and well articulated to allow the intended meaning to be
known to him or her; second, the reader must understand the context well enough to select the intended meaning
from the realm of the word’s possible meanings (which in turn depends on understanding the surrounding words of
the text).
Key to students’ vocabulary development is building rich and flexible word knowledge. Students need plentiful opportunities to use and respond to the words they learn through playful informal talk, discussion, reading or being read
to, and responding to what is read. Students benefit from instruction about the connections and patterns in language.
Developing in students an analytical attitude toward the logic and sentence structure of their texts, alongside an
awareness of word parts, word origins, and word relationships, provides students with a sense of how language works
such that syntax, morphology, and etymology can become useful cues in building meaning as students encounter
new words and concepts (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2008). Although direct study of language is essential to student
progress, most word learning occurs indirectly and unconsciously through normal reading, writing, listening, and
speaking (Miller, 1999; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987).
appendix A |

As students are exposed to and interact with language throughout their school careers, they are able to acquire understandings of word meanings, build awareness of the workings of language, and apply their knowledge to comprehend and produce language.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Three Tiers of Words
Isabel L. Beck, Margaret G. McKeown, and Linda Kucan (2002, 2008) have outlined a useful model for conceptualizing categories of words readers encounter in texts and for understanding the instructional and learning challenges
that words in each category present. They describe three levels, or tiers, of words in terms of the words’ commonality
(more to less frequently occurring) and applicability (broader to narrower).
While the term tier may connote a hierarchy, a ranking of words from least to most important, the reality is that all
three tiers of words are vital to comprehension and vocabulary development, although learning tier two and three
words typically requires more deliberate effort (at least for students whose first language is English) than does learning tier one words.
•

Tier One words are the words of everyday speech usually learned in the early grades, albeit not at the same
rate by all children. They are not considered a challenge to the average native speaker, though English language
learners of any age will have to attend carefully to them. While Tier One words are important, they are not the
focus of this discussion.

•

Tier Two words (what the Standards refer to as general academic words) are far more likely to appear in written
texts than in speech. They appear in all sorts of texts: informational texts (words such as relative, vary, formulate,
specificity, and accumulate), technical texts (calibrate, itemize, periphery), and literary texts (misfortune,
dignified, faltered, unabashedly). Tier Two words often represent subtle or precise ways to say relatively simple
things—saunter instead of walk, for example. Because Tier Two words are found across many types of texts, they
are highly generalizable.

•

Tier Three words (what the Standards refer to as domain-specific words) are specific to a domain or field of
study (lava, carburetor, legislature, circumference, aorta) and key to understanding a new concept within a
text. Because of their specificity and close ties to content knowledge, Tier Three words are far more common
in informational texts than in literature. Recognized as new and “hard” words for most readers (particularly
student readers), they are often explicitly defined by the author of a text, repeatedly used, and otherwise heavily
scaffolded (e.g., made a part of a glossary).

Tier Two Words and Access to Complex Texts
Because Tier Three words are obviously unfamiliar to most students, contain the ideas necessary to a new topic, and
are recognized as both important and specific to the subject area in which they are instructing students, teachers often define Tier Three words prior to students encountering them in a text and then reinforce their acquisition throughout a lesson. Unfortunately, this is not typically the case with Tier Two words, which by definition are not unique to a
particular discipline and as a result are not the clear responsibility of a particular content area teacher. What is more,
many Tier Two words are far less well defined by contextual clues in the texts in which they appear and are far less
likely to be defined explicitly within a text than are Tier Three words. Yet Tier Two words are frequently encountered
in complex written texts and are particularly powerful because of their wide applicability to many sorts of reading.
Teachers thus need to be alert to the presence of Tier Two words and determine which ones need careful attention.

Tier Three Words and Content Learning
This normal process of word acquisition occurs up to four times faster for Tier Three words when students have
become familiar with the domain of the discourse and encounter the word in different contexts (Landauer & Dumais,
1997). Hence, vocabulary development for these words occurs most effectively through a coherent course of study
in which subject matters are integrated and coordinated across the curriculum and domains become familiar to the
student over several days or weeks.

