Building Background Knowledge Through Reading: Rethinking Text Sets

Abstract

To increase reading volume and help students access challenging texts, the authors propose a four-dimensional framework for text sets. The quad text set framework is designed around a target text: a challenging content area text, such as a canonical literary work, research article, or historical primary source document. The three remaining dimensions include visual texts (e.g., a video, pictures), informational texts to build students’ background knowledge and vocabulary, and an accessible young adult novel or current events article to help students engage with the topic. Working together, these texts can build students’ background knowledge, make the target text accessible to students, and also allow them to synthesize information across sources. The authors suggest that quad text sets are useful in English, science, and social studies classrooms.

Full text

433
FEATURE ARTICLE
Building Background Knowledge
Through Reading: Rethinking
Text Sets
Sarah M. Lupo, John Z. Strong, William Lewis, Sharon Walpole,
Michael C. McKenna
The quad text set framework can assist content teachers in building students’
background knowledge, increasing their reading volume, and incorporating
complextexts into instruction.
A
call for continued efforts to improve literacy
outcomes for adolescents is standard fare, but
exactly what adolescents should read, how
much, and how are less clear. As former middle and
high school teachers and current university- based
literacy researchers, we take the stance that increas-
ing the amount of challenging texts that middle and
high school students read has the potential to improve
literacy outcomes. However, we know that teachers
are often unsure about how to link texts to other cur-
ricular objectives. We present a text set framework
that allows teachers to plan instruction that meets
disciplinary goals while also providing opportuni-
ties for students to build their background knowledge
through reading.
Starting With What We Know
We started by considering the literature behind the
use of text sets. We then thought through factors that
impact both comprehension and instruction, including
the effects of reading volume and diff iculty, and how the
use of text sets may help or hinder these challenges. We
also considered the actual knowledge and motivational
demands on adolescent readers tasked with learning
content through high- volume work with texts.
Figure1 presents a visual depiction of the stressors
that we saw that inf luence adolescent reading in school,
potentially affecting both attitudes and achievement.
We describe these factors to provide background for
our decisions. Together, these research strands help
teachers consider both students’ knowledge and their
thinking processes during reading, keeping teachers’
attention squarely on what students need to know and
do to learn from text.
Finally, we developed an approach to text selection
and sequencing that puts theory into classroom prac-
tice. We worked with teachers to develop texts sets and
observed the implementation of our new framework in
middle and high school content area classrooms.
How Have Texts Been Used Together?
The idea of using text sets is certainly not new. Begin-
ning in the 1930s, progressive curricular reforms
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 pp. 43 3–44 4 doi: 10.1002/jaal.701 © 2017 Int ernational Lit eracy Association
SARAH M. LUPO is an assistant professor in the
College of Education at James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, VA, USA; e-mail luposm@jmu.edu.
JOHN Z. STRONG is a doctoral student in literacy
development and learning problems at the University
of Delaware, Newark, USA; e-mail jzstrong@udel.edu.
WILLIAM LEWIS is an associate professor in the
School of Education at the University of Delaware,
Newark, USA; e-mail wlewis@udel.edu.
SHARON WALPOLE is a professor in the School of
Education at the University of Delaware, Newark,
USA; e-mail swalpole@udel.edu.
MICHAEL C. MCKENNA was the Thomas G. Jewell
Professor of Reading at the University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, USA, before he passed away in
December 2016.

