article summary

page

256

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Gina Cervetti and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

Much attention has been paid to the call in the Com- mon Core State Standards (CCSS; National Gover- nors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010) for more reading and writing of informa- tional text in the elementary grades. Indeed, in the context of the CCSS, informational text is on even footing with literature—perhaps for the first time ever. It is possible to respond to the call for more attention to informational texts by simply changing the balance of different text types used for instruc- tional purposes. In this article, we discuss why this approach misses the intent of the CCSS and why we should focus attention on reading more informa- tional text to build students’ disciplinary and world knowledge. We suggest that a critical message of the CCSS is the need to support students in devel- oping knowledge for and through reading.

To understand how knowledge should and can be foregrounded in English language arts (ELA) instruction, we develop three points:

• The increased attention to nonfiction texts in the Common Core stems in part from the emphasis on knowledge.

• Knowledge and comprehension are synergistically connected to one another.

• ELA instruction needs to be multifaceted to ensure that existing knowledge is activated and new knowledge (and ways of gaining new knowledge) is built.

The CCSS focus on disciplinary Knowledge Compared with the focus on five areas of reading instruction specified by the National Reading Panel

(NICHD, 2000) and compared with many states’ ELA standards, the CCSS for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Sci- ence, and Technical Subjects (CCSS/ELA) place much greater attention on genre-specific and, later, discipline-specific reading and writing practices. In doing so, the CCSS represent a fundamental shift toward the inclusion of more informational text and related instruction, beginning in kindergar- ten. Attention to informational text in the CCSS stems in part from an understanding, now broadly acknowledged in the field of education, that most of the reading that students do in secondary education and beyond is informational in genre.

However, a close reading of the CCSS shows that the purpose of increasing attention to infor- mational texts is not simply for students to have a greater appreciation of and facility with a range of text genres. It is also meant to ensure that students build knowledge and are prepared to read and write as they engage in disciplinary study. The CCSS indicate that knowledge development and reading development are closely linked: “By reading texts in history/social studies, science, and other disci- plines, students build a foundation of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content areas” (NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO, 2010, p. 10, emphasis added). The CCSS call for an ELA cur- riculum that is “intentionally and coherently struc- tured to develop rich content knowledge within and across grades” (p. 10).

Further evidence of the focus on knowledge development comes from the seven key indica- tors of College and Career Readiness for ELA/Lit- eracy. The third indicator states that students who meet the Standards “establish a base of knowledge

Mar_2015_LA.indd 256 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

257

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

across a wide range of subject matter by engag- ing with works of quality and substance. . . . They read purposefully and listen attentively to gain both general knowledge and discipline-specific exper- tise. They refine and share their knowledge through writing and speaking” (NGA Center for Best Prac- tices & CCSSO, 2010, p. 7). In light of the call for knowledge development in the CCSS, literacy edu- cators have another opportunity to turn our collec- tive attention to intentional support for knowledge development from the earliest years of schooling. It is important to acknowledge, however, that it may be this aspect of the CCSS that requires the great- est departure from current practice. Over the last few decades, elementary-level reading instruction has attended more to the processes of reading (e.g., decoding skills and reading comprehension strate- gies) than to the content of the texts.

In the sections that follow, we summarize what research has to say about the role of knowledge in reading comprehension, and we describe ways to increase the focus on knowledge within ELA. It is important to note that, although we refer to knowl- edge or information, we are not referring to discrete factual knowledge. The kinds of knowledge that have the potential to support reading comprehen- sion and generally enrich students’ lives cannot be reduced to a list of facts, as has occurred in some interpretations of knowledge building (see Hirsch, Kett, & Trefil, 2002). In line with the CCSS, we mean the kinds of disciplinary understandings that support reading and learning within content areas. We use the term knowledge because it is the term selected by the CCSS to represent discipline-rele- vant learning and also because much of the relevant research uses this term.

We also want to caution that, although we focus on disciplinary knowledge and informational text in this article, our emphasis on disciplinary knowl- edge—in alignment with the focus of this themed journal issue—should not be taken as an attempt to diminish the importance of other kinds of knowl- edge. The world knowledge that students acquire in their lives outside of school and the knowledge that students gain through the study of the human con- dition in narrative text are important in their own

rights and constitute meaningful supports for stu- dents’ literacy development.

Knowledge and Comprehension Are Synergistically related Reading is a process of constructing meaning and building knowledge. The aim is not simply to teach students to read for the sake of having reading pro- ficiency and remembering content faithfully, but also reading to acquire and expand upon ideas. The research literature is rich with evidence that com- prehension and knowledge building are inextricably interwoven.

