A Lexile analyzer is available at www.lexile.com to confirm the findings below. I am using the Lexile score needed for students to read independently since Lexile scores reflect only 75% comprehension. Students should ideally independently comprehend 100% of text in order to accurately respond to assessment questions.
|
ACT According to GAINS Education Group, the average Lexile score, a measure used to evaluate text complexity, of text used in the ACT assessment is 1140L, which means students must read at an independent reading level of 1240L in order to comprehend the majority of text utilized in the assessment. This information is based on ACT assessment prior to the 2014-15 school year. Last year, ACT more closely resembled PARCC on two of its subtests. ACT Practice Test 59F After analyzing a retired ACT Practice test, I found the reading passages were written at the following levels of complexity: Passage I: Prose Fiction – 940L (Independent Reading Level – 1040L) Passage II: Social Science – 1420L (Independent Reading Level – 1520L) Passage III: Humanities – 770L (Independent Reading Level – 870L) Passage IV: Natural Science – 1370L (Independent Reading Level – 1470L) Test questions pertained to one reading passage at a time, and they addressed the college readiness skills of: main idea; supporting details; sequential, comparative, and cause-effect relationships; meaning of words; and generalizations and conclusions. ACT Aspire The following is a Lexile analysis of the ACT Aspire Exemplar Test Items for Reading: Early High School Social Science-Biscotti di Prato 1150L (Independent Reading Level –. 1250L) – Grade 12+ Text Complexity Social Science-Biscotti di Prato (#8) 1070L (Independent Reading Level – 1170L) – Grade 10 Text Complexity Grade-8-Social Science-A Capital Capitol 1060L (Independent Reading Level –. 1160L) – Grade 9 Text Complexity Social Science-A Capital Capitol (#7) 1040L (Independent Reading Level – 1140L) – Grade 9 Text Complexity Grade-6-Literary Narrative-White Fang 1000L (Independent Reading Level – 1100L) – Grade 8 Text Complexity Literary Narative-White Fang (#8) 1120L (Independent Reading Level – 1220L) – Grade 12+ Text Complexity Grade-4-Reading-Citizen Scientists 1130L (Independent Reading Level – 1230L) – Grade 12+ Text Complexity As you can see, based on the highest Lexile listed in each range of the Lexile-to-Grade Correspondence chart, the complexity of passages is grossly inappropriate for students of all grade levels represented in the Exemplars. The Early High School (Grade 9) reading passage requires an independent reading level of 1250L. This text would be appropriate for the score band of students above Grade 12, post-secondary education (Grades 11 and 12 – 940-1210L). The text in this passage should be in the range of 855-1165L. The Grade 8 reading passage requires an independent reading level of 1160L. This text would be appropriate for the score band of students in Grade 9 (Grade 9 – 855-1165L). The text in this passage should be in the range of 805-1100L. The Grade 6 reading passage requires an independent reading level of 1100L. This text would be appropriate for the score band of students in Grade 8 (Grade 8 – 805-1100L). The text in this passage should be in the range of 665-1000L. My personal favorite: The Grade 4 reading passage requires an independent reading level of 1230L. This text would be appropriate for the score band of students in Grade 12+ (Grades 11 and 12 – 940-1210L). The text in this passage should be in the range of 445-810L. I argue that students, in actuality, probably perform closer to the lower end of the score band than at the higher. |