434
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
(e.g., Weeks, 1936) sought to enrich the reading experi-
ences of students and modernize the teaching of read-
ing and literature. Wide reading and discussion across
texts became a target early on (e.g., D.K. Hartman &
Allison, 1996). A call for opportunities to make text- to-
text connections required that texts be read together
(Pytash, Batchelor, Kist, & Srsen, 2014).
J.A. Hartman and Hartman (1994) proposed sev-
eral possible alternatives to single texts: (a) companion
texts that an author intended to be read as a series or
collection, (b) complementary texts that explore a simi-
lar topic or theme, (c) synoptic texts that explore how a
single story is told in different versions or accounts, and
(d)conflicting texts that present alternative perspec-
tives on the same topic or theme. Although no studies
have compared the efficacy of these different approach-
es, there is no reason to question their potential utility
in different content areas.
Text sets of all kinds have been gaining traction in
the practitioner- oriented literature, including sets for
English language arts (ELA; e.g., Pytash etal., 2014),
social studies (e.g., Bersh, 2013), and science (e.g., Folk
& Palmer, 2016). For example, complementary texts
allow ELA teachers to explore a theme or topic in
depth or science teachers to explore different facets
of a topic. Conflicting texts allow social studies teach-
ers to explore different perspectives about historical
events. What they have in common is their focus on
providing students the chance to look across texts and
build both general and disciplinary knowledge. Along
with these researchers, we embrace this opportuni-
ty, paying explicit attention to curricular challenges
that teachers face and comprehension demands for
students.
How Much Should Students Read?
Volume is a measure of occupied space. Reading
volume, then, might be estimated by multiplying the
total time spent reading by the total number of words
read. Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) called time
spent reading a “malleable habit” (p. 8) with the poten-
tial to develop vocabulary and background knowledge.
Figure2 models the reciprocal relations among reading
volume, knowledge, and time.
These relations have been tested empirically for
adolescents. Differences in students’ reading volume
contribute to variability in reading comprehension,
vocabulary, and general knowledge (Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1997; Sparks, Patton, & Murdoch, 2014).
It makes sense that adolescents who read a lot in
school would read better, but exactly how much should
they read? Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) es-
timated that a child who reads independently for 20
minutes per day will read over 1 million more words
per year than a child who reads for 10 minutes per day.
Biancarosa and Snow (2006) argued that, in theory,
adolescents should spend two to four hours per day
engaged in literacy- connected learning across con-
tent area classes, reading many millions of words per
year. However, a recent observational study (Swanson
etal., 2016) identified that students read for less than
15% of observed time in social studies and ELA classes
in grades 7–12. Most unfortunate was that two thirds
of the “reading” time was actually spent listening to
tapes, to teachers reading aloud, or to another student
reading. Because of the benefits of reading volume
Figure 1
Stressors on Adolescent Text Experiences
Reading
experience
Reading
volume
Text
difficulty
Background
knowledge
Motivation
Figure 2
Relations Among Time Spent Reading, Reading
Ease, and Likelihood of Reading
Better
Readers
Read More
Knowledge
Makes
Reading
Easier
Ease of
Reading
Makes
ReadingMore
Likely
TimeSpent
Reading
Enhances
Knowledge