Knowledge Supports Comprehension

Few aspects of reading are better documented or less disputed than the role of an individual’s knowl- edge in comprehending and learning from text. Research has been extensive enough to provide a fairly elaborated picture of the interaction between knowledge and comprehension.

First, knowledge of the topic has been found to influence comprehension. This pattern holds for readers across the lifespan—elementary stu- dents, middle school students, undergraduate stu- dents, and adult professionals (Alexander, Murphy, Woods, Duhon, & Parker, 1997; Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Recht & Leslie, 1988). In addi- tion, these effects have been documented across expository texts and fictional narratives (Recht & Leslie, 1988). Pearson et al.’s (1979) classic study demonstrates well the influence of topical knowl- edge on readers’ comprehension. After reading an information-rich narrative text about spiders, second graders who had high levels of knowledge about spiders were able to answer both text-explicit questions (i.e., information explicitly stated in the text) and script-implicit questions (i.e., information not explicitly stated in the text, such as the part of a spider’s body that resembles part of a snake’s body) at significantly higher levels than students with more limited knowledge of spiders.

Second, general world knowledge, not simply topic- or domain-specific knowledge associated with a text, has also been found to aid comprehen- sion. Best, Floyd, and McNamara (2008) studied

Mar_2015_LA.indd 257 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

258

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

the impact of general world knowledge on third graders’ comprehension of a narrative story and an expository text on the needs of plants. General world knowledge did not predict readers’ compre- hension of the narrative text, but it did predict stu- dents’ comprehension of an expository text.

The Pearson et al. (1979) study illustrates another important finding in the research on knowledge and comprehension: knowledge sup- ports inferring and higher-level comprehension processes, not simply remembering information from a text. Similarly, Taft and Leslie (1985) found that third-grade students who had high levels of background knowledge related to a pas- sage about food chains were better able to answer questions requiring recall of information in a sin- gle sentence in the text, questions that required students to combine information from different

parts of a passage, and questions that required students to combine information from the passage with prior knowledge.

The finding that knowledge supports inference is important to bear in mind in light of perspectives on close reading that have been associated with the CCSS (see Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). It has been suggested that readers should stay “within the four corners of the text” rather than relying on back- ground knowledge. But writers, especially writers of complex texts, assume that their readers will be able to fill in gaps and make connections. Consider the following excerpt from a text on astronauts (Lock, 2013): “Some people really can look down from the sky. They can look at Earth from space. They are astronauts. Astronauts fly into space” (unnumbered). In this excerpt, the writer assumes readers know that astronauts travel in vehicles such

I N T O T H E C L A S S R O O M W I T H R E A D W R I T E T H I N K

Using Informational Texts with Students

This article shares the importance of using informational texts with students. The following resources from

ReadWriteThink.org share ways to do just that.

Using Tiered Companion Texts to Comprehend Complex Nonfiction Texts

To read complex nonfiction texts independently, students must develop the necessary background knowledge and

problem-solving skills to comprehend them. In this lesson, students learn to identify their own areas of weakness by

initially reading a complex text independently. Then students read increasingly difficult nonfiction texts and learn how

to problem solve through teacher modeling and group work. Using the ReadWriteThink Notetaker, they take notes

on the texts and then have the opportunity to use the Notetaker independently with the most complex text. Teacher

modeling helps them on the easy text, and collaborating with other students helps on the medium text.

http://bit.ly/ZykyDs

Beyond History Books: Researching with Twin Texts and Technology

Pairing fiction and nonfiction books on one topic (twin texts) has been shown to build background knowledge, boost

comprehension, and increase motivation. Informative and interactive websites further enrich such literacy experiences.

In this lesson, students explore a historic event in depth by reading fiction and nonfiction literature. Then, to enhance

and extend the reading experience, students participate in website exploration and virtual field trips. Throughout the

process, students gather facts and relevant information, which they later organize and present to the class. This lesson

is easily adaptable to accommodate a wide range of historic events, instructional objectives, and grade levels.

http://bit.ly/1o3yelN

—Lisa Fink

ReadWriteThink.org

Mar_2015_LA.indd 258 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

259

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

as spaceships and do not fly in the manner of birds. In any text—even a text oriented to young readers such as this example—writers assume that read- ers will draw on a schema related to the topic and, using this schema, will use relevant knowledge.