Examples of Tier Two and Tier Three Words in Context
The following annotated samples call attention to Tier Two and Tier Three words in particular texts and, by singling
them out, foreground the importance of these words to the meaning of the texts in which they appear. Both samples
appear without annotations in Appendix B.
Example 1: Volcanoes (Grades 4–5 Text Complexity Band
Excerpt

appendix A |

In early times, no one knew how volcanoes formed or why they spouted red-hot molten rock. In
modern times, scientists began to study volcanoes. They still don’t know all the answers, but they
know much about how a volcano works.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Our planet made up of many layers of rock. The top layers of solid rock are called the crust. Deep
beneath the crust is the mantle, where it is so hot that some rock melts. The melted, or molten,
rock is called magma.
Volcanoes are formed when magma pushes its way up through the crack in Earth’s crust. This is
called a volcanic eruption. When magma pours forth on the surface, it is called lava.
Simon, Seymour. Volcanoes. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. (2006)
Of the Tier Two words, among the most important to the overall meaning of the excerpt is layers. An understanding
of the word layers is necessary both to visualize the structure of the crust (“the top layers of solid rock are called the
crust”) and to grasp the notion of the planet being composed of layers, of which the crust and the mantle are uppermost. Perhaps equally important are the word spouted and the phrase pours forth; an understanding of each of these
is needed to visualize the action of a volcano. The same could be said of the word surface. Both layers and surface
are likely to reappear in middle and high school academic texts in both literal and figurative contexts (“this would
seem plausible on the surface”; “this story has layers of meaning”), which would justify more intensive instruction in
them in grades 4–5.
Tier Three words often repeat; in this excerpt, all of the Tier Three words except mantle and lava appear at least twice.
Volcano(es) appears four times—five if volcanic is counted. As is also typical with Tier Three words, the text provides
the reader with generous support in determining meaning, including explicit definitions (e.g., “the melted, or molten,
rock is called magma”) and repetition and overlapping sentences (e.g., . . . called the crust. Deep beneath the crust . . .).
Example 2: Freedom Walkers (Grades 6–8 Text Complexity Band)
Excerpt
From the Introduction: “Why They Walked”
Not so long ago in Montgomery, Alabama, the color of your skin determined where you could sit on
a public bus. If you happened to be an African American, you had to sit in the back of the bus, even
if there were empty seats up front.
Back then, racial segregation was the rule throughout the American South. Strict laws—called “Jim
Crow” laws—enforced a system of white supremacy that discriminated against blacks and kept
them in their place as second-class citizens.
People were separated by race from the moment they were born in segregated hospitals until the
day they were buried in segregated cemeteries. Blacks and whites did not attend the same schools,
worship in the same churches, eat in the same restaurants, sleep in the same hotels, drink from the
same water fountains, or sit together in the same movie theaters.
In Montgomery, it was against the law for a white person and a Negro to play checkers on public
property or ride together in a taxi.
Most southern blacks were denied their right to vote. The biggest obstacle was the poll tax, a
special tax that was required of all voters but was too costly for many blacks and for poor whites as
well. Voters also had to pass a literacy test to prove that they could read, write, and understand the
U.S. Constitution. These tests were often rigged to disqualify even highly educated blacks. Those
who overcame the obstacles and insisted on registering as voters faced threats, harassment and
even physical violence. As a result, African Americans in the South could not express their grievances in the voting booth, which for the most part, was closed to them. But there were other ways
to protest, and one day a half century ago, the black citizens in Montgomery rose up in protest and
united to demand their rights—by walking peacefully.
It all started on a bus.
Freedman, Russell. Freedom Walkers: The Story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
New York: Holiday House, 2006. (2006)

appendix A |

The first Tier Two word encountered in the excerpt, determined, is essential to understanding the overall meaning of
the text. The power of determined here lies in the notion that skin color in Montgomery, Alabama, at that time was
the causal agent for all that follows. The centrality of determined to the topic merits the word intensive attention. Its
study is further merited by the fact that it has multiple meanings, is likely to appear in future literary and informational
texts, and is part of a family of related words (determine, determination, determined, terminate, terminal).