435
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
and the relative dearth of reading in secondary envi-
ronments, it was imperative to design text sets that
provide students with multiple opportunities to read
diverse texts.
How Hard Should Students’ Reading Be?
To devote more in- school time to reading, teachers must
select appropriate texts. Current debates center on
whether students should read more challenging texts.
The argument for reading challenging texts is that this
experience will make the transition to college or career
reading easier (Williamson, 2008), and success in chal-
lenging texts can be motivating (T. Shanahan, Fisher, &
Frey, 2012).
How can strugling readers have success with read-
ing challenging texts? We hypothesized that we could
combine knowledge building and support. With these
scaffolds, strugling readers will be better prepared to
read complex texts successfully and engage with them
more often (Arya, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2011; Fisher &
Frey, 2014). Success with one text may enable success
in another (T. Shanahan etal., 2012; Wixson & Valencia,
2014).
T. Shanahan (2015) sugested providing opportuni-
ties for students to read at various levels of difficulty,
including a mix of easier and harder texts across the
school year. Therefore, a worthwhile start may be to
strategically design text sets that include multiple texts
at varying levels of difficulty and to provide opportu-
nities for all students to engage in reading challenging
texts (Elish- Piper, Wold, & Schwingendorf, 2014). Once
we decided that both increased volume and text diffi-
culty were potentially powerful targets, we turned our
attention to opportunities for support.
How Does Background Knowledge
Support Comprehension?
What students know influences how easily they learn.
Schema theory explains how background knowledge is
organized and activated. Schemata are clusters of in-
formation associated with concepts. The background
knowledge that a teacher builds for students and the
knowledge that they already possess inf luence which
details they find relevant (Anderson, 2013). Thus,
schema theory directs us to build knowledge before
reading.
According to Kintsch’s (2013) construction–inte-
gration model, comprehension is achieved in layers.
The first layer, the surface level, requires students to
interpret text at a very basic level. This text base pro-
vides a foundation, which must be strengthened by
background knowledge. The resulting situation model
is an integration of ideas from text and reader. Because
many adolescent readers fail to develop an adequate
situation model (Compton, Miller, Elleman, & Steacy,
2014), we must look for ways to assist them through
instruction.
When students have more content knowledge before
they read, their understanding is better during reading
(Arya etal., 2011). That knowledge can also make a hard
text easier. For example, Recht and Leslie (1988) con-
sidered comprehension for good comprehenders with
low knowledge and for weak comprehenders with high
knowledge. Knowledge erased the comprehension gap.
Thus, knowledge building may be key to assisting ado-
lescents in understanding rigorous texts.
Focusing on knowledge makes sense. Knowledge can
improve higher level thinking skills and content learn-
ing (Willingham, 2006) and enable inference genera-
tion and memory for details (Pearson & Fielding, 1991).
Many calls to improve curricula (e.g., Hirsch, 2006)
have claimed that a focus on skills limits knowledge and
reading comprehension. Because of our commitment
to increasing reading volume, we investigated ways
to build knowledge for students through reading and,
therefore, incorporated texts that build background
knowledge into our text sets.
How Can Teachers Motivate Students
to Read Difficult Text?
We also wondered whether we could motivate students
to read through the use of text sets. We first considered
one aspect of motivation: students’ interest in a particu-
lar topic. Motivation theory sugests that connections
between content and interests can secure the buy- in
needed for adolescents to do challenging comprehen-
sion work (e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997). For our text
sets, we decided to include at least one text that would
serve to help hook students into our content and pro-
vide buy- in.
Second, we considered aspects of text difficulty
and how they would influence students’ motivation.
Complicated comprehension tasks can be off- putting,
especially for adolescents. Some researchers have sug-
gested that the use of challenging texts may be demo-
tivating for students; however, if students feel more
confident, their confidence can be motivating (e.g., Kuhn
etal., 2006). This led us to determine that students need
to have successful reading encounters.

436
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
The use of text sets can help achieve this goal in
two ways. Fulmer and Tulis (2013) found that readers’
motivation was inf luenced by the reader’s perception
of text difficulty rather than the actual difficulty level
of the text. Therefore, along with motivational hooks,
we sought to combine challenging texts with strong
instructional scaffolds that will motivate adolescents
to persevere through their reading. We used a combi-
nation of both easier and more difficult texts to ensure
that students have successful encounters with reading
throughout the text set.
Quad Text Set Framework
Considering aspects of reading volume, text difficulty,
background knowledge, and motivation, we developed a
framework that we call quad text sets (Lewis & Walpole,
2016; Lewis, Walpole & McKenna, 2014). The sets require
four different types of texts: one that is a challenging on-
or above- grade- level text (the target text) and three other
texts that build the background knowledge and motiva-
tion needed to comprehend the target text. We wanted
to replace the time students spent listening to build
background knowledge and improve motivation with
real reading and interpretation of visuals. Figure3 links
the literature that we reviewed with our design choices.
Selecting Texts
We recommend first selecting a challenging text in
terms of lan guage and knowledge demands (T. Shana han
etal., 2012) that is consistent with curricular goals. We
call that text the target text. Then, we sugest choos-
ing three types of texts to build background knowledge
and increase motivation, to assist in understanding the
target text: visual or video text(s), informational text(s),
and accessible text(s) (from young adult fiction, nonfic-
tion articles, or popular culture).
Order of Texts
Our exploratory studies of quad text sets revealed
that the sequence of presenting the texts to students
was important (Lupo, McKenna, & Walpole, 2015). We
found that interspersing supporting texts between
chunks of or repeated readings of the target text to
provide timely and targeted background knowledge
helped students. Figure4 depicts that fluidity. For
example, students viewed video clips about gassing
and trench warfare and read the website The Long,
Long Trail: The British Army in the Great War of 1914–
1918 before reading Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et
Decorum Est.” After reading through the poem once,
students read “Gas Attack, 1916” on the EyeWitness
to History website to further their understanding of
events in the poem. Next, students reread the poem to
analyze how Owen’s word choice communicates the
horror of gas attacks. Students and teachers reported
that supporting texts, especially visual and accessible
texts, motivated students to read the challenging tar-
get text. We present several possibilities for how quad
text sets can be ordered to support high- volume read-
ing next.
Implementing Quad Text Sets
Of course, we do not advocate just designing and as-
signing text sets. For each text, we selected from a set
of instructional routines before, during, and after read-
ing. Figure5 provides a list of high- utility routines for
middle and high school teachers that could be used to
Figure 3
Rationale for Choices in the Quad Text Set
Framework
Figure 4
The Quad Text Set Framework

437
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
read texts across content areas. Additionally, we consid-
ered disciplinary literacy strategies, designed to meet
the demands of specific disciplines (C. Shanahan, 2015),
which we discuss in each example. In our examples, you
will see how teachers have used these general routines
alongside disciplinary practices in ELA, science, and
social studies classrooms.
ELA
As we designed quad text sets for ELA, we considered
disciplinary demands of this content area. ELA teach-
ers emphasize analysis and interpretation of litera-
ture, skills that push students to look well beyond plot
summary. Scholars of literary criticism have identified
specific patterns that experts use to analyze literature
(Fahnestock & Secor, 1991). Recognizing these patterns
is the critical knowledge that students need to interpret
literature (Lewis & Ferretti, 2011), and the patterns are
reflected in instructional approaches to close reading
in which students are taught to link the patterns to
theme and character development (see Beers & Probst,
2013).
For ELA, we considered using multiple texts to build
background knowledge that would assist students in in-
terpreting themes in a literary work. Strong (second au-
thor), a former high school ELA teacher, taught Harper
Le e’s To Kill a Mockingbird using the quad text set
framework during a thematic unit on courage. Figure6
shows the progression of our quad text set in the order
it was used.
Two texts were selected to build student under-
standing of racial discrimination in the U.S. South in
the 1930s. First, students viewed video segments from
the PBS series Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis
Ga tes, Jr. about various peoples’ childhood experiences
Figure 5
Routines for Before, During, and After Reading
•Teach academic vocabulary (Bromley, 2007).
•Provide a preview (e.g., Alvermann &
Swafford, 1989).
•Present a text structure graphic organizer
(e.g., Alvermann, 1981).
Before
reading
•Use a reading guide (e.g., Pearson &
Fielding, 1991).
•Use strutured, paired reading (e.g., Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Burish, 2000).
•Use disciplinary literacy strategies (see C.
Shanahan, 2015).
During
reading
•Engage in discussion (e.g., Zwiers, O'Hara,
& Pritchard, 2014).
•Write a summary (e.g., Buehl, 2009).
•Write a text-based argument (Ferretti &
Lewis, 2013).
After
reading
Figure 6
Quad Text Set for
To Kill a Mockingbird
Visual texts: Video segments from the PBS series
Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
Informational texts: Differentiated informational texts
from The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow by Richard
Wormser
Target text: To Kill a Mockingbird (Part 1) by Harper
Lee
Accessible text: Excerpts from The Trial of the
Scottsboro Boys by David Aretha (young adult
nonfiction)
Target text: To Kill a Mockingbird (Part 2) by Harper
Lee