PARCC I analyzed the text of the ELA/Literacy sample items available on the PARCC website. What I found was that these samples ranged in Lexile from 730-2140L. The sample passages were written at the following Lexiles: 11130L, 1220L, 1370L. To independently read the most complex of these passages, students will need to read at 1470L by April (or March) of their junior year. The following is a list of some of the sample items analyzed: PARCC Sample Passages Sample Passage #1: Abigail Smith Adams (1744-1818) – 1220L (Independent Reading Level – 1320L) Sample Passage #2: Abigail Adams Braintree, March 31, 1776 –1130L (Independent Reading Level – 1230L) Sample Passage #3: To Abigail Adams John Adams, July 03, 1776 – 1370L (Independent Reading Level – 1470L) Sample Item #1—Part A 1020L (Independent Reading Level – 1120L) Sample Item #1—Part B 1540L (Independent Reading Level – 1640L) Sample Item #2—Part A 730L (Independent Reading Level – 830L) Sample Item #2—Part B 1920L (Independent Reading Level – 2020L) Sample Item #3—Part A 2140L (Independent Reading Level – 2240L) Sample Item #3—Part B 1070L (Independent Reading Level – 1170L) The text utilized by PARCC employs archaic vocabulary, language with which most students are unfamiliar. The complexity of text students must read independently is equivalent to that used in the Declaration of Independence (1450L), the first sentence of which is diagrammed below:
High school students are at varying stages of their cognitive development, and the average student should not be expected to complete the multi-step, finitely detailed, mental manipulation of text needed to process information at the level of sophistication used by PARCC. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until after age 20. The frontal lobe is concerned with reasoning, planning, problem-solving, parts of speech, executive functions (organization), judgment, emotions, and behavioral control. It allows for abstract thinking, an understanding of humor (subtle witticisms and word plays), sarcasm, irony, deception, and the mental processes of others. Other functions include: memory, sequencing of events, flexibility in thinking processes, attentiveness of focus. |
|
SAT I analyzed the text of SAT Practice Tests (Administration Time: Reading – 65 Minutes) 1 Test 4 Passage 1 (9-12) – 1050L (Independent Reading Level – 1150L) 1 Test 4 Passage 2 (9-12) – 950L (Independent Reading Level – 1050L) 2 Test 4 Passage 1 (13-24) – 1310L (Independent Reading Level – 1410L) 2 Test 4 Passage 2 (13-24) – 1170L (Independent Reading Level – 1270L) 3 Test 7 Questions 6-7 – 1130L Independent Reading Level – 1230L) 3 Test 7 Questions 8-9 – 1120L (Independent Reading Level – 1220L) 3 Test 7 Questions 10-15 – 1410L (Independent Reading Level – 1510L) 3 Test 7 Questions 16-24 – 1140L (Independent Reading Level – 1240L) Practice Test 2 QUEST 1-10 Reading 1290L (Independent Reading Level – 1390L) Practice Test 2 QUEST 22-32 Reading 1240L (Independent Reading Level – 1340L) QUEST 1-5 Reading 1170L (Independent Reading Level – 1270L) QUEST 6-8 Reading 1170L Independent Reading Level – 1250L) QUEST 9-14 Reading 1120L Independent Reading Level – 1320L) QUEST 15-19 Reading 1040L (Independent Reading Level – 1140L) QUEST 20-24 Reading 1080L Independent Reading Level – 1180L) FINDINGS See attached explanations and examples): 1. Use of excessively high text complexity with no research identifying average reading Lexile of junior level high school student. 2. No research supporting SAT adequately addresses cognitive development and individual abilities of adolescents. 3. Analysis of subtle shifts in focus throughout course of entire passage, use of unfamiliar or multi-definition vocabulary (i.e. reservations) 4. Use of figurative language is difficult for ELL students 5. SAT claims use of context clues, but none actually provided in text. 6. Dependence upon vocabulary and background knowledge rather than critical thinking skills in order to answer correctly. 7. Lack of content appealing to visual and kinesthetic modalities. The examples attached contain visual details but no pictures are provided to help those students who process information better visually. 8. Reliance on answer from previous question in order to answer another question (SAT representatives claimed they weren’t doing this.) 9. Multi-text compare/contrast (SAT representatives claimed they weren’t doing this.) 10. Reliance on information processing rather than introspective, original, creative and conceptual thought processes, which are sensory rather than memory-based. Rewiring the neural-activity of student brain through repetition of processing activities in limited and specific parts of the brain. 11. Use of quantitative assessment to measure qualitative data. |
Smarter Balanced I analyzed the text of G11 ELA HS Practice Test: QUEST 1-7 Sustainable Fashion 1220L Independent Reading Level – 1320L) QUEST 8-15 Life of Pi 750L (Independent Reading Level – 850L) QUEST 17 Informational Text 1150L (Independent Reading Level – 1259L) QUEST 18 Informational Text 1230L (Independent Reading Level – 1330L) QUEST 19 Informational Text 1010L Independent Reading Level – 1110L) QUEST 28 Informational Text 950L (Independent Reading Level – 1050L) QUEST 29 Informational Text 1280L (Independent Reading Level – 1380L) QUEST 30 Informational Text 960L (Independent Reading Level – 1060L) FINDINGS (See attached explanations and examples): 1. Significantly long portions of text in item questions requiring well-developed short-term memory in order to effectively weed through 2. No context provided for vocabulary 3. Confusing – no reference point 4. Two-part questions in which successfully answering Part B requires having correctly answered Part A. If Part A is wrong, so is Part B. In second example, this is combined with lengthy portions text required to support Part A 5. Excessive number of choices, finitely detailed in differentiation 6. Use of unfamiliar vocabulary (particularly for ELL and Sp Ed students). 7. Listening portion requires well-developed short-term memory, otherwise valuable time is lost going back to sift through sound bytes. 8. Multi-text comparisons (well-developed short-term needed, background knowledge needed) |
Career readiness information from MetaMetrix shows the following:
| LEXILES AND LIFELONG READING:
Federal Tax Form – 1260L Aetna Health Care Discount Form – 1360L GM Protection Plan – 1150L Medical Insurance Benefit Package – 1280L Application for Student Loan – 1270L CD-DVD Player Instructions – 1080L Installing Child Safety Seat – 1170L Microsoft Windows User Manual – 1150L Drivers’ Manual – 1220L |
READING IN THE WORKPLACE:
Labor – 1000L Service – 1050L Construction – 1080L Craftsman – 1100L Clerk – 1110L Foreman – 1200L Secretary – 1250L Sales – 1270L Supervisor – 1270L Nurse – 1310L Executive – 1320L Teacher – 1340L Accountant – 1400L Scientist – 1450L |
| LEXILE SCORES NEEDED FOR:
Education (11–12) 1130L Work – 1260L Community College – 1295L University – 1395L |
PRIMARY SOURCES:
Bill of Rights – 1540L Declaration of Independence – 1450L Gettysburg Address – 1490L Preamble to the Constitution – 1930L Emancipation Proclamation – 2040L Magna Carta – 1740L |
REMAINING QUESTIONS:
Information still needed from SAT reps:
- Representatives said there was a validity study – I’d like to see the study.
- Research supporting how assessment meets changing cognitive development of high school students.
There is no research stating, “fewer instances of finitely detailed, multi-process, evaluative questions will support changing and not yet fully developed cognitive abilities of high school students” as stated by representatives. Scaffolding begins at simplistic level then increases in complexity. This is very different than “fewer complicated questions” versus “increased number of complicated questions” as a means to compensate for adolescent brains that are not yet fully developed.
- I would like to see research supporting representatives’ claim that removing a student’s point of view on written expression portion of assessment promotes increased skill in critical thinking – this is simply nonsense. Critical thinking lies in the synthesis and application of knowledge, NOT in the identification and comparison of knowledge.
- I’d like to see a copy of the contract, and I’d like to do a cost analysis between SAT and ACT. I am not in favor of implementing SmarterBalanced or PARCC.
- I would like to see research supporting receptive processing outweighs expressive processing when determining college/career success. What portion of SAT and ACT assessments are receptive vs. expressive?
- SAT needs to develop score ranges and to scaffold in complexity each skill measured similar to ACT.
- A study needs to be performed identifying the average Lexile ranges of students enrolled in advanced, average, and preparatory level English courses.
RECOMMENDATION:
A research study published in 2008 indicates the possibility that repeated and targeted brain activity to specific parts of the human brain may weaken, or eliminate the use of, other areas of the brain. The brain only has so much neural support. If the brain is trained through repetition to narrow this neural support to a specific region of the brain, then neural activity will supply less support, or perhaps no longer support, other very important areas of the brain, specifically those areas enabling students to think conceptually and creatively.
Based on these findings, my first recommendation would be to file legislation calling for a moratorium on the use of standardized assessment until this possibility is further researched.
My second recommendation, if implementation cannot be avoided, is the implementation of ACT over SAT for the following reasons.
- I do not recommend amplifying the amount of time students are exposed to repetitious and narrow utilization of the brain’s neuroactivity. Time spent practicing skills that rely heavily on memory, organization, and planning MUST be balanced with time spent utilizing parts of the brain that foster creative and problem-solving processes, which are sensory in nature. I do not recommend students use the Home-Based package offered by SAT. Teachers should offer support in the classroom balanced with opportunities for students to employ creativity and problem-solving skills, which educators have always identified as best practice.
- I do not recommend excluding a student’s point of view from written expression assessments. Teachers will teach to the test because it makes no sense not to do so. Again, it is not the regurgitation of information that produces original and inspirational thought. It is the synthesis and application of a student’s unique point of view that should always be a priority in education.
- ACT offers scaffolding and score ranges and SAT does not at this point in time. Teachers do not have to reinvent the wheel if they are allowed to continue using ACT. Master teachers become master teachers because they have opportunity to perfect their work. This can never take place if they continue to start from scratch each year. Teachers were told PARCC would not cause them to reinvent what they were already doing; but in practice, this really was not the case.
FINAL NOTE:
My experience has been that students at the preparatory level in reading comprehension can score anywhere in the range of beginning reader (decoding) – 800L. Students enrolled in average level courses score between 800-1000L. Students in advanced courses have not been assessed, but they should be in order to determine the accessibility of standardized assessment for a wide range of student ability levels.
Consideration should be given to the intended purpose of standardized assessment in contrast to what its implementation actually achieves in practice.
We Are More 
Could you explain how http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001679 “indicates the possibility that repeated and targeted brain activity to specific parts of the human brain may weaken, or eliminate the use of, other areas of the brain”?
It’s a very short term study of brain activity during different tasks. I don’t understand how you are drawing a long term conclusion from it.
The human brain only provides “so much” neural support, which is a foundational concept in brain research. Educators use repetition in order to strengthen neural pathways in an effort to improve recall – this is a widely accepted, best practice strategy used in instruction.
The study you are referring to shows that memory-related, executive functioning, and organizational types of information processing do not function dynamically with those that are creative and problem-solving in nature. Therefore, educators are strengthening neural support to specific areas of the brain at the expense of information processing that is original, conceptual, and visionary in nature – this is based on our current understanding of the function of specific areas of the brain, combined with information provided in the 2008 study.
According to this study, these information processing activities function independently, and through repetition – at the expense of one another; in other words, well-meaning educators are likely compromising genius at the expense of lower functioning information processing skills. This conclusion is based on new research combined with foundational, brain-research principles.
I can’t tell you how much I would love to see this conclusion specifically studied and proven. The reason my first recommendation is to file legislation for a moratorium on standardized assessment is because I recognize the need for further research. The potential damage to natural, and balanced, neural development, in my opinion, is significant enough based on a synthesis of research, to warrant a lull in assessment. I’d prefer to err on the side of doing what I believe to be in the best interests of students. Thank you for your question!
The study looks at different brain activity when jazz musicians play scales and when they improvise. And yes their brains show different activities.
But as a jazz musician myself, I can tell you that musicians still spend a lot of time playing scales when not performing. And they do that, as you point out, to “use repetition in order to strengthen neural pathways in an effort to improve recall” so that when they want to improvise, they’re not having to figure out what notes go with the chords being played, but can use more brain power for selecting what notes say what they want to say.