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Understanding the excerpt’s Tier Three words is also necessary to comprehend the text fully. As was the case in example 1, these words are often repeated and defined in context. Segregation, for example, is introduced in the second
paragraph, and while determining its meaning from the sentence in which it appears might be difficult, several closely
related concepts (white supremacy, discriminated, second-class) appears in the next sentence to provide more context.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Bibliography
Reading
Achieve, Inc. (2007). Closing the expectations gap 2007: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high
school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.
org/files/50-state-07-Final.pdf
ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA:
Author.
ACT, Inc. (2009). The condition of college readiness 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert
(Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies.
The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.
Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher education: Does college
remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, 44, 736–771.
Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (1999, March). “Do-able” questions, covariation, and graphical representation: Do we
adequately prepare perservice science teachers to teach inqury? Paper presented at the annual conference of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific re-presentation practices. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 1020–1043.
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions.
Research in Science Education, 32, 303–327.
Chall, J. S., Conard, S., & Harris, S. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores. Princeton, NJ:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D. W. (1991). Teaching college freshmen. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, D. P., & Ward, M. (1992, December). Learning from texts: Effects of similar and dissimilar features of analogies in
study guides. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., & Wolfe, M. F. (1996). Sourcebook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-Verbal
scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–508.
Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high
school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1994). Building a culture of trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484–501.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or
failure? (pp. 223–241). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from
the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC:National Center for Education Statistics.

Mesmer, H. A. E. (2008). Tools for matching readers to texts: Research-based practices. New York, NY: Guilford.

appendix A |

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (in press). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres.
In J. P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading
and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Milewski, G. B., Johnson, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M. (2005). A survey to evaluate the alignment of the new SAT Writing
and Critical Reading sections to curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No. 2005-1 /
ETS RR-05-07). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology,
23(1), 1–13.
National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America. Washington, DC:
Author.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C.
Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Pritchard, M. E., Wilson, G. S., & Yamnitz, B. (2007). What predicts adjustment among college students? A longitudinal
panel study. Journal of American College Health, 56(1), 15–22.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy.
Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Stenner, A. J., Koons, H., & Swartz, C. W. (in press). Text complexity and developing expertise in reading. Chapel Hill,
NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, Jr., R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference
generation and memory for texts. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.
van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards for coherence in the
generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp.
353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williamson, G. L. (2006). Aligning the journey with a destination: A model for K–16 reading standards. Durham, NC:
MetaMetrics, Inc.
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2004077). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004077.pdf
Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2006). Primary students and informational texts. Science and Children, 44(3), 22–25.

Reading Foundational Skills
Balmuth, M. (1992). The roots of phonics: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Bryson, B. (1990). The mother tongue: English and how it got that way. New York, NY: Avon Books.
Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hanna, P. R., Hanna, S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling
improvement. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Moats, L. C. (2008). Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works. (LETRS Module 3). Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Venezky, R. (2001). The American way of spelling. New York, NY: Guilford.

Writing
appendix A |

ACT, Inc. (2009). ACT National Curriculum Survey 2009. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California (ICAS). (2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of
students entering California’s public colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Milewski, G. B., Johnson, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M. (2005). A survey to evaluate the alignment of the new SAT Writing
and Critical Reading sections to curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No. 2005-1 /
ETS RR-05-07). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2006). Writing framework and specifications for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational
Progress, pre-publication edition. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
Postman, N. (1997). The end of education. New York, NY: Knopf.
Williams, J. M., & McEnerney, L. (n.d.). Writing in college: A short guide to college writing. Retrieved from
http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/resources/collegewriting/index.htm

Speaking and Listening
Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in reading: A metaanalysis on intergenenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65(5), 1–21.
Catts, H., Adolf, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view
of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–123.
Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqui, J., & Share, D. I. (1993). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy
acquisition in a diglossic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70–79.
Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders’ comprehension and
use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339–356.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2006). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Florence, KY: Wadsworth.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
Hulit, L. M., Howard, M. R., & Fahey, K. R. (2010). Born to talk: An introduction to speech and language development.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Pence, K. L., & Justice, L. M. (2007). Language development from theory to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1) (pp. 293–317). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Stuart, L., Wright, F., Grigor, S., & Howey, A. (2002). Spoken language difficulties: Practical strategies and activities for
teachers and other professionals. London, England: Fulton.
appendix A |