438
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
growing up under Jim Crow laws, while completing a
comparison/contrast viewing g uide (C. Shanahan, 2015)
to corroborate points of view.
Next, students were assigned to homogeneous
groups to read a set of differentiated informational
texts from The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow by Richard
Wormser. Groups were assigned an article about the
Great Depression, the Scottsboro Case, or the Ku Klux
Klan to build their background knowledge and then
wrote a magnet summary (Buehl, 2009).
Afterward, students worked together to synthesize
information from all three texts. After students in-
creased their background knowledge about the setting,
they read Part 1 of To Kill a Mockingbird, a challenging
canonical work, in pairs using Peer- Assisted Learning
Strategies (Fuchs etal., 2000), a framework that uses
three general reading strategies during reading.
We also considered discipline- specific strategies for
literary analysis to use alongside the target text. For lit-
erary analysis, students used a Notice & Note reading
guide (Beers & Probst, 2013) to assist in recognizing pat-
terns and ma king connections between the setting of the
novel and the climate of race relations under Jim Crow
laws.
To prepare students to read Part 2 of To Kill a
Mockingbird, they read excerpts from the young adult
nonfiction book The Trial of the Scottsboro Boys by David
Aretha using reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
1984). After reading, students engaged in a discussion
about the courage the Scottsboro Boys displayed in their
fight for justice. The discussion scaffolded students’ un-
derstanding of the fictional trial of Tom Robinson in To
Kill a Mockingbird and motivated students by providing
relevant connections to the text.
Finally, students finished reading the target text
using a character change chart to recognize themes
(C. Shanahan, 2015). After reading, students used a
discipline- specific strategy to write a literary argu-
ment called DARE (develop a stance, add evidence, re-
but arguments, and end by restating your stance; De
La Paz, 2001). This assisted students in constructing
an interpretation about who they believed to be the
most courageous character in Lee’s novel. Figure7
shares additional quad text sets that we made for
ELA.
Science
As we developed quad text sets for science, we consid-
ered disciplinary literacy practices related to scientific
inquiry (Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). These practices
are identified in the Next Generation Science Standards
Figure 7
ELA Quad Text Sets

439
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
(NGSS Lead States, 2013) and include discipline- specific
literacies such as constructing explanations and design-
ing solutions, engagin g in evidence- based ar gument, and
obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
We also considered the language demands that students
face while reading texts in the science discipline, which
includes challenging vocabulary (C. Shanahan, 2015).
Figure8 displays a quad text set that Lupo (first au-
thor), a former high school literacy coach, created with
a high school biology teacher (Lupo, 2017). The lesson as-
sisted students in reading a series of texts about genet-
ics that led to reading a challenging research article.
Keeping the vocabulary demands of our target text
in mind, we selected two texts, a video and an informa-
tional text, to build students’ knowledge of genetics,
targeting key vocabulary (e.g., genes, heredity, traits).
Students first watched a short video entitled “How
Mendel’s Pea Plants Helped Us Understand Genetics”
and then read a short article written in student- friendly
language about Mendel’s original work. After reading,
students used a general strategy for vocabulary called
list- group- label, in which they grouped key vocabulary
together and identified a label for each group (Readance
& Tierney, 2005).
We also considered science- specific literacy prac-
tices as we developed our quad text set and activities,
such as being able to explain scientific procedures
in layman’s language, writing lab reports for a scien-
tific audience, and using note- taking to evaluate with
methods and accuracy in mind (see C. Shanahan, 2015).
Students then read an article about the pros and cons
of gene editing and the ethics behind allowing people
to alter the genes that their offspring may inherit. They
read independently and completed a pro/con graphic
organizer to help them prepare for an evidence- based
argument (NGSS Lead States, 2013). After reading, the
teacher led students in a class debate. Next, students
viewed a short video of a teen’s experience with sickle
cell anemia. Finally, students read the target research
article using a note- taking sheet to evaluate the meth-
ods used in the complex research article (C. Shanahan,
2015). After reading, students evaluated the methods
and results of the target text. See Figure9 for additional
sets for science.
Social Studies
Historians have their own set of literacy practices, in-
cluding sourcing, contextualizing, and corroborating
(Wineburg, Martin, & Monte- Sano, 2011; Wineburg &
Reisman, 2015), which we considered as we developed
quad text sets and accompanying activities for social
studies.
The quad text set framework allows social studies
teachers to build the background knowledge needed
to tackle challenging primary- source documents. The
Figure 8
Quad Text Set for Genetics
Visual text: "How Mendel's Pea Plants Helped Us
Understand Genetics" by Hortensia Jiménez Díaz on
the TED-Ed website
Informational text: "Mendel's Pea Plants" on the CK-
12 website
Accessible text: "Opinion: Scientists Discuss When
'Gene Editing' Technology Should Be Used" by
Scientific American, adapted by Newsela staff
Visual text: "Sickle Cell Disease: Theresa's Story" on
the KidsHealth website
Target text: "Sickle Cell Disease" on the TeensHealth
website, reviewed by Robin E. Miller, MD