So really, the jazz musician analogy would be that students do spend time doing their rote addition and multiplication facts, but then get opportunities to “perform” math in a creative manner. I really don’t see how sometimes taking standardized tests would be different than playing scales for assessment by a music teacher.
The difference is that the study recorded brain activity when the musicians played music already known to them as well as when they created their own, which requires fluidity and intuition, among other characteristics; music was not premeditated, it was inspired as all creation is. This is a very important difference as indicated by the MRIs – distinctly different areas of brain activity.
I believe the key is balance between rehearsal versus creation. We all rehearse, but we do not all create. We should be doing both, repeatedly and consistently.
I haven’t suggested there should be no repetition of rote facts – I’ve suggested there should not be exclusivity in repetition of rote facts. I advocate for balance, which is desperately missing in education today. Teachers have no time to allow students to synthesize, apply, and develop a viewpoint and voice of their own. SAT, in fact, is suppressing student point of view by weeding it out of written expression assessment.
Teachers teach to the test, not because they are incompetent professionals, but because that is what is currently required of them. Standardized assessments do not measure individuality, ingenuity, creativity, out-of-the-box problem solving, and unique, unexpected thinking – they do not measure anything that would constitute higher level intelligence, let alone genius. Knowledge, in and of itself, is the lowest form of intelligence.
If students need access to knowledge, they have books, computers, and other resources, this is receptive processing – but if students want to create, they have to bring what they have inside, out. Expression – this is what is not measured in standardized assessment or practiced in education with consistency. Expression is a qualitative characteristic, not a quantitative one.
How am I supposed to determine for myself what it is I should think if people keep telling me what it is that I think?
Thank you! I’ve been waiting for this. But don’t forget with the Common Core era, Lexile re-labeled its difficulty levels so that reading passages for third graders are now supposedly for second graders. That makes CC tests seem approximately one level lower than they actually are.
Right! Which shows you how ridiculous this is! Please see comment below. I recommend using the same tools, and scores (I will add!), in order to remain consistent. Test-makers and software providers need to agree on a standard and stick with it. Teachers need to stay focused on overall growth and use the same assessment tools when measuring it.
How do the Lexile scores relate to “Grade level reading”, and what proportion of students are at or above that level?
Here is one that seems to be somewhat accurate – http://www.cnyric.org/tfiles/folder1052/LexileConversionChart.pdf. Here is another: https://lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/. As you can see, there is no agreed upon standard. This holds true with Lexile assessments as well. For example, Achieve 3000 will produce different scores from those produced by Scholastic when assessing student reading comprehension, and text scored by Achieve 3000 is higher than the same text when analyzed by the Metametrix analyzer.
The important thing is to be consistent in your use of assessment tools. When I assess my students, I assess them using Scholastic READ180. Therefore, I’m able to get a “feel” for where students are at as I compare scores and student ability. I consistently use the Lexile Analyzer provided by MetaMetrix to assess text. Scores are close between those provided by Scholastic for text and the analyzer provided by Metametrix. This analyzer is also the one I use to analyze standardized assessments, so comparisons would be consistent.
Ideally, the same formula should be used to assess both student comprehension and the text used in reading passages, but Lexile measurement is still fairly new and is not yet widely used. It still lacks consistency – yet, it is not the exact score that is most important; but rather, it’s the score range that is helpful in measuring growth. Scores fluctuate for students from assessment to assessment, and teachers may see up to 50 points fluctuation, or perhaps even more, when students are administered back-to-back assessments (sometimes students want to try the assessment again to get a higher score).
I suggest being consistent in the tools used and staying focused on overall growth over time. As long as the graph goes up quarter to quarter, students are making progress.
As for the second part of your question – this has not yet been studied in my district – but should be.
Thankyou very much. So not much faith can be placed in a score on a one-off test then.
My humble opinion would be no – one cannot measure qualitative data with a quantitative assessment. This is an immoral disservice to children and significant insult to genius.