Whitehurst G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caufield, M.
(1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–558.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Language
Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteíza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24.
Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert
(Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Language
Learning Monograph Series. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bartholomae, D. (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31(3), 253–269.
Baumann, J. F., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen,
D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 604–632). New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended
examples. New York, NY: Guilford.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research.
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. New York, NY:
American Book Company.
Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25(1), 24–28, 47.
Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text:
Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413–437.
Daneman, M, & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of
Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18.
DeVilliers, J., & DeVilliers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child
speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267–278.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,
14, 481–533.
Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. C. (2000). Teaching elementary students who speak Black English Vernacular to write in Standard
English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 212–235.
García, G. G., & Beltrán, D. (2003). Revisioning the blueprint: Building for the academic success of English learners. In
G. G. García (Ed.), English Learners (pp. 197–226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gargani, J. (2006). UC Davis/SCUSD Teaching American History Grant technical memo: Years 1 & 2 essay and CST
analysis results. Unpublished report.
Hayes, D., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of “motherese”? Journal of Child
Language, 15, 395–410.
Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 263–284.

Krauthamer, H. S. (1999). Spoken language interference patterns in written English. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.

appendix A |

Hseuh-chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. London, England: Psychology Press.
Laufer, B. (1988). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Laurén & M. Nordman (Eds.),
Special language: From humans to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lefstein, A. (2009). Rhetorical grammar and the grammar of schooling: Teaching “powerful verbs” in the English National Literacy Strategy. Linguistics and Education, 20, 378–400.
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic English vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45, 196–228.
Miller, G. A. (1999). On knowing a word. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 1–19.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading.
American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,
233–253.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (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.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459.
Scott, J., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32,
184–200.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1979). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic
literacy for adolescent English language learners. New York, NY: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. S. (1983). Comprehending verbal comprehension. American Psychologist, 38, 878–893.
Wheeler, R., & Swords, R. (2004). Code-switching: Tools of language and culture transform the dialectally diverse
classroom. Language Arts, 81, 470–480.
Whipple, G. (Ed.) (1925). The Twenty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Report of
the National Committee on Reading. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.
Williams, G. (2000). Children’s literature, children and uses of language description. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching
Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 111–129). London, England: Cassell.
Williams, G. (2005). Grammatics in schools. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 281–310). London, England: Equinox.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

A Note on International Sources for the Standards
In the course of developing the Standards, the writing team consulted numerous international models, including those
from Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, Australia (by state), Canada (by province), Singapore, the United Kingdom, and
others. Several patterns emerging from international standards efforts influenced the design and content of the Standards:
(1) Other nations pay equal attention to what students read and how they read. Many countries set standards for
student reading by providing a reading list. The United Kingdom has standards for the “range and content” of student
reading. While lacking the mandate to set particular reading requirements, the Standards nonetheless follow the spirit
of international models by setting explicit expectations for the range, quality, and complexity of what students read
along with more conventional standards describing how well students must be able to read.
(2) Students are required to write in response to sources. In several international assessment programs, students are
confronted with a text or texts and asked to gather evidence, analyze readings, and synthesize content. The Standards likewise require students to “draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection,
and research” (Writing CCR standard 9).
(3) Writing arguments and writing informational/explanatory texts are priorities. The Standards follow international
models by making writing arguments and writing informational/explanatory texts the dominant modes of writing in
high school to demonstrate readiness for college and career.