440
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
framework also allows the textual space needed to help
students practice historiography, the skill of analyzing
competing historical accounts and synthesizing them
into a plausible interpretation of a historical event, an
intellectual pursuit crucial to thinking like a historian
(Wineburg etal., 2011).
The quad text set in Figure10 was adapted from a
set designed by one of Lewis’s (third author) preservice
teachers to explore the protections guaranteed under
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The set
builds the background knowledge needed to engage stu-
dents in a challenging case study that includes excerpts
from competing Supreme Court opinions about an im-
portant First Amendment case.
The set begins with a short v ideo, “The Bill of Rights:
The First Amendment” by Keith Hughes, to introduce
students to the First A mendment and how it protects in-
dividual liberty. Students used a graphic organizer that
highlights key vocabulary. They completed the graphic
organizer with a reading from their civics textbook,
which provides more specific information. The acces-
sible text used was an article in The New York Times by
Alan R appeport that describes Donald Tr ump’s attempt
to sue the paper for its reporting on his alleged sexual
assaults of women. Students read the article indepen-
dently using SOAPSTone (speaker, occasion, audience,
purpose, and tone), a disciplinary strategy for sourcing
and contextualizing when reading historical texts (C.
Shanahan, 2015).
After reading, we asked students to summarize the
merits of Trump’s case considering First Amendment
freedom of the press protections to assist students in
contextualizing the issue. Students then engaged with a
challenging case study that explored the seminal Tinker
v. Des Moines School District freedom of speech case.
They read background information and excerpts from
the majority and dissenting opinions in pairs. Before be-
ing told who won the case, students engaged in mock oral
arguments about who should win the case based on their
understanding of First Amendment protections. Finally,
students wrote historical arguments about the case us-
ing a DBQ (document- based question) essay as a model.
Figure11 displays additional quad text sets for social
studies.
Figure 9
Science Quad Text Sets

441
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
What Have Teachers Said About
Quad Text Sets?
We have worked with teachers to develop and imple-
ment quad text sets through professional development
with inservice teachers and through our teaching of
preservice teachers. We have asked teachers to pro-
vide feedback on the usefulness and feasibility of the
quad text set framework. They have told us that our
framework has helped their students build relevant
content knowledge and identify the themes of chal-
lenging texts. Teachers have reported that the use of
quad text sets has increased the amount of time that
students read in their classroom and motivated stu-
dents to read more challenging texts. Finally, teachers
have revealed that the quad text set framework has
changed how they viewed incorporating challenging
texts into their curriculum, especially for strugling
readers.
Additionally, we have conducted observational pilot
studies to gather information about the implementa-
tion, planning process, and feasibility of quad text sets
in secondary classrooms. Our results have revealed
that both the texts themselves and the scaffolds that a
teacher provides before, during, and after reading are
essential in assisting students in comprehending and
learning from texts (Lupo etal., 2015).
Our work has also revealed challenges for the use of
quad text sets. Teachers have strugled to find easier
texts that are appropriate for adolescents. We included
some resources in the More to Explore sidebar at the
end of this article to assist teachers in finding such
texts. Additionally, teachers have reported that it is
time consuming to put together a quality text set. We
recommend that teachers can work in teams to distrib-
ute the time it takes to put together a quality set.
Our framework marries two perspectives that
are often at odds: increasing the amount of time for
reading challenging content area texts and providing
opportunities for students to read relevant, accessible
texts. Our experience with implementing quad text sets
with teachers and our pilot studies (Lewis etal., 2014;
Lupo etal., 2015) have demonstrated that these two
perspectives have the potential to complement each
other. Further research is needed to explore how text
sets build background knowledge that students need
to comprehend challenging texts. However, our frame-
work serves as a promising way for teachers to plan with
texts in mind to increase reading volumeand assist stu-
dents in reading more challenging texts.
Figure 10
Quad Text Set for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Visual text: "The Bill of Rights: The First Amendment"
by Keith Hughes (YouTube)
Informational text: "Citizenship and the Internet" in
Civics Today(textbook chapter)
Accessible text: "Donald Trump Threatens to Sue
The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances" by
Alan Rappeport in The New York Times
Target text: Case study based on the Tinker v. Des
Moines School District (1969) case on high school
students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam
War

442
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
REFERENCES
Alvermann, D.E. (1981). Compensatory effect of graphic or-
ganizers on descriptive text. The Journal of Educational
Research, 75(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.19
81.10885354
Alvermann, D.E., & Swafford, J. (1989). Do content area strate-
gies have a res earch base? Journal of Reading, 32(5), 38 8–39 4.
Anderson, R.C. (2013). Role of the reader’s schemata in com-
prehension, learning, and memory. In D.E. Alvermann,
N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 476–488). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T., & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in
readin g and how children sp end their time outside of school .
Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303 .
Arya, D.J., Hiebert, E.H., & Pearson, P.D. (2011). The effects of
syntactic and lexical complexity on the comprehension of
elementary science tex ts. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education, 4(1), 107–125.
Beers, G.K., & Probst, R.E. (2013). Notice and note: Strategies for
close reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Figure 11
Social Studies Quad Text Sets
TAKE ACTION!
1. Choose a target text for achieving instructional
objectives.
2. Select a visual text to build background knowledge
needed to comprehend the target text.
3. Select informational text(s) to build additional
background knowledge.
4. Select an accessible text to help students make
connections to and find relevance in the topic.
5. Consider the order of implementation of the texts to
allow students to build understanding of the topic
and texts strategically.
6. Select from a set of instructional routines and
disciplinary literacy strategies to use before, during,
and after reading for each text.

443
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
Bersh, L.I. (2013). The curricular value of teaching about im-
migration through picture book thematic text sets. Social
Studies, 104(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.201
2.720307
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Reading next—a vision
for action and research in middle and high school literacy:
A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: Al liance for Excellent Education.
Bromley, K. (2007). Nine t hings ever y teacher should know about
words and vocabulary instruction. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1598/
JA AL.50.7.2
Buehl, D. (2009). Classroom strategies for interactive learning
(3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Compton, D.L., Mi ller, A.C., Elleman , A.M., & Steacy, L.M. (2014).
Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick f ix”
intervent ions for child ren with readin g disability? Scientific
Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088
8438.2013.836200
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading ac-
quisition and its relation to reading experience and ability
10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 93 4–94 5.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998). What reading does
for the mind. American Educator, 22(1/2), 8–15 .
De La Paz, S. (2001). STOP and DARE: A persuasive writing
strategy. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(4), 234–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120103600409
Elish-Piper, L., Wold, L.S., & Schwingendorf, K. (2014).
Scaffolding high school students’ reading of complex texts
using l inked text set s. Journal of Adolescent & Adu lt Literacy,
57(7), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.292
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criti-
cism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics
of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of
writing in professional communities (pp. 77–96). Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Ferretti, R.P., & Lewis, W.E. (2013). Best practices in teaching
argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, &
J.Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd
ed., pp. 113–140). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Addressing CCSS Anchor Standard
10: Text complexity. Language Arts, 91(4), 236–250.
Folk, W.F., & Palmer, T. (2016). Light, color, vision, optics! A text
set for grades 6–8. Science Scope, 39(8), 39–44. https://doi.
org/10.2505/4/ss16_039_08_39
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer- Assisted
Learning Strategies: An evidence- based practice to pro-
mote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 15(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_ 4
Fulmer, S.M., & Tulis, M. (2013). Changes in interest and affect
during a d ifficu lt reading task : Relationships wit h perceived
difficulty and reading fluency. Learning and Instruction, 27,
11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lea rninstruc.2013.02.001
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark,
DE: Internationa l Reading Association.
Hartman, D.K., & A llison, J.M. (1996). Promoti ng inquiry-oriented
discu ssions using multiple tex ts. In L.B. Gambr ell & J.F. Alma si
(Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106–
133). Newark, DE: Internat ional Reading A ssociation.
Hartman, J.A., & Hartman, D.K. (1994). Arranging multi-text
reading experiences that expand the reader’s role (Techn ical
Report No. 604). Champaign: Center for the Study of
Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. (2006). Building knowledge: The case for br ing-
ing content into the language arts block for a knowledge-
rich curriculum core for all children. American Educator,
30(1), 8–21, 28–29, 50 –51.
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction–integration
model of text c omprehension and its implic ations for instruc -
tion. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, & R.B. Ruddel (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–
839). Newark, DE: International R eading Association.
Kuhn, M.R., Schwanenflugel, P.J., Morris, R.D., Morrow, L.M.,
Woo, D.G., Meisinger, E.B., … Stahl, S.A. (2006). Teaching
children to become f luent and automatic readers. Journal
of Literacy Research, 38(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15548430jlr3804_1
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for
English language learners in relation to Next Generation
Science Standards and with implications for Common
Core State Standards for English language arts and math-
ematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lewis, W.E., & Ferretti, R.P. (2011). Topoi and literary inter-
pretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing
intervention on high school students’ analytic literary es-
says. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 334–354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.001
Lewis, W., & Walpole, S. (2016, January). Designing your own
text sets: A four- text framework to build content knowledge
in seconda ry classrooms. Literacy Today, pp. 30–31.
Lewis, W.E., Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2014). Cracking the
Common Core: Choosing and using texts in grades 6–12. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Lupo, S. (2017, January). Rigor vs. ease: What should adoles-
cents read? Literacy Today, pp. 30–31.
Lupo, S.M., McKenna, M.C., & Walpole, S.W. (2015, December).
Quad text sets: A formative approach to exploring how to
scaffold adolescents in reading challenging texts. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research
Association, Carlsbad, CA.
NGSS Lead States . (2013). Next Generation Scienc e Standards: For
states, by state. Washing ton, DC: National Academies Press.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension- fostering and comprehension- monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction.
In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research ( Vo l. 2, pp. 815–860). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Pyt ash, K.E., Batchelor, K.E., Kist, W., & Srsen, K. (201 4). Linked
text sets in the English classroom. The ALAN Review, 42(1),
52–62.
Readance, R.J., & Tierney, J.E. (2005). Reading strategies and
practices: A compendium (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Recht, D.R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good
and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.
1.16
Shanahan, C. (2015). Disciplinary literacy strategies in
content area classes [ILA E-ssentials series]. Newark, DE:

444
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 61 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
International Literacy Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/
e-ssentials.8069
Shana han, T. (2015). What teachers shou ld know about Common
Core: A guide for the perplexed. The Reading Teacher, 68(8),
583–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1368
Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challen ge of chal-
lenging text. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 5 8–62.
Sparks, R .R., Patton, J., & Murdoch , A. (2014). Early readin g suc-
cess and its r elationship to read ing achievement and read ing
volume: Replication of ‘10 years later’. Reading and Writing,
27(1), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9439-2
Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., McCulley, L., Stillman-Spisak, S.,
Vaughn, S., Simmons, D., … Hairrell, A. (2016). Literacy
and text reading in middle and high school social studies
and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.
2014.910718
Weeks, R.M. (1936). A correlated curriculum: A report of the
Committee on Correlation of the National Council of Teachers
of English. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century.
Williamson, G.L. (2008). A text readability continuum for post-
secondary readiness. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4),
602–632. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-832
Willingham, D.T. (2006). How knowledge helps: It speeds and
strengthens reading comprehension, learning—and think-
ing. American Educator, 30(1), 30–37.
Wineburg, S., Mart in, D., & Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Reading like a
historian: Teaching literac y in middle and high school history
classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wineburg, S., & Reisman, A. (2015). Disciplinary literacy in his-
tory: A toolkit for digital citizenship. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 58(8), 636–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaal.410
Wixson, K.K., & Valencia, S.W. (2014). CCSS- ELA sugestions
and cautions for addressing text complexity. The Reading
Teacher, 67(6), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1237
Zwiers, J., O’Hara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2014). Common Core
Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for
developing academic language and disciplinary literacy.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
MORE TO EXPLORE
Learn more about quad text sets:
■
Quad Text Sets module
: h t tp://
comprehensivereadingsolutions.com/2013/12/17/
quad-text-sets/
To find texts:
■Arabo, M., Budd, J.S., Garrison, S., & Pacheco,
T. (2017).
The right tool for the job: Improving
reading and writing in the classroom
. Washington,
DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved
from https://edexcellence.net/publications/
the-right-tool-for-the-job
■
National Geographic Kids for science and
social studies texts written for kids
: h t tp://ki d s .
nationalgeographic.com/
■
Student Science website for science texts written for
adolescents
: https://student.societyforscience.org/
■
Time for Kids website for social studies texts written
for kids
: https://www.timeforkids.com/