Harnessing the Power of Lexile | Step-by-Step Reading Instruction Guide

Article banner
Image of Dr. Margaret Opatz Dr. Margaret Opatz

In this article

What is the Lexile Framework for Reading?

The Lexile Framework for Reading is an approach to reading that places readers and texts on the same measurement scale (Lexile Educator Guide) with the purpose of putting students on the path to success in school, college and careers (Understanding Lexile Measures).

Content. The Lexile Framework includes quantitative measures of over 300,000 books and 100 million websites and online books and articles (Lexile Educator Guide). Sites such as NewsELA, CommonLit, and ReadWorks use Lexile to report text difficulty.

Uses. Lexile provides a common metric to match readers and texts. Therefore, uses reflect the ability to match readers and texts. Common uses of Lexile include:

  1. measuring students' reading levels and progress at the class, school, or district level,
  2. leveling texts within a classroom or school library, and
  3. communicating with students, their families, or administrators about students' progress.

What to Do with Lexile

Since Lexile provides a common metric for readers and texts, it can help combat learning loss through differentiated reading instruction using a variety of texts that are thematically-linked on various Lexile levels. Lexile provides guidelines for connecting readers to texts. Given the vast number of texts with a Lexile measure, there are endless ways to capitalize on the framework. One method of using Lexile is to sequence texts to make them accessible to learners. The process of sequencing texts with a focus on Lexile, ensures that students work toward accessing more complex texts as they strive for college and career readiness.

Using Text Sets

Educators have long used text sets to achieve curricular goals in content areas such as writing and science (Opatz & Nelson, 2022; Nelson & Opatz, in press). Although scholars have defined text sets differently (Batchelor, 2019; Lupo et al., 2020 ), the underlying concept is that they are a group of related texts (we use related loosely here given that the relatedness could be content) such as volcanoes in science, or the format of infographics used in marketing campaigns. When using Lexile to create text sets, teachers can utilize the quantitative analysis of each text to ensure texts are sequenced in ways that build students’ reading skills while keeping in mind the cognitive demand that goes into reading more challenging texts. To do so, teachers need to find a middle ground that allows students to engage in productive struggle (Hess, 2006). This means that intentionally-designed text sets utilize the quantitative information in order to sequence the texts (Fleming et al., 2015) in a way that builds knowledge from one to the next as the complexity increases. In doing so, students enter into morecomplextexts with enough background knowledge to make sense of the advanced texts. The ultimate goal of text sets designed with Lexile is to slowly build a bridge from students’ current Lexile levels to grade level expectations.

Creating Text Sets with Lexile

Text sets can be created for individual students, a small group of students, or for the entire class. The same concept of matching readers with texts that increase in complexity over time exists no matter the number of students involved, though some modifications are made when providing reading interventions. Specifically, an additional step is included when designing text sets for reading interventions—unpack data—since students complete a diagnostic reading assessment that provides detailed data to guide the intervention.

Steps for Creating a Text Set for the Whole Class

When designing a text set for the whole class using Lexile, follow these five steps:
1) Administer Lexile;
2) Set the end goal;
3) Determine the focus;
4) Find appropriately-leveled texts; and
5) Sequence texts (see Figure 1).
Each step is explained below.

Building a Bridge Steps
Figure 1: Building a Bridge Steps

Step 1: Administer Lexile

The first step in creating a text set is to establish quantitatively where students are reading by administering an assessment that reports a Lexile scaled score. Having a Lexile measure allows educators to know what level of texts students can comprehend, and how students compare to grade level expectations. Once a teacher has a baseline score for each student, it becomes possible to select texts at appropriate difficulty levels for creating a text set.

Step 3: Determine the focus

Once the end goalis set, determine which discipline (e.g., ELA, science, social studies) and topic (e.g., natural processes that change landscapes or The Great Depression) to focus on. Determining the focus limits the searching of texts and sets educators up for success in the next step.

Step 4: Find appropriately-leveled texts

When the focus is selected, educators can use Lexile’s Find a Book tool to find texts that match the intended grade level, Lexile level, and category. To build knowledge over time and help readers access more complex texts, search for 3-5 books that can be sequenced and help build students' content knowledge and reading skills.

Step 5: Sequence the texts

In the final step, sequence the texts in a way that begins with the lowest Lexile level and ends with the highest Lexile level. Consider the qualitative measures (i.e., text layout, purpose and meaning, text structure, language features, and knowledge demands) in this step to determine how the content in each text connects from one to the next. Doing so will help to facilitate students’ knowledge and build the requisite knowledge necessary for reading more advanced texts throughout the set.

Steps for Creating a Text Set for a Reading Intervention

While the steps previously outlined work well for whole class instruction, when providing a reading intervention, Lexile’s use is enhanced when it includes a diagnostic reading assessment. The same steps apply, but having a thorough assessment that pinpoints students’ areas of need is imperative when planning for reading intervention.

When designing a text set for a reading intervention using Lexile, follow these five steps:
1) Administer Lexile and a diagnostic reading assessment;
2) Unpack the data;
3) Set the end goal;
4) Determine the focus;
5) Find appropriately-leveled texts; and
6) Sequence texts (see Figure 2).
Each step is explained below.

Building a Bridge Steps for Intervention
Figure 2: Building a Bridge Steps for Intervention

Step 1: Administer Lexile and a diagnostic reading assessment

When planning a reading intervention, more sound data is needed than a few data points provided by benchmark assessments and the difficulty of the text that a student can comprehend. While many assessments now provide a Lexile measure, most of them are benchmark assessments; consider using a diagnostic reading assessment, which can inform reading interventions by providing detailed information on foundational reading skills (e.g., word recognition, decoding, vocabulary, morphology, sentence processing, reading efficiency) to identify the student’s area(s) of need. It is also important to receive the Lexile measure in conjunction with information on foundational reading skills in order to select appropriately-leveled texts.

Step 2: Unpack the data

After the diagnostic assessment is complete, unpack the data to determine students’ areas of need. Ask:

  • Which foundational reading skills do students require support?
  • What are the trends in students’ scores, percentiles, and grade equivalency?
  • Which reading skills are students’ strengths?
  • Which foundational reading skills are limiting students’ success in reading?

A base line Lexile score provides knowledge of the appropriate level of text that can be used during a reading intervention.

Step 3: Set the end goal

Next, the teacher sets goals for the student’s intervention based on the diagnostic information. Goals are based on foundational reading skills and range from strengthening the letter-to-sound correspondence through phonics instruction to identifying the relationship in a sentence based on various discourse markers to being able to recognize and explain the meaning of the most common derivational morphemes. With the end in mind, instruction can be planned using the backward design process (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Step 4: Determine the focus

In an intervention setting, it is important to select a disciplinary focus that can build necessary background knowledge and contribute to academic success in other content areas. The impact of background knowledge on comprehension is well documented (Fisher, Ross, & Grant, 2010; Marzano, 2004; Neuman, Kaefer, & Pinkham, 2014). Therefore, using reading intervention time to read content-area texts that develop background knowledge, builds a bridge to comprehending grade-level texts while providing critical instruction for readers.

Step 5: Find appropriately-leveled texts (and identify target words for vocabulary learning)

A strength of Lexile’s Find a Book tool is that it allows educators to search for topics across grade levels to match students to ‘just right’ books. To find texts, search relevant keywords or topics within Lexile Tools. Given the importance of vocabulary instruction in reading interventions (e.g., Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; Wright & Cervetti, 2017), use Lexile’s Word Lists (Elmore, 2020) feature that identifies the words that matter and that students will encounter in texts. This is an important feature given that teaching word meanings supports comprehension when readers meet those words in texts (Wright & Cervetti, 2017).

Importantly, this tool can help to counteract the Matthew effect for target word learning (Hiebert & Kamil, 2005). The “Matthew effect” was introduced decades ago by Stanovich (1986) who described the Matthew effect as the

facilitation of further learning by a previously existing knowledge base that is rich and elaborated. A person with more expertise has a larger knowledge base, and the large knowledge base allows that person to acquire even greater expertise at a faster rate. (p. 381)

The Matthew effect stems from the biblical adage from the book of Matthew declaring that while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. To counteract the Matthew effect, students require focused tier-2 interventions that support target word learning (Coyne et al., 2019). Using the Word Lists tool is one way to identify target words that are worthwhile for teaching and for identifying the texts that contain those words.

Step 6: Sequence texts

In the final step, sequence the texts in a way that begins with the lowest Lexile level and ends with the highest Lexile level. Consider the qualitative measures in this step to determine how the content in each text connects from one text to the next. Doing so will help to facilitate students’ knowledge and build the requisite knowledge necessary for reading more advanced texts throughout the set.

Final Thoughts

To harness the power of Lexile, educators can create and sequence text sets for the whole class and reading interventions. Creating a text set builds a bridge between what students can do and grade-level expectations, and ensures students work toward college and career readiness.

Yellow bell

Sign up to receive our insights on reading assessments and intervention

References

  • Batchelor, K.E. (2019). Using linked text sets to promote advocacy and agency through a critical lens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.906
  • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Ware, S., Austin, C. R., Loftus-Rattan, S. M., & Baker, D. L. (2019). Racing against the vocabulary gap: Matthew effects in early vocabulary instruction and intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 163-179.
  • Elmore, J. (2020). Lexile® wordbank and academic vocabulary in K-12. Metametrics Research Brief. https://metametricsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Lexile-WordBank-and-Academic-Vo cabulary-in-K-12-1.pdf
  • Fisher, D., Ross, D., & Grant, M. (2010). Building background knowledge. The Science Teacher, 77(1), 23.
  • Fleming, J., Catapano, S., Thompson, C. M., & Ruvalcaba Carrillo, S. (2015). More mirrors in the classroom: Using urban children’s literature to increase literacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Hess, K. (2006). Cognitive complexity: Applying Webb DOK Level’s to Bloom’s Taxonomy. National Center for Assessment. NH.
  • Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lupo, S.M., Berry, A., Thacker, E., Sawyer, A., & Merritt, J. (2020). Rethinking text sets to support knowledge building and interdisciplinary learning. The Reading Teacher, 73(4), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1869
  • Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. ASCD.
  • National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Supplemental information for appendix a of the common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
  • Nelson, E. T., & Opatz, M. O. (in press). Developing critical mentor text sets to embrace students’ writer identities. English Journal.
  • Neuman,S. B., Kaefer, T., & Pinkham, A. (2014). Building background knowledge. The Reading Teacher, 68(2), 145-148.
  • Opatz, M. O., & Nelson, E. T. (2022). Building bridges: Curating text sets to connect to learners’ lives. The Reading Teacher, 75(4), 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2058
  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406. https://doi. org/10.1598/rrq.21.4.1
  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
  • Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading research quarterly, 52(2), 203-226.