appendix A |

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Glossary of Key Terms
Every effort has been made to ensure that the phrasing of the Standards is as clear and free of jargon as possible.
When used, specialized and discipline-specific terms (e.g., simile, stanza, declarative sentence) typically conform to
their standard definition, and readers are advised to consult high-quality dictionaries or standard resources in the
field for clarification. The terms defined below are limited to those words and phrases particularly important to the
Standards and that have a meaning unique to this document. CCSS refers to the main Common Core State Standards
document; the names of various sections (e.g., “Reading”) refer to parts of this appendix.
Definitions of many important terms associated with reading foundational skills appear in Reading Foundational Skills,
pages 17–22. Descriptions of the Standards’ three writing types (argument, informative/explanatory writing, and narrative) can be found in Writing, pages 23–24.
Domain-specific words and phrases – Vocabulary specific to a particular field of study (domain), such as the human
body (CCSS, p. 33); in the Standards, domain-specific words and phrases are analogous to Tier Three words (Language, p. 33).
Editing – A part of writing and preparing presentations concerned chiefly with improving the clarity, organization,
concision, and correctness of expression relative to task, purpose, and audience; compared to revising, a smaller-scale
activity often associated with surface aspects of a text; see also revising, rewriting
Emergent reader texts – Texts consisting of short sentences comprised of learned sight words and CVC words; may
also include rebuses to represent words that cannot yet be decoded or recognized; see also rebus
Evidence – Facts, figures, details, quotations, or other sources of data and information that provide support for claims
or an analysis and that can be evaluated by others; should appear in a form and be derived from a source widely accepted as appropriate to a particular discipline, as in details or quotations from a text in the study of literature and
experimental results in the study of science
Focused question – A query narrowly tailored to task, purpose, and audience, as in a research query that is sufficiently precise to allow a student to achieve adequate specificity and depth within the time and format constraints
Formal English – See standard English
General academic words and phrases – Vocabulary common to written texts but not commonly a part of speech; in
the Standards, general academic words and phrases are analogous to Tier Two words and phrases (Language, p. 33)
Independent(ly) – A student performance done without scaffolding from a teacher, other adult, or peer; in the Standards, often paired with proficient(ly) to suggest a successful student performance done without scaffolding; in the
Reading standards, the act of reading a text without scaffolding, as in an assessment; see also proficient(ly), scaffolding
More sustained research project – An investigation intended to address a relatively expansive query using several
sources over an extended period of time, as in a few weeks of instructional time
Point of view – Chiefly in literary texts, the narrative point of view (as in first- or third-person narration); more broadly,
the position or perspective conveyed or represented by an author, narrator, speaker, or character
Print or digital (texts, sources) – Sometimes added for emphasis to stress that a given standard is particularly likely
to be applied to electronic as well as traditional texts; the Standards are generally assumed to apply to both
Proficient(ly) – A student performance that meets the criterion established in the Standards as measured by a
teacher or assessment; in the Standards, often paired with independent(ly) to suggest a successful student performance done without scaffolding; in the Reading standards, the act of reading a text with comprehension; see also
independent(ly), scaffolding
Rebus – A mode of expressing words and phrases by using pictures of objects whose names resemble those words
Revising – A part of writing and preparing presentations concerned chiefly with a reconsideration and reworking of
the content of a text relative to task, purpose, and audience; compared to editing, a larger-scale activity often associated with the overall content and structure of a text; see also editing, rewriting
appendix A |

Rewriting – A part of writing and preparing presentations that involves largely or wholly replacing a previous, unsatisfactory effort with a new effort, better aligned to task, purpose, and audience, on the same or a similar topic or theme;
compared to revising, a larger-scale activity more akin to replacement than refinement; see also editing, revising

Common Core State Standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects

Scaffolding – Temporary guidance or assistance provided to a student by a teacher, another adult, or a more capable
peer, enabling the student to perform a task he or she otherwise would not be able to do alone, with the goal of fostering the student’s capacity to perform the task on his or her own later on*
Short research project – An investigation intended to address a narrowly tailored query in a brief period of time, as in
a few class periods or a week of instructional time
Source – A text used largely for informational purposes, as in research.
Standard English – In the Standards, the most widely accepted and understood form of expression in English in the
United States; used in the Standards to refer to formal English writing and speaking; the particular focus of Language
standards 1 and 2 (CCSS, pp. 26, 28, 52, 54)
Technical subjects – A course devoted to a practical study, such as engineering, technology, design, business, or other
workforce-related subject; a technical aspect of a wider field of study, such as art or music
Text complexity – 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 and quantitative
measures with reader-task considerations (CCSS, pp. 31, 57; Reading, pp. 4–16)
Text complexity band – A range of text difficulty corresponding to grade spans within the Standards; specifically, the
spans from grades 2–3, grades 4–5, grades 6–8, grades 9–10, and grades 11–CCR (college and career readiness)
Textual evidence – See evidence
With prompting and support/with (some) guidance and support – See scaffolding

*
Though Vygotsky himself does not use the term scaffolding, the educational meaning of the term relates closely to his concept of the zone of proximal development. See L. S. Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

appendix A |

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.3
Linearized                      : No
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:05:41
Create Date                     : 2010:06:10 11:59:40-04:00
Metadata Date                   : 2010:06:10 11:59:48-04:00
Modify Date                     : 2010:06:10 11:59:48-04:00
Creator Tool                    : Adobe InDesign CS4 (6.0.4)
Thumbnail Format                : JPEG
Thumbnail Width                 : 256
Thumbnail Height                : 256
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 7981 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Instance ID                     : uuid:125b9fbb-fe02-b04b-a552-074251633835
Original Document ID            : xmp.did:F97F117407206811994CE0E07334A648
Document ID                     : xmp.did:EB058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9
Rendition Class                 : proof:pdf
Version ID                      : 1
History Action                  : created, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved
History Instance ID             : xmp.iid:F97F117407206811994CE0E07334A648, xmp.iid:F77F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:F87F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:F97F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:FA7F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:FB7F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:FC7F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:FD7F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:FE7F117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:0080117407206811A9B5ACC2BF704C15, xmp.iid:F77F11740720681192B08BB196A73DF2, xmp.iid:F87F11740720681192B08BB196A73DF2, xmp.iid:F97F11740720681192B08BB196A73DF2, xmp.iid:01801174072068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:CFE0274EBD2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:D0E0274EBD2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:7AE9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:7EE9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:7FE9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:81E9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:82E9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:83E9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:84E9BE6EC62068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:64858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:65858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:68858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:6A858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:6C858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:6D858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:6E858A04DA2068119109D051247317DA, xmp.iid:01801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:06801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:07801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:08801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:09801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:0A801174072068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:F8095B69142068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:F9095B69142068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:FA095B69142068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:FB095B69142068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:FC095B69142068119D48E99D1DBE8592, xmp.iid:F77F1174072068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:F87F1174072068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:F97F1174072068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:FA7F1174072068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:FF7F1174072068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:36455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:37455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:38455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:39455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:3A455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:3B455AF93D2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:C6FF0C99BB2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:CDFF0C99BB2068119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:755CB100892168119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:765CB100892168119D5F87578E6BCD39, xmp.iid:F87F11740720681192B0E0BB78DF81D4, xmp.iid:F97F11740720681192B0E0BB78DF81D4, xmp.iid:6A5677DA3120681192B0F69622B903E4, xmp.iid:EED87B9A3420681192B0F69622B903E4, xmp.iid:FD7F117407206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:FE7F117407206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:FF7F117407206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:0080117407206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:B01D4D7A22206