Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2012; 33(02): 146-159
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1310314
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Linguistic Demands of the Common Core State Standards for Reading and Writing Informational Text in the Primary Grades

Kathryn L. Roberts
1   Department of Reading, Language, and Literature, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 April 2012 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Forty-five states and four U.S. territories have committed to implementing the new Common Core State Standards, with the goal of graduating students from our K–12 programs who are ready for college and careers. For many, the new standards represent a shift in genre focus, giving much more specific attention to informational genres. Beginning in the primary grades, the standards set high expectations for students’ interaction with informational text, many of which are significantly more linguistically demanding than the standards that they replace. These increased demands are likely to pose difficulties not only for students currently receiving language support, but also for students without identified delays or disabilities. This article describes several of the kindergarten through fifth-grade standards related to informational text, highlighting the linguistic demands that each poses. In addition, instructional strategies are provided that teachers and speech-language pathologists can use to support the understanding and formulation of informational text for listening, reading, speaking, and writing.

Keywords

common core state standards - informational text - literacy - linguistic demands - speech-language pathologists
 

  • References

  • 1 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards. 2010. Available at: http://www.corestandards.org/ . Accessed March 26, 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Donovan CA. Children’s development and control of written story and informational genres: insights from one elementary school. Res Teach Engl 2001; 35: 394-447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Duke NK. 3.6 minutes per day: the scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Read Res Q 2000; 35: 202-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 National Center for Educational Statistics, & Institute of Educational Sciences. National Assessment of Educational Progress 2011. Available at: http://nationsreportcard.gov/ . Accessed March 26, 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Asher SR, Markell RA. Sex differences in comprehension of high- and low-interest reading material. J Educ Psychol 1974; 66: 680-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Caswell LJ, Duke NK. Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy development. Lang Arts 1998; 75: 108-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Duke NK, Purcell-Gates V. Genres at home and at school: bridging the known to the new. Read Teach 2003; 57: 30-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Stanovich KE. Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Read Res Q 1986; 21: 360-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Duke NK. Comprehension of what for what: comprehension as a non-unitary construct. In: Paris S, Stahl S, eds. Children’s Reading Comprehension and Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005: 93-104
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Harste JC, Woodward VA, Burke CL. Language Stories and Literacy Lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1984
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Purcell-Gates V. Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written narrative held by well-read-to kindergarteners and second graders. Res Teach Engl 1988; 22: 128-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Walker BJ. Thinking aloud: struggling readers often require more than a model. Read Teach 2005; 58: 688-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pressley M, El-Dinary PB, Gaskins IW , et al. Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elem Sch J 1992; 92: 513-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 RAND Reading Study Group. Reading for Understanding: Toward an R & D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Zygouris-Coe V, Wiggins MB, Smith LH. Engaging students with text: the 3–2-1 Strategy. Read Teach 2004; 58: 381-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pressley M, Almasi J, Schuder T , et al. Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery County, Maryland, SAIL program. Reading Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties 1994; 10: 5-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Williams JP. Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: a focus on text structure. J Spec Educ 2005; 39: 6-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bass ML, Woo DG. Comprehension windows strategy: a comprehension strategy and prop for reading and writing informational text. Read Teach 2008; 61: 571-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar