interacting with texts; however, this requires effective teaching. Teachers select texts that are
appropriately challenging, yet not so challenging that they are inaccessible and not so simple that
there is no growth. Texts represent a range of genres and are closely connected to the school
curriculum and content standards.
Text complexity can be difficult to determine and involves subjective judgments by expert teachers
who know their students. A three-part model for determining the complexity of a particular text
is described by the NGA/CCSSO in Appendix A. Teachers consider (1) qualitative dimensions, (2)
quantitative dimensions, and (3) the reader and task. Figure 2.7 represents the three dimensions. See
Appendix A of the CCSS for ELA/Literacy for annotations of the complexity of several texts.
Figure 2.7. The Standards’ Model of Text ComplexitySource
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief
State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO). 2010a. Common Core State Standards
for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Appendix A.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State
School Officers, Washington DC.Qualitative dimensions refer to those aspects of text complexity best measured or only measurable
by an attentive human reader. Among these are the levels of meaning (literary texts) or purpose
(informational text) that exist in a text. For example, The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein is not just
about a tree and Animal Farm by George Orwell is not just about animals. Qualitative dimensions
also include text structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands. Texts that
make assumptions about readers’ life experiences, cultural/literary knowledge, and content/discipline
knowledge are generally more complex than those that do not. For example, a text that refers
to a Sisyphean task or Herculean effort assumes that readers are familiar with Greek and Roman
mythology. More detail is provided about each of these qualitative factors in figure 2.8.
Essential Considerations Chapter 2 | 71