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:B11D4D7A22206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:B21D4D7A22206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:AC98F6B163206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:AD98F6B163206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:8BD146D168206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:8CD146D168206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:8DD146D168206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:09ABFE476E206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:BD7E62DA70206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:0499E7D871206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:C959BB7874206811BE6B90331EFB26AD, xmp.iid:02801174072068118F62C2D477E2A658, xmp.iid:E1F8B58E0E2068118F62C2D477E2A658, xmp.iid:A592C58D0F2068118F62C2D477E2A658, xmp.iid:F97F117407206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:7C14B98707206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:CB522AF407206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:3EF563950A206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:E223BCA32E2068119109B4938E01CDEE, xmp.iid:478EBB80442068119109B4938E01CDEE, xmp.iid:4D8EBB80442068119109B4938E01CDEE, xmp.iid:BB9EFD9E532068119109B4938E01CDEE, xmp.iid:43BADDD7B9206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:164C57DAB9206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:7141C2C2C5206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:7541C2C2C5206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:7641C2C2C5206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:2A37E7B4E6206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:2B37E7B4E6206811ACAFDEE6A22D69FB, xmp.iid:F77F1174072068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:F97F1174072068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:FA99E0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:FB99E0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:FC99E0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:FD99E0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:FF99E0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:009AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:019AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:029AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:039AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:049AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E2058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E3058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E4058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E5058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E6058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E7058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E8058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:E9058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:EA058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:EB058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:EC058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:C8397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:C9397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CA397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CB397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CC397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CD397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CE397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:CF397CE74C2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9, xmp.iid:008011740720681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:E8647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:E9647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:EA647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:EB647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:F0647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:F1647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:F2647EC11120681192B094476719F9F5, xmp.iid:0280117407206811AD03D224CAD3E073, xmp.iid:0380117407206811AD03D224CAD3E073, xmp.iid:0480117407206811AD03D224CAD3E073
History When                    : 2010:05:06 11:16:09-04:00, 2010:05:06 12:14:07-04:00, 2010:05:06 12:14:07-04:00, 2010:05:06 13:04:31-04:00, 2010:05:06 13:10:23-04:00, 2010:05:06 14:50:18-04:00, 2010:05:06 14:55:35-04:00, 2010:05:06 15:04:42-04:00, 2010:05:06 16:57:43-04:00, 2010:05:07 09:00:35-04:00, 2010:05:07 09:46:30-04:00, 2010:05:07 10:13:09-04:00, 2010:05:07 10:32:23-04:00, 2010:05:08 15:11:14-04:00, 2010:05:09 23:44:23-04:00, 2010:05:09 23:52:08-04:00, 2010:05:10 08:41:35-04:00, 2010:05:10 08:58:03-04:00, 2010:05:10 09:06:53-04:00, 2010:05:10 10:28:28-04:00, 2010:05:10 10:48:12-04:00, 2010:05:10 10:59:37-04:00, 2010:05:10 11:01:04-04:00, 2010:05:10 11:01:46-04:00, 2010:05:10 11:40:07-04:00, 2010:05:10 12:08:08-04:00, 2010:05:10 12:15:39-04:00, 2010:05:10 13:39:47-04:00, 2010:05:10 13:40:12-04:00, 2010:05:10 13:40:12-04:00, 2010:05:10 15:36:11-04:00, 2010:05:10 16:53:11-04:00, 2010:05:10 