Splitting Hairs: Language of Common Core

Upon setting out to unpack ELA Reading standard 2, I found the language, which seemed so normal at a glance, to be unclear. The more I dug into the nuances of the words within the standards, the less consistency I found. When examining the terms of recount, central idea, central message, lesson, moral, and theme, I found conflicting ideas, and ultimately, had to make my own assertions. I must thank two of my sisters for helping me think through this one, as they both have literature backgrounds. I would love to hear your thinking on the topic.

The second College and Career Readiness Anchor Standard (CCR) standard for reading reads as follows:

Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.

This overarching standard, which is to represent how students should think about both narratives and expository text, uses the terms central ideas or themes.

Within the grade levels, the language progression within Reading Literature Standard 2 is as follows:

   1st Grade           2nd Grade                   3rd Grade       4th Grade   5th Grade
central message  central message,       central message       theme             theme
or lesson              lesson, or moral          lesson, or moral

Common Core was developed with both an increasing of complexity of concepts throughout the grade levels, as well as a mirroring of concepts between literature and informational text standards. The CCR standards are meant to envelope diverse types of text. Therefore, when the CCR standard uses the term “central idea,” I believe this refers to the main idea, which is the gist of what the author is saying. In narratives, the main idea could be thought of who, did what, and how or why that was important. In expository, the main idea is the topic. The central idea/main idea is bound by the text. On the other hand, the grade level specific terms transcend the text. At first glance, these words seem like the same ideas, however, since the standards were created to increase as we progress through the grade levels (as seen below), then there must be nuances in their application.

Let’s examine each term individually, and then examine how they are related:

Theme

According to Griffith (2011), the theme expresses ideas about the real world outside of the text. Symbols, patterns, and problematic situations within narratives are some clues that help readers determine the theme. The theme is not the subject of the story, but rather, the commentary about that subject. While Griffith states that the theme must be a developed sentence, others believe the theme may be expressed in a word or phrase. Kirsner and Mandell (1994) examine themes as words, phrases, and sentences that depict human emotion, conflict, and experiences such as jealousy, loss of innocence, disillusionment of adulthood, and the beauty of love. Themes can be implicitly or explicitly stated, and stories may have multiple themes (Barone, 2011).

Central Message/Lesson

Students begin looking for the central message or lesson in first grade, which indicates that it is a concept that is less complex than theme. When we think of a central message or lesson, we can formulate our lesson around the question, “What can we learn from this story?” or “What does this story teach us?” These questions are simpler than theme, and while they do require a level of analysis by drawing conclusions and synthesizing the text, it does not require the reader to examine the text in the same depth as theme. There can be overlap between lessons and themes, but in general, themes go beyond lessons. (Barone, 2011)

Morals

The moral of a story is related to the lesson. Morals deal with issues of ethics or general truths. Often morals are found in fables, although they can also be found in other tales as well. At times the moral is explicitly stated at the end of a fable. This is called the maxim.

Morals are mentioned in the third grade standards, which makes sense as fables are also introduced at this grade level. This is more about a progression of explicitly expanding the types of narratives students read as they progress through the grade levels.

Tying it all Together

Based upon the individual analysis of terms, these are my conclusions:

The Central idea is the same as main idea. The central message is a lesson, which could be the theme. A moral is a specific type of lesson, most often found in fables. The theme is less concrete than lessons. To find the theme, readers must draw conclusions and infer based on a variety of evidence as found through recurring events, patterns, symbols, and underlying conflicts. The theme goes beyond a lesson, although there can be overlaps. Figure 3 is one visual interpretation of how these concepts can be viewed.

Therefore, in the story Cookies from Frog and Toad Together, the central or main idea could be Frog and Toad keep moving their cookies out of sight to show willpower, but they keep finding the cookies hard to resist. Within that story, they keep hiding the cookies from their sight, and keep finding that does not help because they always have access to the cookies. They learn (lesson or central message) that temptations are hard to resist, or that willpower takes more than putting something out of sight. The theme is based on recurring patterns. If we look at the collection of Frog and Toad stories, there is a focus on friendship. What does this story particularly say about friendship? Although Frog keeps helping Toad (and himself) by hiding the cookies and then ultimately feeding the birds, Toad ends up going back home to make more treats. Therefore, a theme at its most basic level could be friendship, or could be expanded to although we can help our friends, they ultimately must help themselves. As you can see, the concepts may align or cross over between what is bound within the text and what transcends the text.

References

Barone, D. M. (2011) Children’s Literature in the Classroom: Engaging Lifelong Readers. The Guildford Press. New York, NY.

Griffith, K. (2011). Writing Essays About Literature A Guide and Style Sheet. Eighth Edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

Kirsner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (1994). Fiction: Reading, Reacting, Writing. Harcourt Brace & Co: Fort Worth, TX.

Lobel, A. (1999). Frog and Toad Together. New York: HarperFestival

Closing in on Close Reading

The headlining College and Career Readiness anchor standard has far more depth than may be ascertained upon the first read, which is exactly its point! CCR Standard 1 reads as follows:

Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. (Common Core ELA Standards)

Calkins, Ehrenworth, and Lehman (2012) refer to this as the literal comprehension standard, emphasizing Common Core’s heavy concentration on students understanding and focusing on the meaning of the text. Although students will clearly need to delve deeper beyond the literal details as supported by grade level standards, Common Core purports that it is essential that all students have a stronghold on literal details and basic inferences first and foremost. Rather than the reader spiraling through his or her perspectives and the connections, the text should be the primary focus.

As we delve into this standard, you may notice that it begins with two seemingly innocuous words: read closely. Although teachers have supported this idea for many years, Common Core is actually referring to a more specific concept called close reading. Close reading is not a new term, having been used in both middle and high school in the past, but its focus in primary grades is a new application. This type of reading requires effective, deliberate teaching and strategy instruction. It is not enough to just tell students to look closer. They need quality text of appropriate complexity that is worth the reading, and specific ideas on how they can examine the text.

What does a close read look like? Below are three different definitions that embody similar ideas:

Rereading for the purpose of recognizing details and nuances of text that may go unnoticed during a cursory first read so that new understandings and insights may reveal themselves (Burkins and Yaris, 2013).

A careful and purposeful reading and rereading of text; an intensive analysis of a text. Reading to uncover layers of meaning that leads to deep comprehension. A focus on what the text says, how it says it, and what it means.

Close reading may include text-based questions and discussion with attention to vocabulary and word choice, context, tone, argument, and imagery (Tyson, 2013).

 Careful and purposeful rereading of a text (Fisher, 2013).

I like to think of close reading as scuba diving. When we speed through text and get the general meaning, we are swimming along the surface. Previous comprehension instruction where we paused throughout the story to discuss elements is like snorkeling. You can see beyond the surface, and depending on the clarity of the water (or your thinking) you can look into the story. But with close reading, you get to hang out for awhile and explore the wonders and nuances within texts. You have the air (or reading tools) necessary to immerse yourself completely and examine the deep structures of a text and connect your background knowledge to expand your schema.

These deep structures are the focus of Common Core, and include text organization, author’s purpose, connections among ideas, and synthesizing ideas. Readers must pay close attention to the word choice used within a text, and how the specificity of words is used to advance concepts, along with its key details, arguments, and inferences. Through close reading, students develop a deeper understanding of what the text is truly saying, and while their own ideas and schema will also affect their ideas, text analysis will really drive their thinking. Close reading entails examining complex, short passages that students and teachers can analyze from multiple perspectives through rereading. Rather than spending much time on frontloading, or activation of background knowledge, teachers and students should discuss their connections as they arise through the need to make sense of the text. Teachers should have previewed the text in advanced, and be prepared to examine the text with students using text-dependent questions. These questions include key details, general understandings, vocabulary and text structure, inferences, author’s purpose and point of view, arguments and intercontextual connections. All of these components of close reading can be found in Table 1. Close reading should not replace all types of reading, but is an essential part of the reading instruction. (Fisher & Frey 2012)

Table 1: Components of Close Reading

Deep Structures to Analyze	Modes of Teaching Accompanying Close Reading	Key Features of Close Reading	Types of Text-Dependent Questions
Text OrganizationAuthor’s Purpose Making Connections Synthesizing Inferring Key Details Arguments	Interactive Read AloudsThink Alouds Shared Reading Guided Reading (leveled texts) Collaborative Reading Independent Reading Writing	Short PassagesComplex Texts Limited Frontloading Repeated Readings Text-Dependent Questions Annotation	General Understandings Key Details Vocabulary & Text Structure Author’s Purpose & Point of View Inferences Opinions, Arguments, and Intertextual Connections

Through these close readings, students will develop the rest of the skills within CCR 1. Specifically, students will develop literal and inferential understanding of the text and be able to support their ideas with evidence from the text. Each grade level develops specific skills that students should master within this frame, but teachers must keep this bigger picture in mind when teaching students about questioning and key details.(Fisher & Frey 2012)

References

Burkins, J., Yaris, K. (Jan. 22, 2013). Defining Close Reading. Burkins and Yaris: Think tank for the 21st century Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2013. From http://www.burkinsandyaris.com/defining-close-reading/

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., Lehman, C. (2012) Pathways to the Common Core. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Common Core State Standards. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Sciences, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org.

Fisher, D. (n.d.). Close Reading and the CCSS, Part 1. Common Core State Standards Toolbox. Retrieved on Jan. 25, 2013. From http://www.mhecommoncoretoolbox.com/close-reading-and-the-ccss-part-1.html

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close Reading in Elementary Schools. Reading Teacher. Vol. 66.3

Tyson, K. (2013). 25 Great Ways to Prepare for Common Core. Learning Unlimited LLC. Retrieved on February 2013. From http://www.learningunlimitedllc.com/25-ways-to-prepare-for-the-common-core/

Graphic courtesy of Mycutegraphics.com