Finally, while knowledge aids comprehension for all students, having a knowledge base can be particularly beneficial for students with lower lev- els of reading skill (Adams, Bell, & Perfetti, 1995; Miller & Keenan, 2009; Recht & Leslie, 1988). Students with lower levels of reading skill typically understand and recall less from their reading (espe- cially important points) than their more proficient peers. But, when poor readers have knowledge rel- evant to the content of a text, they recall more infor- mation from text, especially central information (Miller & Keenan, 2009). Knowledge about a topic can compensate for reading skills. Recht and Leslie (1988) had middle school students read a passage about baseball. Students with high prior knowl- edge about baseball performed better on a range of comprehension tasks than those with low prior knowledge. Moreover, there was no benefit for high reading ability over high knowledge. That is, stu- dents with high reading ability and high knowledge did not perform better on recall or summarization tasks than did students with low reading ability and high knowledge.

This effect has been called a “trading relation- ship” between knowledge and skills where knowl- edge provides some compensation for low levels of general reading skill (Adams et al., 1995) and a “knowledge compensation hypothesis” (Miller & Kennan, 2009) where poorer readers are able to construct a mental representation of the text by leveraging prior knowledge. These findings are especially critical to consider with struggling readers. Often the emphasis with this group is on developing skills. But, as Guthrie et al. (2004) have demonstrated, the engagement of struggling readers is low in skill-driven instruction. Grounding reading instruction in topics about which struggling read- ers have bodies of knowledge and/or interest may mean greater comprehension and engagement and, as a result, may create momentum toward skilled reading.

Knowledge May help readers Contend with Complex and Ambiguous Texts

High knowledge of a text’s topic also aids readers in making sense of complex and ambiguous texts— the kinds of texts that they increasingly encounter in content area learning. Participants in a study of how knowledge shapes interpretation of text were enrolled in either an edu- cational psychology class for music education stu- dents or a weight-lifting class. Both groups read two passages—each with two possible interpreta- tions (prison/wrestling and cards/music) (Ander- son, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977). The participants not only responded to questions about the passage in ways that were consistent with their backgrounds, but they also included statements in their retellings that clarified ambiguous passages in ways that were related to their knowledge.

Higher-knowledge readers seem to spend more time making sense of ambiguous text, which helps them understand and remember what they read. McNamara and Kintsch (1996) found that students who initially had high knowledge of a text topic (the Vietnam War) and those who initially had low knowledge but were provided with knowledge pre- training spent more time reading a low-coherence text than did low-knowledge participants. In addi- tion, lower coherence in text seems to drive high- knowledge readers to integrate text ideas with prior knowledge (Long, Wilson, Hurley, & Prat, 2006). High-knowledge readers also process low coher- ence text more actively, reporting having vivid memories of ideas from the text (Long et al., 2006).

Topic Knowledge May Support the Acquisition and use of reading Comprehension Strategies

In recent decades, a great deal of attention has been paid to the instruction of a range of reading comprehension strategies that students can use to

While knowledge aids

comprehension for all students,

having a knowledge base can

be particularly beneficial for

students with lower levels of

reading skill.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 259 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

260

Gina Cervetti and Elfrieda H. Hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

A C T N O W !

Knowledge Maps

Knowledge maps illustrate one way to document information that students have gained from texts. With younger

students or at the beginning of a school year, knowledge maps will be a collaborative effort guided by the teacher,

but students will gradually take more responsibility for creating their own knowledge maps.

The knowledge gained from a text is placed within the context of “big ideas,” as this knowledge map for Humans and

Endangered Animals illustrates. The knowledge map is also expanded across a school year as students read related

texts (illustrated by the boxes made up of dashes in this example). The collective knowledge maps of a class and those

of individuals become the grist for conversations as well as occasions for reviewing and extending knowledge.

make sense of text and overcome obstacles to com- prehension. We have paid less attention to the role of knowledge in learning and effectively employ- ing strategies, even though teaching reading com- prehension strategies has been shown to be more effective when readers have prior knowledge about topics. Gaultney (1995) demonstrated the facilita- tive effect of knowledge on the use of comprehen-

sions strategies in a study of fourth-grade boys who were both poor readers and baseball experts. The students were trained in the comprehension strategy of asking why questions using either baseball sto- ries or non-baseball stories. Those who were trained with baseball stories demonstrated better acquisi- tion of the strategy and asked more why questions in both immediate and delayed post-tests than the

Mar_2015_LA.indd 260 2/19/15 3:43 PM

page

261

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

For Inquisitive Minds

Visit CoreStandards.org, the official site of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (http://www.corestandards.org/

other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/) to learn more about how the Standards are designed to shift the

focus of ELA instruction, including the shift toward building knowledge through the use of informational text.

Reading Rockets has several resources for understanding knowledge building in literacy instruction, including the

following:

• “How Knowledge Helps” by Daniel T. Willingham (http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12443) explains how

knowledge supports reading from the perspective of cognitive psychology.

• “Building World Knowledge: Motivating Children to Read and Enjoy Informational Text” by Barbara Marinak

and Linda Gambrell (http://www.readingrockets.org/article/33920) describes techniques for helping students

understand and enjoy informational text.

There are a number of online resources to support teachers in selecting and using content-rich texts, including the

following:

• Beyond Penguins and Polar Bears (http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu) is an online magazine where

elementary teachers can find theme-based student texts and instructional resources for teaching polar science

concepts while also supporting students’ literacy development.

• The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) compiles a list each year of Outstanding Science Trade Books

for Students (http://www.nsta.org/publications/ostb). This is a good resource for identifying high-quality

content-rich science texts for students across grades K–12.

students trained with non-baseball stories. Gaultney suggests that the use of materials for which partici- pants had a great deal of expert knowledge allowed them to read and comprehend more easily, allowing more capacity to be devoted to learning the compre- hension strategy.

Further evidence of the effect of knowledge on use of comprehension strategies comes from a study of high school students—half from the US and half from the Pacific island nation of Palau— thinking aloud about passages that were relevant to either an American or a Palauan context (Pritchard, 1990). With culturally familiar texts, readers (e.g., American students reading the American-relevant passage) were more likely to leverage background knowledge for comprehension and were more likely to attempt to develop intersentential ties (i.e., connections across different parts of a text). With unfamiliar texts (e.g., American students reading the Palauan-relevant passage), readers were more

likely to use strategies such as rereading for devel- oping awareness, accepting ambiguity, and estab- lishing intrasentential ties—those associated with developing an understanding of the text. Readers also had better recall of the culturally familiar text than the unfamiliar text—differences that may be related to strategy use.

Although many of these findings have been well established for decades, there is little evidence that literacy education has focused attention on knowledge development through and for reading, even as the professional literature and commercial reading programs have increasingly emphasized the reading of informational texts. At least in the last generation of core reading programs, Norris et al. (2008) found that instruction of informational texts with science content emphasized personal reflection and response, rather than critical science concepts. The goal of including more science texts in basal programs seemed to be focused on exposure to and

Mar_2015_LA.indd 261 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

262

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

experience with texts of different genres, not devel- opment of discipline-specific literacy practices or content knowledge.

Knowledge Enhancement Should Be Central in CCSS ELA instruction Our third claim is that knowledge building should be a construct around which CCSS/ELA instruction revolves. The reason for comprehension activity and instruction, we argue, is to establish the knowledge that students acquire from their reading—to evalu- ate its veracity, connect it to other content, and to develop dispositions and strategies that support high levels of learning. Comprehension is not an “exer- cise” but a context for establishing the knowledge that students acquire from their reading of texts.

distinguishing between Knowledge Activation and Knowledge Building

The relationship between knowledge and texts is of two sorts: a) activating existing (or prior) knowl- edge and b) building knowledge. The activation of knowledge is an essential part of the interaction between reader and text within current models of comprehension (see, for example, Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Kintsch, 1988). But the emphasis by two of the lead authors of the CCSS within the Publishers’ Criteria (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012) on questions and discussions that “focus on what lies within the four corners of the text” (p. 6) and text-dependent questions has generated questions among educators as to the role of prior knowledge in comprehension. This emphasis on comprehen- sion as a process of uncovering meaning in the text is inconsistent with current understandings about the role of a reader’s knowledge and of context in the construction of meaning. It is also inconsistent with the representation of comprehension within the Standards themselves, leading to some confu- sion about the appropriateness of activating back- ground knowledge in classroom reading lessons.

Whatever the perspective on comprehension (e.g., Kintsch, 1988), readers’ knowledge bases enter into their interactions with text. Authors expect their readers to activate particular schemata

when encountering their texts. For example, if a text includes an interaction in a restaurant, aspects of eating in a restaurant (e.g., looking at the menu, ordering, etc.) are often assumed and not stated directly. A text about a concert by an orchestra may assume knowledge about orchestras and/or concert halls. If particular schemata are required to compre- hend a text and students do not have this knowl- edge, they are unlikely to readily comprehend or learn from their reading of that text.

Teachers need to be adept at identifying what bodies of knowledge are required for full engage- ment with a text’s content and what their students know about the content. Consider, for example, The Secret Garden (Burnett, 1911), one of the texts identified by CCSS writers as prototypical for fourth- and fifth-grade readers. Most young people (and adults) for whom Burnett was writing in 1910 likely had some knowledge about the British Raj and the lifestyle that Mary Lennox had in India. For fourth- and fifth-grade readers in American class- rooms in the second decade of the 21st century, such prior knowledge cannot be assumed.

Identifying what knowledge to emphasize prior to reading and determining how much time to devote to the activation of prior knowledge requires a thor- ough understanding of the text and students on the part of teachers. Pearson (2013) observed that many instructional activities aimed at building or activat- ing prior knowledge have often strayed into provid- ing students too much of the knowledge in the text (so that they don’t really have to grapple with the text) or into topics that are peripherally related to the text. Instructional missteps of the past, however, do not negate the importance of supporting students in connecting to or developing relevant knowledge needed for comprehending texts.

Greater attention is also needed on the knowl- edge base that students are developing as a result of reading texts. Knowing how to gain information from texts is the essence of proficient reading. In the sections that follow, we discuss strategies for ensuring the school day is filled with opportunities for knowledge building—across the curriculum and as part of the work of reading and comprehending texts in English language arts.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 262 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

263

Gina Cervetti and Elfrieda H. Hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

Instructional Practices That Support Knowledge Activation and Knowledge Building in Content Area Learning

The CCSS entered the scene when time devoted to content area instruction was shrinking. The shift in instructional time toward English language arts and mathematics following the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act resulted in dramatic reductions in time spent in subjects such as science, social stud- ies, and art (McMurrer, 2008; Rentner et al., 2006). Perhaps the biggest injury to knowledge enhance- ment would be the further expansion of ELA time at the expense of content area learning.

Content area instruction is an obvious site for the development of disciplinary knowledge, but content instruction can also be a supportive con- text for literacy development. Several programs of research have demonstrated that literacy develop- ment is accelerated when instruction in reading and writing is situated in ongoing, content area study (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2004; Romance & Vitale, 2001). Joining literacy instruction with content area instruction has been shown to increase stu- dents’ conceptual learning, reading motivation, writing skill, use of comprehension strategies, and overall reading comprehension (e.g., Cervetti, Bar- ber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012a; Guth- rie et al., 2004; Romance & Vitale, 2001). There is compelling evidence that growth in reading engagement and reading comprehension is accel- erated when students are involved in reading texts for purposes such as making an argument, applying a concept, or engaging in a firsthand investigation (e.g., Knapp, 1995; Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Mar- tineau, 2007). Moreover, it is through leveraging reading as part of involvement in meaningful tasks that students come to understand the purposes of reading (Turner, 1995). When reading is associ- ated with learning and inquiry as part of content area study, students have many opportunities to see reading as a way of seeking information, insight, and enjoyment.

Though knowledge building through content area instruction is essential, knowledge devel- opment in an ELA context is also critical; ELA

instruction consumes the largest part of the school day in most classrooms. In the sections that follow, we identify ways that ELA can support knowledge building through a) selection of texts, b) talk about text, and c) writing.

Knowledge Enhancement through the Selection of Texts Texts have the potential to be significant resources for knowledge development; however, much depends on the texts we select. In an ideal world, students would read texts that are connected to themes, topics, students’ experiences and interests, etc. Currently, when students are learning to read, they too often read texts that are designed to sup- port word recognition by emphasizing phonetically regular words and commonplace ideas. Educators have often assumed that an emphasis on knowl- edge in texts for beginning or struggling readers will increase the complexity of the task (Mason & Blanton, 1971). The examples in Table 1, however, suggest that the opposite pattern may hold, at least with some texts.

The excerpt from a decodable text in column one (Raymer, 2000) demonstrates that some pho- netically regular words can be unfamiliar (e.g., bob- cat, sled). Further, students also need to infer that sleds can be heavy to carry, at least for little dogs (pictures illustrate Meg as a schnauzer). A further inference that pertains to the whole text is that this story is a version of The Little Red Hen. All of the animals refuse Meg’s request for assistance with the sled; as a result, only Meg gets to enjoy the fruit of her labor—a fast ride down the hill.

The excerpt in the second column suggests that the goals of word recognition and knowledge development can be furthered simultaneously. The second excerpt pro- vides opportunities with “long-vowel” words, while

With the introduction of the

CCSS, we have seen a strong

focus on text genre . . . rather

than a focus on the knowledge

that students are to gain from

text. The CCSS-ELA, however,

clearly support the idea of

in-depth study and knowledge

development in ELA.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 263 2/20/15 2:56 PM

page

264

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

communicating information about the sense of smell in snails. The presence of photos reinforces these ideas, showing a snail on leaves, hiding, and a close- up of the snail’s body. The first step in making ELA instruction a context for knowledge enhancement is ensuring that the texts students read offer opportuni- ties to learn something, even when they are at the beginning stages of reading.

With the introduction of the CCSS, we have seen a strong focus on text genre, including a focus on the increased ratio of informational texts as com- pared with narrative texts, rather than a focus on the knowledge that students are to gain from text (Clark, Jones, & Reutzel, 2013; Brown & Schulten, 2012; Gewertz, 2012a, 2012b). The CCSS-ELA, however, clearly support the idea of in-depth study and knowl- edge development in ELA. In the section, “Stay- ing on Topic within a Grade and across Grades,” the Standards discuss the importance of “building knowledge systematically in English language arts” (p. 33). The Standards also connect knowledge development with thematically linked reading as they suggest that texts be selected “around topics or themes that systematically develop the knowl- edge base of students,” (p. 33). Reading in thematic text sets increases the likelihood that students will encounter the same words and concepts, facilitating ease of reading and building knowledge.

Teachers can also use content area Standards as a guide for the selection of themes or topics for reading, so students are building knowledge across the school day. For example, Gina Cervetti

is developing a second-grade English language arts unit based on the CCSS informational text Standards, including Standards related to using informational text features (RI.2.5) and engag- ing in research and writing projects using multiple sources (W.2.7). In doing so, she has been guided in the selection of topics for the research and writing by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). She has chosen an outcome statement from the NGSS related to understanding habitats and biodiversity as a guide for the topic of the research and writing students will do in English language arts. By coordinating across the two sets of Standards, Cervetti is working to ensure that stu- dents are building knowledge that will support their informational reading and writing. In forming con- nections to content area learning, knowledge devel- oped through reading is deep rather than superficial, conceptual rather than factual.

While connections to content area Standards are a logical way to create thematic text sets in English language arts, thematic reading is not the sole domain of informational texts or content areas. There are many worthy themes and con- cepts in literature—themes about which students can build sophisticated understandings to leverage in further reading and in their own compositions. Themes in literature include the nature of friend- ship, family, the accrual and use of power, war, social mobility, and sacrifice. All of these topics can be studied in some depth though literature and composition.

Table 1. Examples of texts for reading instruction: With and without a knowledge emphasis

Without Knowledge Emphasis

Meg pulled a sled up the hill. Meg passed Helen Hen. “Help me pull this sled,” called Meg. “I can’t,” said Helen Hen. Meg pulled and pulled. Meg passed Bob Bobcat. “Help me pull this sled,” called Meg. “I can’t,” said Bob Bobcat.

(Raymer, 2000)

With Knowledge Emphasis

A snail can smell leaves to eat. Here is one eating the leaves on a plant.

A snail can smell a safe place to hide. Here it is hiding.

A snail does not have a nose. But it can smell. A snail uses its skin to smell.

(Hiebert, 2012)

Mar_2015_LA.indd 264 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

265

Gina Cervetti and Elfrieda H. Hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

Knowledge Enhancement through Talk about Text There is ample evidence in the research literature of the critical role of discussion in comprehending texts (e.g., Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009). Studies have shown that peer dis- cussions support comprehension and learning from text partly because they provide opportunities for students to share information—from prior knowl- edge and what was understood and recalled from the text—that, taken together, contribute to more coher- ent understandings (e.g., Rivard & Straw, 2000). In addition, students can use dialogue to talk through, clarify, integrate, and negotiate their growing understandings with others—forms of processing ideas that ultimately support knowledge develop- ment (Gee, 2004; Rivard & Straw, 2000). Discus- sion provides opportunities for what Cazden (1988) calls “the enactment of complementary roles” (p. 129), in which students collaborate to complete a task or solve a problem and together develop a stronger understanding of the ideas in a text than would be possible alone. The CCSS acknowledge the connection between talk and knowledge build- ing, calling for students in the earliest grades to read (or hear) an array of texts on a single topic and use discussion to compare, contrast, analyze, and synthesize information across the texts.

There are a number of instructional heuristics for knowledge-supportive talk, including Instruc- tional Conversations (Goldenberg, 1993), Explor- atory Talk (Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999), and Accountable Talk (Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008). In all of these, there is a focus on substantive ideas or themes, norms of discourse that support high levels of participation by all stu- dents, and developing claims that have logical and/ or evidence-based connections to text. Discussions that build knowledge are guided by questions that call on students to think deeply about important concepts in texts and connect information from dif- ferent parts of texts or across multiple texts (Gal- lagher & Pearson, 1989).

A focus on concepts and relationships among concepts is central to a number of the ELA Stan- dards. For example, Standards RI.3.3, RI.4.3, and

RI.5.3 set the expectation that students will be able to explain concepts and relationships among concepts encountered in informational literature. So, after students have read a book related to social studies content such as We Are the Ship: The Story of Negro League Baseball (Nel- son, 2008), they could be asked to describe the reasons why the author concluded that both Josh Gibson and Jackie Rob- inson—players whose careers differed greatly— died prematurely because of their experiences in baseball. Or, after reading a book related to science content such as Animals in Motion: How Animals, Swim, Jump, Slither, and Glide (Hickman, 2000), stu- dents might be asked to identify evidence in the text as to how animals’ means of locomotion is important for their survival within different ecosystems.

In general, questions that ask the readers to determine “why” and “how” should outnum- ber questions of “what, where, and when.” Why and how questions call on students to develop claims supported by reasons, or evidence, drawn from the text and prior knowledge. Questions that require integration between prior knowledge and information located in the text are key to knowl- edge building (Brandão & Oakhill, 2005). Why and how questions also make information in texts more memorable. Research has demonstrated that asking “why?” focuses students’ attention on the reasons behind particular events or actions taken by characters in a text (e.g., “Why did the man do that?” “Why would that animal have/do that?”) and results in stronger memory for information in a text (Wood, Pressley, & Winne, 1990, pp. 742, 744). These kinds of why questions seem to encourage students to use their prior knowledge to understand the material they are being asked to learn. More- over, why and how questions direct students’ atten- tion to important information in a text and act as

To develop both the ways

of acquiring knowledge in

different content areas and of

developing foundational bodies

of knowledge that will support

comprehension and knowledge

building, substantially more

informational texts need

to be integrated into ELA

instruction.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 265 2/20/15 2:56 PM

page

266

Gina Cervetti and Elfrieda H. Hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

a comprehension-monitoring tool by helping stu- dents recognize when they don’t understand (Hart- man, 1995). Teaching students to generate their own questions while reading is also beneficial for helping them activate knowledge as they read and build knowledge during reading (Taboada & Guth- rie, 2006).

Knowledge Enhancement through Writing

Writing is a central part of knowledge-enhancing instruction in a number of ways. First, writing or recording evidence and interpretations of evidence is a primary way of interacting with knowledge in different disciplines. Scientists write copiously as they conduct inquiries, recording their observa- tions and reflecting on patterns within observations as well as next steps for extending their inquiries. Mathematicians write to explain proofs and reason- ing underlying their solution to a problem (Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001). Social scientists, similarly, write extensively but they write to place causal and temporal explanatory structures on evidence (De La Paz & Felton, 2010).

Second, writing provides the teacher with evi- dence of what students have understood from a text. Whereas within discussions, the interpreta- tions (even partial interpretations) of every student cannot be heard, writing allows each individual to express his or her interpretations. Finally, writing is also a means whereby students can reflect on knowl- edge that they have gained from reading and con- nect new information to prior knowledge. Unlike the ephemeral nature of speech, a written record of the evidence gleaned from reading can be revisited, revised, and elaborated upon (Scardamalia & Bere- iter, 2006). Knoblauch and Brannon (1983) go so far as to state “writing makes knowledge” (p. 466).

It is for all of these reasons (and more) that writing plays a vital role in building and activat- ing knowledge and is intimately connected to read- ing in the CCSS. This research has been conducted under the aegis of various terms—writing to learn (Teng, Kasinathan, Low, Brian, & Shukri, 2012) and knowledge building through writing (Scardamalia &

Bereiter, 2006) prominent among those. To create strong knowledge-building opportunities with writ- ing in the CCSS, teachers will need to view opinion writing as evidence-based argumentation. For exam- ple, students can write opinions about how problems in science and social studies can be solved, drawing on relevant knowledge (e.g., What actions should we take to reduce the amount of trash in the ocean?), rather than writing opinion pieces about everyday topics, such as the length of recess.

The writing experiences that are part of the Textual Tools project (Textual Tools Study Group, 2006) have led to more developed and scientifi- cally accurate science explanations by students when compared to their writing at the outset of the interventions, regardless of entry skills. Opportu- nities to write in the ways that scientists write are also an integral part of the Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading project (Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pear- son, & Goldschmidt, 2012a). For example, students record observations of phenomena in notebooks. They summarize the results of experiments. They also write reports, modeling the style and struc- ture used by scientists. When knowledge building has occurred through reading, talking, writing, and doing, students’ scientific knowledge has increased significantly. At the same time, students’ vocabu- lary acquisition and writing fluency has benefitted (Cervetti et al., 2012).

Conclusion Throughout the CCSS, there is recognition that knowledge is the commodity of the digital–global age and that it is in texts that the knowledge of humankind is documented and shared. The CCSS view ELA instruction as the context for devel- oping the proficiencies to acquire knowledge from text, including disciplinary knowledge. To develop both the ways of acquiring knowledge in different content areas and of developing founda- tional bodies of knowledge that will support com- prehension and knowledge building, substantially more informational texts need to be integrated into ELA instruction. But these informational

Mar_2015_LA.indd 266 2/20/15 2:56 PM

page

267

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

texts are not simply an exercise to ensure the des- ignated distributions of informational–narrative texts at different grade bands. The CCSS provide an opportunity for ELA teachers to be leaders in the information age.

references Adams, B. C., Bell, L. S., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995).

A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children’s text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307–323.

Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125–146.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema- theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–381.

Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.

Brandão, A. C., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer? Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing,18, 687–713.

Brown, A. C., & Schulten, K. (2012, December 13). Fiction or nonfiction? Considering the common core’s emphasis on informational text. New York Times. Retrieved from http://learning.blogs.nytimes. com/2012/12/13/fiction-or-nonfiction-considering-the- common-cores-emphasis-on-informational-text.

Burnett, F.H. (1911). The Secret Garden. New York City, NY: Frederick A. Stokes. Retrieved from: http://www .gutenberg.org/ebooks/113

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

Clark, S. K., Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Using the text structures of information books to teach writing in the primary grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41, 265–271.

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.

Coleman, D., &, Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the common core state standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_ Criteria_for_3-12.pdf.

De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192.

Gallagher, M., & Pearson, D. P. (1989). Discussion, comprehension, and knowledge acquisition in content area classrooms (Technical report no. 480). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Gaultney, J. F. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge and metacognition on the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 142–163.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school- based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in science and literacy instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gewertz, C. (2012a, March 14). Districts gird for added use of nonfiction. Education Week, 31(24), 1. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/14/2 4informational_ep.h31.html.

Gewertz, C. (2012b, November 14). Scales tip toward nonfiction under the Common Core. Education Week 32(12), S14. Retrieved from: http://www .edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/14/12cc-nonfiction .h32.html.

Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46, 316–326.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 267 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

268

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520–561.

Hickman, P. (2000). Animals in motion: How animals swim, jump, slither, and glide. Tonawanda, NY: Kids Can Press.

Hiebert, E.H. (2012). Where is a snail’s nose? Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject. Retrieved from: http://textproject .org/students/beginningreads/

Hirsch, E. D., Kett, J. F., & Trefil, J. (2002). The new dictionary of cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

Knapp, M. S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as learning through the curriculum. College English, 45, 465–474.

Lock, D. (2013). Astronaut: Living in space. New York, NY: DK Readers.

Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations with recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 816–827.

Mason, G. E., & Blanton, W. E. (1971). Story content for beginning reading instruction. Elementary English, 48, 793–796.

McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/index .cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nod eID=1&DocumentID=234.

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95–111.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and

how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 99–113.

Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10, 740–764.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ela-literacy.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel—Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Nelson, K. (2008). We are the ship: The story of Negro league baseball. New York, NY: Hyperion.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Guilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J., & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92, 765–798.

Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations of the common core state standards in English language arts. In S. Neuman and L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core state standards (pp. 237–262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–209.

Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273–295.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45.

Raymer, D. (2000). Meg’s sled (Open Court Reading). Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Mar_2015_LA.indd 268 2/19/15 11:33 AM

page

269

gina Cervetti and Elfrieda h. hiebert | Knowledge, Literacy, and the Common Core

Language Arts, Volume 92 Number 4, March 2015

Like “Language Arts Journal” on Facebook

Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16–20.

Rentner, D. S., Scott, C., Kober, N., Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S., & Zabala, D. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Rivard, L., & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 272–304.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to

construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 1–35.

Taft, M. L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 163–179.

Teng, H. C., Kasinathan, J., Low, V., Brian, M. I., & Shukri, A. B. (2012). Improving science learning through writing-to-learn strategy. In M. Kim & C. H. Diong (Eds.), Biology education for social and sustainable development (pp. 187–195). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Textual Tools Study Group. (2006). Developing scientific literacy through the use of literacy teaching strategies. In R. Douglas (Ed.), Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 261–285). Washington, DC: NSTA.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.

Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741–748.

gina N. Cervetti is an assistant professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture at University of Michigan. She can be reached at cervetti,umich.edu.

Elfrieda h. hiebert is president and CEO of TextProject, a nonprofit that provides open-access resources to support higher reading levels, and a research associate at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She

can be reached at [email protected].

Mar_2015_LA.indd 269 2/19/15 11:33 AM

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.