16:53:11-04:00, 2010:05:10 16:55:31-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:05:26-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:07:38-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:08:56-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:09:35-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:10:31-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:14:51-04:00, 2010:05:10 17:21:22-04:00, 2010:05:14 12:10:48-04:00, 2010:05:14 12:10:48-04:00, 2010:05:14 12:56:33-04:00, 2010:05:14 16:43:49-04:00, 2010:05:14 17:29:45-04:00, 2010:05:14 18:41:05-04:00, 2010:05:14 18:47:59-04:00, 2010:05:14 19:08:14-04:00, 2010:05:14 19:09:47-04:00, 2010:05:14 19:11:12-04:00, 2010:05:14 19:24:57-04:00, 2010:05:16 10:49:07-04:00, 2010:05:19 21:15:54-04:00, 2010:05:21 17:00:25-04:00, 2010:05:21 17:00:25-04:00, 2010:05:26 13:41:39-04:00, 2010:05:26 13:41:39-04:00, 2010:05:29 13:38:22-04:00, 2010:05:29 13:38:22-04:00, 2010:05:29 18:31:02-04:00, 2010:05:29 18:31:02-04:00, 2010:05:29 18:41:12-04:00, 2010:05:29 18:53:12-04:00, 2010:05:29 18:59:17-04:00, 2010:05:29 19:05:30-04:00, 2010:05:29 19:28:24-04:00, 2010:05:30 11:22:01-04:00, 2010:05:30 11:22:01-04:00, 2010:05:30 11:27:16-04:00, 2010:05:30 11:27:18-04:00, 2010:05:30 11:27:26-04:00, 2010:05:30 12:23:40-04:00, 2010:05:30 12:30:43-04:00, 2010:05:30 12:33:48-04:00, 2010:05:30 13:19:15-04:00, 2010:05:30 14:09:01-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:04:35-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:05:31-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:21:33-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:24:33-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:42:17-04:00, 2010:05:30 15:44:28-04:00, 2010:05:30 18:34:17-04:00, 2010:05:30 18:34:49-04:00, 2010:05:30 19:02:26-04:00, 2010:05:30 20:22:50-04:00, 2010:05:31 18:44:47-04:00, 2010:05:31 18:53:39-04:00, 2010:05:31 20:26:55-04:00, 2010:05:31 22:11:40-04:00, 2010:05:31 22:11:40-04:00, 2010:06:01 00:05:55-04:00, 2010:06:01 00:20:36-04:00, 2010:06:01 09:21:47-04:00, 2010:06:01 10:06:28-04:00, 2010:06:01 11:26:36-04:00, 2010:06:01 12:24:10-04:00, 2010:06:01 12:27:56-04:00, 2010:06:01 12:47:06-04:00, 2010:06:01 13:40:56-04:00, 2010:06:01 13:43-04:00, 2010:06:01 13:43:50-04:00, 2010:06:01 13:43:50-04:00, 2010:06:01 14:46:16-04:00, 2010:06:01 14:48:46-04:00, 2010:06:01 15:32:34-04:00, 2010:06:01 15:34:10-04:00, 2010:06:01 15:34:28-04:00, 2010:06:01 15:35:22-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:22:24-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:32:08-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:42:27-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:46:59-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:47:13-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:47:13-04:00, 2010:06:01 16:48:39-04:00, 2010:06:01 17:38:56-04:00, 2010:06:01 17:55:10-04:00, 2010:06:01 17:58:26-04:00, 2010:06:01 17:59:03-04:00, 2010:06:01 17:59:35-04:00, 2010:06:01 18:00:14-04:00, 2010:06:01 18:00:24-04:00, 2010:06:01 18:07:22-04:00, 2010:06:01 22:50:39-04:00, 2010:06:01 22:52:02-04:00, 2010:06:01 23:16:49-04:00, 2010:06:01 23:25:27-04:00, 2010:06:01 23:27:09-04:00, 2010:06:02 00:38:36-04:00, 2010:06:02 00:41:19-04:00, 2010:06:02 00:45:35-04:00, 2010:06:10 10:59:14-04:00, 2010:06:10 11:13:55-04:00, 2010:06:10 11:59:22-04:00
History Software Agent          : Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0, Adobe InDesign 6.0
History Changed                 : /, /metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /, /, /metadata, /;/metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /;/metadata, /metadata, /;/metadata, /metadata, /;/metadata, /, /metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /;/metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /;/metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /;/metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /metadata, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /, /
Derived From Instance ID        : xmp.iid:EA058B403B2068119FB4C5FF62205CE9
Derived From Document ID        : xmp.did:029AE0E3182068119FB4C5FF62205CE9
Derived From Original Document ID: xmp.did:F97F117407206811994CE0E07334A648
Derived From Rendition Class    : default
Manifest Link Form              : ReferenceStream
Manifest Placed X Resolution    : 72.00
Manifest Placed Y Resolution    : 72.00
Manifest Placed Resolution Unit : Inches
Manifest Reference Instance ID  : xmp.iid:0080117407206811B481CE0D02C12C41
Manifest Reference Document ID  : xmp.did:0080117407206811B481CE0D02C12C41
Doc Change Count                : 7357
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : Appendix A.indd
Producer                        : Adobe PDF Library 9.0
Trapped                         : False
GTS PDFX Version                : PDF/X-1:2001
GTS PDFX Conformance            : PDF/X-1a:2001
Page Count                      : 43
Creator                         : Adobe InDesign CS4 (6.0.4)

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Appendix A

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation