WHAT IS NAEP?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a continuing and nationally representative 

measure of trends in academic achievement of U.S. elementary and secondary students in various subjects. For nearly four decades, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. By collecting and reporting 

information on student performance at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our 

nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. 

THE 2009–2010 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD 

The National Assessment Governing Board was created by Congress to formulate policy for NAEP. Among the 

Governing Board’s responsibilities are developing objectives and test specifications and designing the assessment 

methodology for NAEP.

 

Members

Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair 

Former Commissioner of Education

Melrose, Massachusetts

 

Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair 

Assistant Principal & 8th Grade Teacher

Summit Middle School 

Boulder, Colorado 

 

David J. Alukonis 

Former Chairman

Hudson School Board

Hudson, New Hampshire 

 

Louis M. Fabrizio

Director

Accountability Policy and 

Communications 

N.C. Department of Public Instruction

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Honorable Anitere Flores

Member

Florida House of Representatives

Miami, Florida

Alan J. Friedman 

Consultant

Museum Development and Science 

Communication

New York, New York 

David W. Gordon 

County Superintendent of Schools

Sacramento County Office of Education 

Sacramento, California 

Doris R. Hicks

Principal and Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter 

School for Science and Technology

New Orleans, Louisiana

Kathi M. King 

12th Grade Teacher

Messalonskee High School

Oakland, Maine

Kim Kozbial-Hess 

4th Grade Teacher and Educational 

Technology Trainer

Toledo, Ohio

 

Henry Kranendonk 

Mathematics Curriculum Specialist

Milwaukee Public Schools

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

 

Tonya Miles

General Public Representative

Mitchellville, Maryland

Honorable Steven L. Paine 

State Superintendent of Schools 

W.V. Department of Education 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Honorable Sonny Perdue

Governor of Georgia

Atlanta, Georgia

 

Susan Pimentel 

Educational Consultant

Hanover, New Hampshire

 

W. James Popham

Professor Emeritus 

Graduate School of Education and 

Information Studies

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, California

Andrew C. Porter 

Dean, Graduate School of Education

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Warren T. Smith, Sr. 

Vice President

Washington State Board of Education

Olympia, Washington

 

Mary Frances Taymans, SND 

Former Executive Director

Secondary Schools Department

National Catholic Educational 

Association

Washington, DC

 

Oscar A. Troncoso

Principal

Anthony High School

Anthony Independent School District

Anthony, Texas

Honorable Leticia Van de Putte

Senator

Texas State Senate

San Antonio, Texas

Eileen L. Weiser

General Public Representative

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Darvin M. Winick 

President

Winick & Associates

Austin, Texas 

 

Ex-officio Member

John Q. Easton

Director 

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0328

National Assessment Governing Board

Honorable David P. Driscoll 

Chair 

Amanda P. Avallone 

Vice Chair 

Cornelia S. Orr 

Executive Director

Mary Crovo 

Deputy Executive Director and

Project Officer 

Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board under contract number ED–02–

R–0007 by the American Institutes for Research

For further information, contact: 

National Assessment Governing Board

800 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite 825 

Washington, DC 20002–4233 

www.nagb.org 

September 2010
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................................ ii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iii

Text Types ....................................................................................................................... iv

Meaning Vocabulary Assessment ................................................................................... iv

Item Design ..................................................................................................................... iv

12th Grade NAEP .............................................................................................................. v

Reporting Results .............................................................................................................. v

Reporting Trend Data ........................................................................................................ v

Sample Items ................................................................................................................... vi

Preface by the National Assessment Governing Board ..................................................... vii

NAEP Reading Project Staff and Committees .................................................................... ix

Chapter One: Overview ..........................................................................................................1

NAEP Overview ................................................................................................................ 1

Overview of NAEP Reading Assessment ......................................................................... 6

Chapter Two: Content and Design of NAEP in Reading ...................................................15

Texts on the NAEP Reading Assessment to be Included ................................................ 15

Literary Text .................................................................................................................... 16

Informational Text ........................................................................................................... 22

Characteristics of Texts Selected for Inclusion ............................................................... 28

Vocabulary on the NAEP Reading Assessment .............................................................. 32

Cognitive Targets ............................................................................................................ 36

Item Types ....................................................................................................................... 41

Chapter Three: Reporting Results .......................................................................................43

No Child Left Behind Provisions for NAEP Reporting .................................................. 43

Achievement Levels ........................................................................................................ 43

Reporting NAEP Results ................................................................................................. 44

Reporting State NAEP Results ........................................................................................ 45

Reporting Trend Data ...................................................................................................... 45

Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................49

Definition of Reading ...................................................................................................... 49

Text Types, Matrices, and Cognitive Targets ................................................................. 49

Vocabulary Assessment .................................................................................................. 52

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ...........................................................................................57

Appendix B: NAEP Reading Achievement Level Definitions ...........................................63

NAEP Reading Achievement Levels—Grade 4 .............................................................. 63

NAEP Reading Achievement Levels—Grade 8 .............................................................. 64

NAEP Reading Achievement Levels—Grade 12 ............................................................ 66

Appendix C: Special Studies: NAEP Reading Framework ...............................................69
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

ii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Percentage distribution of literary and informational passages ....................... 11

Exhibit 2. Similarities and differences: 1992–2007 and 2009–2011 NAEP reading 

frameworks ....................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 3. Literary text matrix: Fiction ............................................................................. 17

Exhibit 3 (continued). Literary text matrix: Literary nonfiction ....................................... 19

Exhibit 3 (continued). Literary text matrix: Poetry .......................................................... 21

Exhibit 4. Informational text matrix: Exposition .............................................................. 23

Exhibit 4 (continued). Informational text matrix: Argumentation and persuasive text .... 25

Exhibit 4 (continued). Informational text matrix: Procedural texts and documents ......... 27

Exhibit 5. Passage lengths for grades 4, 8, and 12 ............................................................ 29

Exhibit 6. Considerations for selecting stimulus material ................................................ 32

Exhibit 7. Considerations for selecting vocabulary items and distractors ........................ 35

Exhibit 8. Cognitive targets .............................................................................................. 40

Exhibit 9. Percentage distribution of cognitive targets by grade ...................................... 41

Exhibit 10. Percentage distribution of time to be spent on specific item types ................ 42

Exhibit 11. Generic NAEP achievement levels ................................................................ 44

Exhibit 12. Years of administration of NAEP reading assessments ................................. 46

 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As the ongoing national indicator of what American students know and can do, the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading regularly collects 

achievement information on representative samples of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. 

Through “The Nation’s Report Card,” the NAEP Reading Assessment reports how well 

students perform in reading various texts and responding to those texts by answering 

multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. The information NAEP provides 

about student achievement helps the public, educators, and policymakers understand 

strengths and weaknesses in student performance and make informed decisions about 

education. 

The 2011 NAEP Reading Assessment will measure national, regional, state, and subgroup achievement in reading but is not designed to report individual student or school 

performance. The assessment will measure students’ reading comprehension and their 

ability to apply vocabulary knowledge to assist them in comprehending what they read. 

The reading assessment will use the same framework used in 2009. The public will have 

access to performance results and released questions through NAEP reports and websites. 

This document, the Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, presents the conceptual base for, and discusses the content of, the 

assessment. It is intended for a broad audience. A more detailed technical document, the 

Reading Assessment and Item Specifications for the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, is available on the web. The specifications will provide information to guide 

passage selection, item development, and other aspects of test development. Both the 

framework and the specifications documents are available to the public at 

http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks.htm. 

The Governing Board, the policymaking body for NAEP, has stated that the NAEP Reading Assessment will measure reading comprehension by asking students to read passages 

written in English and to answer questions about what they have read. The framework 

“shall not endorse or advocate a particular pedagogical approach, ... but shall focus on 

important, measurable indicators of student achievement” (NAGB 2002). Although broad 

implications for instruction may be inferred from the assessment, NAEP does not specify 

how reading should be taught; nor does it prescribe a particular curricular approach to 

teaching reading.

The NAEP Reading Framework results from the work of many individuals and organizations involved in reading and reading education, including researchers, policymakers, 

educators, and other members of the public. Their work was guided by scientifically 

based literacy research that conceptualizes reading as a dynamic cognitive process as 

reflected in the following definition of reading. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

iv

Reading is an active and complex process that involves: 

• Understanding written text.

• Developing and interpreting meaning. 

• Using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose, and situation. 

This definition applies to the assessment of reading achievement on NAEP and is not 

intended to be an inclusive definition of reading or reading instruction. 

TEXT TYPES

This framework recognizes that reading behaviors such as recognizing and using features 

of text, making sense of sentences and paragraphs, and comprehending vocabulary occur 

regardless of text type. However, other reading behaviors vary with the type of text 

encountered by a reader. Thus, the NAEP Reading Framework includes two types of 

texts on the assessment: literary texts, which include fiction, literary nonfiction, and 

poetry; and informational texts, which include exposition, argumentation and persuasive 

text, and procedural text and documents. 

MEANING VOCABULARY ASSESSMENT

The NAEP Reading Framework includes a more systematic approach to vocabulary 

assessment than the NAEP Reading Framework used from 1992 through 2007. Vocabulary assessment will occur in the context of a passage; that is, vocabulary items will 

function both as a measure of passage comprehension and as a test of readers’ specific 

knowledge of the word’s meaning as intended by the passage author. A sufficient number 

of vocabulary items at each grade will provide reliable and valid information about 

students’ vocabulary knowledge. 

ITEM DESIGN

The framework includes the following cognitive targets, or behaviors and skills, for items 

from both literary and information texts: locate/recall, integrate/interpret, and critique/ 

evaluate. These cognitive targets illustrate the complex nature of the reading process 

whereas the corresponding behaviors highlight the different behaviors elicited by different text types. To measure these cognitive skills, students will respond to both multiplechoice and constructed-response items with varying distributions of question type by 

grade level. Students in grade 4 will spend approximately half of the assessment time 

responding to multiple-choice items and half responding to constructed-response items. 

Students in grades 8 and 12 will spend a greater amount of time on constructed-response 

items. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

v 

12TH GRADE NAEP

In May 2005, the Governing Board adopted a policy statement regarding NAEP and 

12th-grade preparedness. The policy states that NAEP will pursue assessment and reporting on 12th-grade student achievement as it relates to preparedness for postsecondary 

education and training. This policy resulted from recommendations of the Board’s 

National Commission on NAEP 12th Grade Assessment and Reporting in March 2004. 

Subsequent studies and deliberations by the Board took place during 2004 and 2005. 

In reading, the Board adopted minor modifications to the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework at grade 12 based on a comprehensive analysis of the framework conducted by 

Achieve, Inc. The current version of the reading framework incorporates these modifications at grade 12 to enable NAEP to measure and report on preparedness for postsecondary endeavors. The 2011 NAEP Reading Assessment will use the same framework used 

in 2009. 

REPORTING RESULTS

Results are reported in two ways: as average scores for groups of students on the NAEP 

0–500 scale and as percentages of students who attain each of the three achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced, according to definitions adopted by the Governing 

Board). NAEP scores are always reported at the aggregate level; scores are not produced 

for individual schools or students. 

REPORTING TREND DATA

The Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress 

replaced the framework first used for the 1992 reading assessment and then for subsequent reading assessments through 2007. Compared to the previous framework, the 2009 

reading framework included more emphasis on literary and informational texts, a redefinition of reading cognitive processes, a new systematic assessment of vocabulary knowledge, and the addition of poetry to grade 4. 

The 2009 NAEP Reading Report Card included trend data on student reading performance from 1992 to 2009. Results from special analyses determined the 2009 reading 

assessment results could be compared with those from earlier assessment years. These 

special analyses started in 2007 and included in-depth comparisons of the frameworks 

and the test questions, as well as an examination of how the same students performed on 

the 2009 assessment and the earlier assessment. A summary of these special analyses and 

an overview of the differences between the previous framework and the 2009 framework 

are available on the web at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ trend_study.asp. 

The 2011 NAEP Reading Report Card will report trends in student reading performance 

from 1992 to 2011. 
SAMPLE ITEMS

Sample passages and items released to the public may be viewed on the NAEP Questions 

Tool at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/. The Questions Tool also includes 

performance results, scoring rubrics, and student responses to NAEP reading items. 

NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

vi
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

vii

PREFACE BY THE

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD

In a modern society, the ability to read well is the cornerstone of a child’s education. In a modern 

economy, literacy is a prerequisite for a successful life.

In their early years of schooling, children learn to draw meaning and pleasure from the words on 

a page, which gives them a sense of accomplishment. Throughout the remainder of their schooling, reading is the critical skill they use for learning in all parts of the curriculum. For adults, 

reading is a key means to learn and do our jobs; it is also a source of enjoyment and an essential 

way we connect with family, friends, and the world around us. The ability to read critically and 

analytically is crucial for effective participation in America’s democratic society. 

The Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress sets forth 

the design of a test of reading comprehension. The exam requires students to read passages of 

written English text—either literary or informational—and to answer questions about what they 

have read. In some cases, the questions deal with facts in the text or vocabulary. In other cases, a 

complete answer requires a clear analysis or coherent argument supported by sound evidence 

from the text.

This is the second reading framework approved by the National Assessment Governing Board. It 

replaces the framework that was used in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 

from 1992 to 2007. This new reading framework is the result of extraordinary effort and commitment by hundreds of people across the country, including some of the nation’s leading figures 

in reading research, assessment, and instruction. 

The new framework incorporates the following key features:

• Its design is based on current scientific research in reading. In keeping with Governing 

Board policy, it does not advocate a particular approach to instruction, but rather focuses 

on important, measurable indicators of student achievement. 

• The framework’s content and preliminary achievement standards at grade 12 embody 

reading and analytical skills the project committees believe are needed for rigorous college-level courses and other productive postsecondary endeavors. 

• In preparing the framework, extensive use was made of international reading assessments 

and exemplary state standards.

• Vocabulary is measured explicitly. Word meanings will be tested in context, and enough 

vocabulary items will be included to report useful information on the extent of vocabulary knowledge.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

viii

• Poetry is assessed in grade 4 as well as in grades 8 and 12. Previously, NAEP assessed 

poetry in grades 8 and 12 only. Poetry is a form of text that is rich in meaning and 

involves a high level of abstraction in language and ideas. 

• Multiple-choice and constructed-response items (both short and extended) are included at 

all grades. In grades 8 and 12, students will be expected to spend about 60 percent of 

assessment time on constructed-response questions; at grade 4, about 50 percent. 

• Descriptions of reading material to be used in the assessment and target skills to be tested 

are delineated in a series of charts that provide clear guidance to those developing the 

assessment and clear information to the public. 

• Achievement will be reported on an overall cross-grade scale, allowing NAEP to show 

the development of reading skills throughout years of schooling as well as the wide variations in particular grades. Clear standards for grade-level expectations will be established.

• Separate subscales will be reported for literary and informational text, as has been done 

on international reading assessments.

The Governing Board would like to thank the hundreds of individuals and organizations whose 

time and talents contributed to this reading framework. The framework process was conducted 

through a contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR). Both AIR and another organization, the Education Leaders Council, prepared literature reviews and issues papers, which provided different perspectives and served as the basis for extensive discussions by the Reading 

Framework Steering and Planning Committees. These committees, working over a period of 14 

months, included teachers, reading researchers, local and state policymakers, testing experts, and 

business and public representatives. Many of these individuals have played important roles in 

other major projects, including the National Reading Panel, international reading assessments, 

the RAND Reading Study Group, and the American Diploma Project. 

In addition, the Board convened an independent external review panel comprised of eminent 

reading scholars, authors, and curriculum specialists. Their charge was to conduct an in-depth 

analysis of the framework draft, including its research base and design. These individuals played 

an important role in shaping the framework adopted by the Board. The Board also received wide 

comments on the draft framework through Internet reviews, a public forum held in Washington, 

D.C., and numerous meetings with state and local educators and policymakers across the 

country. 

We believe the framework will provide a rich and accurate measure of the reading comprehension and analytical skills that students need both for their schooling and for their lives. Development of these reading skills is the responsibility of all teachers—not only English teachers but 

also teachers across the curriculum—and also involves the expectations of parents and society. 

The Board hopes that this reading framework will serve not only as a significant national measure of how well students read, but also as a catalyst to improve reading achievement for the benefit of students themselves and for our nation. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

ix

NAEP READING PROJECT STAFF AND 

COMMITTEES

STEERING COMMITTEE

Marilyn Adams 

Chief Scientist

Soliloquy Learning Corporation 

Needham, Massachusetts

Phyllis Aldrich

Gifted and Talented Coordinator 

Saratoga-Warren Board of Cooperative 

Educational Services

Saratoga Springs, New York

Francie Alexander

Vice President and Chief Academic Officer

Scholastic, Inc.

New York, New York

Patricia Alexander

Professor, College of Education 

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland

Lance Balla

Teacher 

Snohomish High School 

Snohomish, Washington 

Wanda Brooks 

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Education 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County 

Baltimore, Maryland

Leila Christenbury

Professor, School of Education 

Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, Virginia

Mary Beth Curtis

Professor, School of Education 

Director, Center for Special Education 

Lesley University 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

JoAnne Eresh

Senior Associate

Achieve, Inc.

Washington, D.C. 

Alan Farstrup

Executive Director

International Reading Association

Newark, Delaware

Vincent Ferrandino

Executive Director

National Association of Elementary School 

Principals

Alexandria, Virginia

Mike Frye (Retired)

Section Chief

English Language Arts and Social Studies 

N.C. Department of Public Instruction 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

Margo Gottlieb

Director, Assessment and Evaluation

Illinois Resource Center

Des Plaines, Illinois

Jane Hileman 

Founder 

100 Book Challenge Company 

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

x 

Billie J. Orr (Retired)

President

Education Leaders Council

Washington, D.C. 

Melvina Pritchett-Phillips

Resident Practitioner, Adolescent Literacy 

and Professional Development 

National Association of Secondary School 

Principals

Reston, Virginia

Sandra Stotsky

Research Scholar

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

Cynthia Teter Bowlin

Professor 

Dallas County Community College 

Dallas, Texas

Julie Walker 

Executive Director

American Association of School Librarians, 

a Division of the American Library Assoc. 

Chicago, Illinois

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Michael Kamil, Chair

Professor, School of Education 

Stanford University 

Stanford, California

Peter Afflerbach

Professor, College of Education 

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland 

Donna Alvermann 

Professor, College of Education 

University of Georgia 

Athens, Georgia

Amy Benedicty

Teacher 

Peninsula High School 

San Bruno, California

Robert Calfee

Dean, Graduate School of Education 

University of California-Riverside 

Riverside, California

Mitchell Chester

Assistant Superintendent 

Ohio Department of Education 

Columbus, Ohio 

Barbara Foorman 

Director, Center for Academic and Reading 

Skills

University of Texas-Houston 

Houston, Texas

Irene Gaskins

Director 

Benchmark School 

Media, Pennsylvania 

Carol Jago 

Teacher 

Santa Monica High School 

Santa Monica, California

Jolene Jenkins

Teacher 

Mahaffey Middle School 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Janet Jones 

Reading Resource Teacher

Berry Elementary School

Waldorf, Maryland

Marilyn Joyce 

Teacher 

Brewer High School 

Brewer, Maine
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

xi

Michael Kibby

Professor, Department of Learning and 

Instruction

State University of New York Buffalo

Amherst, New York

Margaret McKeown

Senior Scientist

Learning Research and Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

Paula Moseley

Coordinator 

Planning, Assessment and Research,

Student Testing Unit 

Los Angeles Unified School District

Los Angeles, California

Jean Osborn 

Education Consultant 

Champaign, Illinois

Charles Peters

Professor, School of Education 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Carol Santa 

Director of Education 

Montana Academy

Kalispell, Montana 

Karen Wixson 

Dean, School of Education 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Junko Yokota 

Professor, Reading and Language Arts

National-Louis University 

Evanston, Illinois

Olivia Zarraluqui

Teacher 

Our Lady of Lourdes Academy 

Miami, Florida 

TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL

Patricia Gandara

Professor, School of Education 

University of California at Davis

Davis, California

Paul LaMarca

Director, Department of Assessment and 

Accountability 

Nevada Department of Education 

Carson City, Nevada

William Schafer

Affiliated Professor (Emeritus)

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland

EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL

To obtain an independent review of the draft 

NAEP Reading Framework, the National 

Assessment Governing Board commissioned 

a panel of prominent reading researchers and 

scholars to examine the draft document. 

After a 3-month review period, the panel 

reported to the Board on issues such as 

whether the framework is supported by 

scientific research; whether the document 

reflects what students should know and be 

able to do in grades 4, 8, and 12; the appropriateness of proposed reading materials; 

and the clarity and organization of the draft. 

Members of the Reading External Panel 

follow. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

xii

Dennis J. Kear, Panel Chair 

Professor of Curriculum and Instruction, 

College of Education

Wichita State University

Wichita, Kansas

Ellin O. Keene

Deputy Director

Cornerstone National Literacy Initiative

University of Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Katherine A. Mitchell

Director, Alabama Reading Initiative

Alabama State Department of Education

Montgomery, Alabama

Keith E. Stanovich 

Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in 

Education 

University of Toronto 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 

Joanna P. Williams 

Professor, Psychology and Education 

Teachers College

Columbia University 

New York, New York

PROJECT STAFF, 

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH

Terry Salinger 

Chief Scientist

Project Director

Ramsay Selden

Vice President for Assessment 

Chair of Steering Committee

Steve Ferrara 

Managing Director

Chair, Technical Advisory Panel 

George Bohrnstedt

Senior Vice President

Senior Advisor 

Amy Bacevich 

Research Associate

Julia MacMillan

Research Analyst

Laura Walton 

Research Assistant

Note: This list of project staff and committees reflects professional affiliations during the project 

period for framework development. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

1 

CHAPTER ONE

OVERVIEW

Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been an ongoing national indicator of what American students know and can do in major academic 

subjects, including reading in English. NAEP reading assessments have been administered on a regular schedule to students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Under the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), NAEP will assess reading in grades 4 and 8 every 2 years. 

NAEP will also measure reading in grade 12 every 4 years.

The Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress is 

one of two documents that describe the assessment; it is intended for a general audience 

and presents the conceptual base and content of the assessment. The second document is 

the Reading Assessment and Item Specifications for the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress and is intended for a more technical audience, including the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the contractors that will develop the 

NAEP Reading Assessment. The specifications provide the “test blueprint”; that is, 

information about passage selection, item development, and other aspects of test 

development. 

NAEP OVERVIEW

The National Assessment Governing Board—the policymaking body for NAEP—has 

defined several parameters for the reading assessment. First, the NAEP assessment will 

measure reading comprehension in English. On the assessment, students will be asked to 

read passages written in English and to answer questions about what they have read. 

Second, because this is an assessment of reading comprehension and not listening comprehension, NAEP does not allow passages to be read aloud to students as a test accommodation. Third, under Board policy, the framework “shall not endorse or advocate a 

particular pedagogical approach, ... but shall focus on important, measurable indicators 

of student achievement” (NAGB 2002). Although broad implications for instruction may 

be inferred from the assessment, NAEP does not specify how reading should be taught; 

nor does it prescribe a particular curricular approach to teaching reading.

Reading passages are selected to be interesting to students nationwide, to represent highquality literary and informational material, and to be free from bias. Students respond to 

both multiple-choice and constructed-response items. In total, the NAEP assessments at 

grades 4, 8, and 12 are extensive enough to ensure that results can be reported validly, but 

no single student participates in the entire assessment. Instead, each student reads 

approximately two passages and responds to questions about what he or she has read. 

NAEP assessments are administered to random samples of students designed to be 

representative of the nation, different regions of the country, states, and large urban 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

2 

districts. As discussed in chapter three, NAEP results are reported for groups of students; 

no data are reported for individual students. Since 1992, states have been able to obtain 

state-level data on students’ reading achievement. Since 2003, a number of large urban 

school districts were able to obtain data about their students’ reading achievement. 

Results are reported in documents such as the NAEP Reading Report Card issued 

following each administration of the reading assessment; through special, focused 

reports; and through electronic means. 

Data are also collected that allow comparison of students’ reading achievement over 

extended periods of time in a separate Long-Term Trend NAEP. These assessments, given at the national level only, have been administered in the same form since 1971 and 

provide the only available measure of extended long-term trends in reading achievement. 

PURPOSE OF NAEP UNDER NCLB LEGISLATION

The NAEP Reading Framework is consistent with NCLB legislation. The NAEP legislation, as amended under NCLB and the later National Assessment of Educational Progress 

Reauthorization Act (NAEPRA) of 2002, specifies that NAEP’s purpose is “to provide, 

in a timely manner, a fair and accurate measurement of student academic achievement 

and reporting of trends in such achievement in reading, mathematics, and other subjects[s] ...” (section 303(b)(1), National Assessment of Educational Progress Reauthorization Act, P.L. 107–279). The NAEP reading data will measure national, 

regional, and subgroup trends in reading achievement but will not target the performance 

of individual students or schools. In further accordance with NCLB, the NAEP Reading 

Assessment will be administered every 2 years at grades 4 and 8 and the resulting data 

will be widely reported in a timely fashion. Finally, NAEPRA specifies that although the 

public will have full access to NAEP results and released test questions, NAEP will not 

seek to influence the curriculum or assessments of any state.

DEFINITION OF READING FOR NAEP

The NAEP Reading Assessment is guided by a definition of reading that reflects 

scientific research, draws on multiple sources, and conceptualizes reading as a dynamic 

cognitive process. This definition applies to the assessment of reading achievement on 

NAEP and states that reading is an active and complex process that involves: 

• Understanding written text.

• Developing and interpreting meaning. 

• Using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose, and situation. 

Terms used in the definition can be further explained as follows: 

Understanding written text: Readers attend to ideas and content in a text by locating 

and recalling information and by making inferences needed for literal comprehension of 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

3 

the text. In doing so, readers draw on their fundamental skills for decoding printed words 

and accessing their vocabulary knowledge. 

Developing and interpreting meaning: Readers integrate the sense they have made of 

the text with their knowledge of other texts and with their outside experience. They use 

increasingly complex inferencing skills to comprehend information implied by a text. As 

appropriate, readers revise their sense of the text as they encounter additional information 

or ideas. 

Using meaning: Readers draw on the ideas and information they have acquired from text 

to meet a particular purpose or situational need. The use of text may be as straightforward 

as knowing the time when a train will leave a particular station, or it may involve more 

complex behaviors such as analyzing how an author developed a character’s motivation 

or evaluating the quality of evidence presented in an argument.

Text: As used in the assessment, the term reflects the breadth of components in typical 

reading materials. Thus, text on the assessment will include literary and informational 

passages and may contain noncontinuous print material such as charts. Texts selected for 

inclusion on the assessment represent practical, academic, and other contexts and are 

drawn from grade-appropriate sources spanning the content areas. 

Purpose: Students’ purpose for reading the passages presented on NAEP is determined 

by the assessment context; thus, the influence of purpose on readers’ comprehension is 

somewhat limited.

Situation: The situation for reading often determines the way that readers prepare for and 

approach their task. They consider why they are reading (e.g., to study, to relax), how 

much they know about the topic, and other concerns that shape the time they will spend 

reading.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE READING PERFORMANCE

Factors related to the text being read and to readers’ backgrounds and experiences influence reading performance. For example, understanding the vocabulary, concepts, and 

structural elements of the text contributes to readers’ successful comprehension. Comprehension is also affected by readers’ background knowledge and by the context of the 

reading experience. The background knowledge that students bring to the NAEP Reading 

Assessment differs widely. To accommodate these differences, passages will span diverse 

areas and topics and will be as engaging as possible to the full range of students in the 

grades assessed. 

The purpose for reading also influences performance. In the case of the NAEP Reading 

Assessment, purpose is determined by the assessment context; thus, the influence of purpose on readers’ comprehension is somewhat limited. For this reason, the definition of 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

4 

reading presented earlier should be considered as a guide for the NAEP Reading Assessment, not as an inclusive definition of reading. The definition pertains to how NAEP 

defines reading for the purpose of this assessment. It does not address the issue of how 

students should be taught to read. 

Text comprehension is influenced by readers’ ability to apply the essential components of 

reading: phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, fluency, and understanding of word 

meanings or vocabulary. Without these foundational skills, comprehension will not 

occur. By grade 4, when the NAEP Reading Assessment is first administered, students 

should have a well-developed understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically and should have had sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different 

kinds of texts (National Research Council 1998). Because NAEP tests at grades 4, 8, and 

12, the assessment focuses on students’ reading comprehension, not their foundational 

skills related to alphabetic knowledge.1

 

As discussed further in chapter two, the association between vocabulary knowledge and 

comprehension is strong; students who know the meanings of many words and who also 

can use the context of what they read to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words are 

better comprehenders than those who lack these attributes (National Reading Panel 

2000a). In the NAEP Reading Assessment, vocabulary will be assessed systematically 

through carefully developed items that measure students’ ability to derive the meanings 

of words within the context of the passages they read. 

NATURE OF READING BEHAVIORS

Reading is an active and complex process that involves multiple different behaviors. 

Readers often begin by forming an overview of text and then search for information to 

which they must pay particular attention. Following this initial overview, readers 

progress with different levels of interaction with text, including interpreting and evaluating what they read. By drawing on previous reading experiences and prior knowledge, 

they form hypotheses about what the text will communicate and revise their initial ideas 

and their knowledge base as their reading continues. Readers continuously acquire new 

understandings and integrate these into their ongoing process of building comprehension. 

Good readers monitor their understanding of text, recognize when text is not making 

sense, and employ a range of strategies to enhance their comprehension. Good readers 

also evaluate the qualities of text, and these evaluations can affect whether a text is 

remembered or has an impact on readers’ knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors (Pressley 

and Afflerbach 1995; Ruddell and Unrau 1994). Depending on the situation and purpose 

for reading, good readers can use the ideas and information they acquire from text to, for 

example, expand their thinking about a topic, perform a specific task, or draw conclusions or make generalizations about what they have read. 

 

1

NAEP investigated the relationship between oral fluency and reading comprehension in two special 

studies, in 1992 and 2002. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

5 

DEFINITIONS OF READING THAT HAVE INFORMED FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT

The definition of reading for the NAEP Reading Assessment is derived from several 

sources and grounded in scientific research on reading. Among the sources are NCLB, 

several important research reports on reading, and the definitions of reading that guide 

the development of international reading tests. Each source has contributed important 

ideas to the definition of reading used for the NAEP Reading Assessment. 

NCLB posits that reading has five essential components: phonemic awareness, knowledge of phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The NAEP Reading 

Assessment measures students’ meaning vocabulary and comprehension. To demonstrate 

comprehension of what they read, students use their phonemic awareness and knowledge 

of phonics. Their ability to read the passages and test questions with minimal effort 

reflects their fluency. Students draw on their vocabulary knowledge throughout the 

assessment and specific items ask about carefully selected target words in each reading 

passage.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) (National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development 2000), a congressionally mandated commission, conducted an extensive, 

evidence-based study of research literature on reading acquisition, reading growth, and 

other relevant topics. The NRP report was an important foundation for NCLB, highlighting the importance of alphabetics (phonemic awareness and phonics), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. 

Three important definitions of reading influenced the development of the definition of 

reading for the NAEP Reading Assessment. The first comes from Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension (RAND Reading Study 

Group 2002), frequently referred to as the RAND Report. This report was prepared by the 

RAND Reading Study Group under the auspices of the Office of Educational Research 

and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. Guiding the work of the study 

group was the following definition of reading: 

Reading comprehension [is] the process of simultaneously extracting and 

constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written 

language. It consists of three elements: the reader, the text, and the activity 

or purpose for reading (p. 11). 

The second important definition was the foundation for item development for the 

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) (Campbell et al. 2001). PIRLS

was first administered to 9-year-old students in 35 countries in 2001. PIRLS defines reading literacy as: 

The ability to understand and use those written forms required by society 

and/or valued by the individual. Young readers can construct meaning 

from a variety of texts. They read to learn, to participate in communities of 

readers, and for enjoyment (p. 3). 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

6 

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD 2000) represents an 

international collaborative effort to assess what 15-year-old students know and can do in 

reading, mathematics, and science. PISA defines reading literacy as: 

Understanding, using, and reflecting on written texts, in order to achieve 

one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate 

in society (p. 18). 

The RAND Report, PIRLS, and PISA offer support to the definition for reading advocated 

in the NAEP Reading Framework. All three stress that reading is an active, complex, and 

multidimensional process undertaken for many different purposes. 

OVERVIEW OF NAEP READING ASSESSMENT

This reading assessment will use the same framework used in 2009. The NAEP Reading 

Assessment will include two distinct types of text at grades 4, 8, and 12. Doing so will 

allow the development of items that measure students’ comprehension of the different 

kinds of text they encounter in their school and out-of-school reading experiences. The 

reasons for including literary and informational text are presented next, followed by 

explanations of the characteristics of each text type included on the assessment. The 

NAEP Reading Assessment will also include items that measure students’ ability to apply 

their knowledge of vocabulary as an aid in their comprehension process. 

Neither computer-based electronic text nor drama will be included on the NAEP Reading 

Assessment. NAEP is committed to presenting authentic texts as stimulus material on its 

reading assessments, and it is difficult to include these kinds of text in ways that reflect 

how students actually read them in and out of school. The paper-and-pencil format most 

commonly used in NAEP reading assessments precludes students’ navigating through 

different components of text as they do when they read electronic text. Furthermore, 

dramatic selections are usually too long to fit within the word-length parameters for 

passages included on the assessment. 

NAEP assesses reading skills that students use in all subject areas and in their out-ofschool and recreational reading. By design, many NAEP passages require interpretive 

and critical skills usually taught as part of the English curriculum. However, NAEP is an 

assessment of varied reading skills, not a comprehensive assessment of literary study. 

The development of the broad range of skills that the nation’s students need to read successfully in both literary and informational texts is the responsibility of teachers across 

the curriculum, as well as of parents and the community. 

COMMONALITIES IN READING BEHAVIORS ACROSS TEXT TYPES

The framework recognizes that even though there are substantial differences in reading 

behaviors for different text types, there are also great similarities. Regardless of the type 

of text, the reader must access the words in the text, recognize and use the structure of the 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

7 

text, make sense of sentences and paragraphs, and comprehend what has been read. 

Equally, vocabulary is a critical element in comprehending any kind of text. 

TEXT CHARACTERISTICS: LITERARY AND INFORMATIONAL TEXTS

Research on the nature of text and on reading processes has suggested that the characteristics of literary and informational text differ dramatically. For the most part, the research literature suggests that readers pay attention to different aspects of text as they 

seek to comprehend different text types (Pearson and Camperell 1994; Pressley 2000; 

Purves 1973). Additionally, the PIRLS report shows that students in the United States 

scored higher on the Literary Subscale (at 550) than on the Informational Subscale (at 

533), further substantiating the difference in the strategies needed for the two text types 

(OECD 2000). An earlier international study reported that patterns of student responses 

to literature were influenced by the nature of the selections they were given to read. Different 

literary samples elicited different responses from students with some consistency across 

cultures and school systems (Purves 1973). Drawing on this extensive research base, the 

NAEP Reading Framework includes two major types of text: literary and informational. 

Well-crafted nonfiction work with strong literary characteristics will be classified as 

literary text and documents such as tables, graphs, or charts will be included in the 

informational category.

Literary and informational texts for the NAEP Reading Assessment are separated for two 

primary reasons: the structural differences that mark the text types and the purposes for 

which students read different texts. Exhibits 3 and 4 in chapter two present details about 

the kinds of literary and informational texts to be included on the NAEP Reading Asessment and about the features of these texts for which items will be written.

STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES IN TEXT

Literary and informational texts are marked by distinct structural characteristics that 

readers rely on as they seek to understand what they read (Goldman and Rakestraw 

2000). For example, research on literary text (Graesser, Golding, and Long 1991) has 

pointed out that stories and novels are characterized by a coherent text structure known as 

“story grammars.” Research on informational or expository text (Kobayashi 2002) has 

indicated that such texts possess distinct organizational patterns, such as sequence or 

comparison and contrast, designed to help readers organize their emerging sense of what 

the text is communicating. These structures are distinct from story grammars. The nature 

of texts affects comprehension, and different text types must be read in different ways 

(Pearson and Camperell 1994). Good readers adjust their reading behaviors to accommodate the kinds of text they are reading. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

8 

PURPOSES FOR READING

A second reason for separating text types is that readers often read literary and informational texts for different purposes. The definition of reading that guides the NAEP 

Reading Assessment specifically states that readers read for different purposes, which are 

often reflected in their selection of literary or informational texts. The purpose set for 

reading a text often determines how a student reads that text. Literary texts, such as 

stories, drama, essays, or poetry, are frequently read for pleasure or for new perspectives 

on time, place, human nature, or feelings; they are often read from beginning to end. The 

ultimate utility of informational text is determined by how well it conveys information or 

ideas. These differences in reading purpose are, of course, permeable. For example, wellcrafted informational text is often read for appreciation and enjoyment, in addition to the 

information that the text can provide. 

FEATURES THAT DISTINGUISH TEXT TYPES

Several features distinguish literary and informational texts. Skilled writers understand 

that different kinds of text need different structural patterns, and good readers are able to 

use these specific text features as aids in comprehension.

LITERARY TEXTS

The NAEP Reading Assessment will present reading passages (i.e., stimulus material) 

drawn from three categories of literary text:

• Fiction.

• Literary nonfiction, such as essays, speeches, and autobiographies or biographies. 

• Poetry.

The structural patterns of fiction (i.e., short stories and novels) have been studied extensively. Although many researchers have suggested different ways to name the elements 

of a story (Stein and Glenn 1979), there is general agreement that a story consists of the 

following components: the setting or settings; a simple or complex plot consisting of a 

series of episodes and delineating a problem to be solved; the problem or conflict, which 

requires characters to change, revise plans, or face challenges as they move toward resolution; and a reaction that expresses the protagonist’s feelings about his or her goal 

attainment or relates to the broader consequences of the conclusion of the story. This 

structure is often referred to as a story grammar. Characters populate each story, in major 

or minor roles; themes or major ideas are stated either implicitly or explicitly.

Works of literary nonfiction such as biographies, essays, and speeches employ distinct, 

varied structural patterns and literary features to reflect their purpose and audience. These 

works may not only present information and ideas but also employ distinctly literary 

elements and devices to communicate their message and to make their content more 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

9 

accessible to readers. Biographies and autobiographies, for example, usually follow a 

structure that in many ways mirrors the story structure of fictional works, and they may 

employ literary devices, but they also present information. Literary essays and speeches 

may be structured differently but also draw on literary devices. The Gettysburg Address, 

for example, might be viewed simply as an argumentative text or as a dedication or a eulogy, but it is more appropriately viewed as a sophisticated literary text. Readers approach texts of this type not only to gain enjoyment and information, but also to learn and 

to appreciate the specific craft behind authors’ choices of words, phrases, and structural 

elements.

Like fiction and literary nonfiction, poetry demonstrates specific text characteristics, but 

these characteristics are different from those found in continuous prose (Hanauer forthcoming). Some poetry possesses very rhythmic or metrical patterns, and some is written 

as “free verse” without a regular line pattern. Poetry is a highly imaginative form of 

communication in that poets try to compress their thoughts in fewer words than would be 

used in ordinary discourse or in prose (Frye 1964). Because the language is often brief 

and concise, poems employ picturesque and evocative words as well as similes, metaphors, personification, imagery, and other devices that convey the symbolic nature of the 

ideas, emotions, and actions being expressed. Poetry often involves a high level of 

abstraction in language and ideas, and requires specific critical thinking skills not found 

in other types of literary works. For these reasons, it is important that NAEP include 

poetry on the assessment at grades 4, 8, and 12. 

INFORMATIONAL TEXTS

For the NAEP Reading Assessment, informational texts will be classified into three broad 

categories:

• Exposition. 

• Argumentation and persuasive text. 

• Procedural text and documents. 

Informational text, specifically exposition, argumentation, and persuasive text, does not 

have a single, identifiable structure. Rather, different types of informational text exhibit 

distinct structural features. The most common structural patterns for continuous expository, argumentative, and persuasive text can be summarized as follows (Bovair and Kieras 

1991; Meyer 1975; Goldman and Rakestraw 2000; Kobayashi 2002): 

Description: A descriptive text structure presents a topic with attributes, specifics, or setting information that describes that topic.

Sequence: Ideas are grouped on the basis of order or time. 

Causation: The text presents causal or cause-and-effect relationships between the ideas 

presented in the text. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

10

Problem/Solution: The main ideas are organized into two parts: a problem and a subsequent solution that responds to the problem, or a question and an answer that responds to 

the question. 

Comparison: Ideas are related to one another on the basis of similarities and differences. 

The text presents ideas organized to compare, to contrast, or to provide an alternative 

perspective.

Expository text, argumentation, and persuasive text often contain pictures, charts, tables, 

and other graphic elements that augment text and contribute to its meaning. Ancillary 

aids such as headings, bolded text, or bulleted lists emphasize specific components of the 

text to reinforce authors’ messages. Literary texts differ in that illustrations, pictures, or 

other nonprint elements (when present) may aid readers in understanding the text but are 

not usually critical for comprehension. 

The first kind of informational text on the NAEP Reading Assessment, exposition, 

presents information, provides explanations and definitions, and compares and contrasts. 

Textbooks, news stories, and informational trade books are examples of expository text. 

Texts classified as argumentation or persuasive text accomplish many of these same goals 

but can be distinguished by their particular purpose and by the features that authors select 

to accomplish their goals for writing. 

The second category of informational text includes argumentation and persuasive text 

(Driver, Newton, and Osborne 2000; Osborne 2002; Wineburg 1991). Argumentation 

seeks to influence through appeals that direct readers to specific goals or try to win them 

to specific beliefs. Authors of persuasive writing must establish their credibility and authority if their writing is to be successful. Examples of persuasive text are political 

speeches, editorials, and advertisements.

The third type of informational text is often categorized as procedural text or documents

(Kirsch and Mosenthal 1990; Mosenthal 1996; Mosenthal 1998). Procedural texts convey 

information in the form of directions for accomplishing a task. A distinguishing characteristic of such text is that it is composed of discrete steps to be performed in a strict 

sequence with an implicit end product or goal. After reading the text, the reader should be 

able to reach a goal or complete a product. Examples include (but are not limited to) manuals and product support materials, directions for art activities and hobbies, and so on. 

Procedural texts may include information arranged in graphs, charts, or maps, in addition 

to prose. 

Document texts in a variety of forms will also be represented on the NAEP Reading 

Assessment. Documents include graphical representations, often as multimedia elements 

that require readers to draw on information presented as short continuous prose and also 

as columns, matrices, or other formats. Document structures can be simple or complex, 

and can present information in a straightforward way as in a simple list or pie graph with 

clearly delineated elements or embed or “nest” information within a document’s struc-
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

11

ture. Documents are used frequently in schools and in society. Textbooks often include 

graphs, tables, and illustrations to accompany and expand on traditional text. Forms are 

also common (such as applications), as are procedural texts (such as manuals and directions). Documents have implicit procedures embedded within them. Often, readers must 

“cycle” through the document or the set of procedures to gain needed information or 

to answer specific questions. For example, instructions suggest the manner in which an 

application is to be completed. 

Informational text will be included at all levels of the NAEP Reading Assessment. 

Documents embedded in text will be used at grades 4 and 8; stand-alone documents that 

provide enough information to support item development may be used at grade 12. 

Chapter two describes the criteria for evaluating examples and noncontinuous text and 

documents for inclusion. 

PERCENTAGE OF PASSAGES BY TEXT TYPE AND GRADE

Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of literary and informational passages on the assessment.

The percentage listed for literary texts encompasses all three categories of text: fiction, 

literary nonfiction, and poetry. The percentage for informational text likewise includes

exposition, argumentation and persuasive texts, and procedural texts and documents. 

The Specifications for the NAEP Reading Assessment will detail how these percentages

are to be distributed across grades 4, 8, and 12. 

The distribution reflects the kinds of texts that students read across the curriculum as they 

progress through elementary, middle, and high school (Alexander and Jetton 2000). It 

further reflects the distribution of text types on many state reading tests designed to 

reflect what students read across the curriculum. 

Exhibit 1. Percentage distribution of literary and informational passages 

Grade Literary Informational 

4 50 50 

8 45 55 

12 30 70 

Mixed Texts 

Many of the texts that convey information have been termed mixed texts (Alexander and 

Jetton 2000). This type of text is common in classroom reading as students are introduced 

to informational texts as a genre distinct from the “stories” common in lower grades 

(Duke 2000; Leu and Kinzer 2000). Examples include historical or scientific accounts 

presented in quasi-narrative form but used to communicate information. Their literary 

qualities (for example, literary elements and devices) will determine their classification as 

literary or informational. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

12

Multiple Texts

A common task for readers at all grades is integrating information across a set of texts. It 

is often the case that readers have multiple questions for which they need or want 

answers. A single text may answer some questions incompletely, or a single text might 

contain answers for only a portion of the questions a reader has. The solution is to use 

other texts to find additional information. In consulting multiple texts, readers must 

engage in all the processes to read individual texts, and they must also engage in other 

processes to compare those texts on multiple dimensions and decide on their accuracy, 

bias, and credibility. These skills need to be assessed to see how well students can read 

and comprehend texts that contain different information, reach different conclusions 

about the same material, or have different levels of credibility. Continuing the use of 

intertextual passage sets as part of the NAEP Reading Assessment approximates the

authentic task of reading and comparing multiple texts.

VOCABULARY ASSESSMENT ON THE NAEP READING ASSESSMENT 

The Governing Board has endorsed the idea of measuring students’ vocabulary as part of 

the reading assessment and supports an approach that assesses vocabulary in the context 

of the reading passages. The goal of vocabulary assessment will be to measure students’ 

meaning vocabulary, which can be defined as follows: 

Meaning vocabulary is the application of one’s understanding of word meanings 

to passage comprehension. 

The proposed method of assessing meaning vocabulary on the NAEP Reading Assessment assumes that the ability to gain a sense of the meaning of all or most words in a 

passage, especially those words that convey important information linked to central ideas 

of the passage, is a necessary condition for comprehension. NAEP meaning vocabulary 

items will target words already present in the NAEP reading comprehension passages. 

Candidate words must convey important meaning linked to the central idea(s) of the 

passage; comprehension would likely be disrupted if the meaning of the test word was 

not known. It is anticipated that each passage will have approximately two vocabulary 

items. The vocabulary assessment is explained in detail in chapter two.

ASSESSING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

The NAEP Reading Assessment is designed to measure the academic achievement of all 

test takers at a given grade level; hence, students with disabilities and English language 

learners are included in the assessment sample. The assessment is administered to English language learners and students with disabilities who, based on inclusion criteria 

provided by NAEP, are capable of participating. Special care is taken in designing and 

developing the assessment to ensure that these students, along with all others, find the 

passages and items accessible. For example, passages that might require specific background or experiential knowledge for comprehension are not included in the assessment. 

Items are written in plain language without jargon or complex syntactical structures.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

13

Some students may need accommodations to be able to participate in the NAEP Reading 

Assessment. NAEP attempts to provide accommodations to students that match the way 

in which they are tested in school as long as those accommodations do not alter the construct being measured. For example, large-print versions are made available for students 

with visual impairments; students with disabilities may be given one-on-one or smallgroup testing situations or extended time to complete the assessment. Some students, for 

example those who are learning English, may have the test directions (but not the 

passages or items) read orally to them. Other students may benefit from having a trained 

aide transcribe dictated responses for them. Accommodations may be provided in combination, for example, extended testing time and individual administration of the assessment.

COMPARISON OF 1992–2007 NAEP READING FRAMEWORK AND 2009–2011 NAEP

READING FRAMEWORK

The framework for the 2009–2011 NAEP Reading Assessment replaces a framework 

developed for the 1992 assessment. The previous framework was refined during its use to 

reflect more clearly the goal of precisely measuring students’ reading skills and strategies 

and was reissued for the 2003 assessment. The new framework honors many aspects of 

the previous one, but also introduces some changes that can lead to better measurement 

and more precise reporting of assessment results. Important changes featured in the new

NAEP Reading Framework follow: 

• An assessment design based on current scientific reading research.

• Use of international reading assessments to inform the NAEP framework. 

• More focused measurement of vocabulary. 

• Measurement of reading behaviors (cognitive targets) in a more objective manner. 

• Distinction of cognitive targets relevant to literary and informational text.

• Use of expert judgment, augmented by readability formulas, for passage selection. 

• Testing of poetry at grade 4 in addition to grades 8 and 12. 

• Special study of vocabulary to inform development of the assessment. 

Key similarities and differences between the two frameworks are presented in exhibit 2. 

Chapter two explains the proposed content and design of the assessment. The content and 

cognitive targets, as operationalized to reflect the definition of reading presented earlier 

in chapter one, will yield passages and items that reflect the complex interaction of the 

reader, the text, and the context of the assessment. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

14

Exhibit 2. Similarities and differences: 1992–2007 and 2009–2011 NAEP reading 

frameworks

1992–1997 NAEP 

Reading Framework

2009–2011 NAEP 

Reading Framework

Co

ntent

Content of 

assessment:

• Literary

• Informational 

• Document

Contexts for reading:

• For literary 

experience

• For information

• To perform task

• Literary text

• Fiction

• Literary nonfiction

• Poetry

• Informational text

• Exposition

• Argumentation and 

persuasive text

• Procedural text and 

documents

Co

gnitive 

Processes

Stances/aspects of reading:

• Forming general understanding. 

• Developing interpretation. 

• Making reader/text connections. 

• Examining content and structure. 

Cognitive targets distinguished by text type

Locate/

recall

Integrate/

interpret

Critique/

evaluate

Vocabulary

Vocabulary as a “target” of item 

development, with no information reported 

on students’ use of vocabulary knowledge 

in comprehending what they read. 

Systematic approach to vocabulary assessment 

with potential for a vocabulary subscore. 

Poetry

Poetry included as stimulus material at

grades 8 and 12. 

Poetry included as stimulus material at all grades.

Passage 

Source

Use of intact, authentic stimulus material. Use of authentic stimulus material plus some 

flexibility in excerpting stimulus material. 

Passage 

Length

Grade 4: 250–800

Grade 8: 400–1,000

Grade 12: 500–1,500

Grade 4: 200–800

Grade 8: 400–1,000

Grade 12: 500–1,500

Passage 

Selection

Expert judgment as criterion for passage 

selection. 

Expert judgment and use of at least two researchbased readability formulas for passage selection. 

Item Type

Multiple-choice and constructed-response 

items included at all grades. 

Multiple-choice and constructed-response items 

included at all grades. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

15

CHAPTER TWO

CONTENT AND DESIGN OF NAEP IN READING 

This chapter presents the content and design of the NAEP Reading Assessment. Key 

sections of the chapter are as follow:

• Texts to be included on the NAEP Reading Assessment 

• Characteristics of texts selected for inclusion on the NAEP Reading Assessment

• Literary text

• Informational text

• Vocabulary on the NAEP Reading Assessment

• Cognitive targets for the NAEP Reading Assessment

• Item types on the NAEP Reading Assessment

TEXTS ON THE NAEP READING ASSESSMENT TO BE INCLUDED 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading will assess students’ 

comprehension of literary and informational passages. Within these passages, vocabulary 

will also be assessed. Chapter one presented the rationale for including literary and 

informational text on the NAEP Reading Assessment, and this chapter begins by describing the text structures and features and aspects of author’s craft about which items will be 

developed. 

The matrices in exhibits 3 and 4 show the kinds of literary and informational texts that 

will be sampled at grades 4, 8, and 12, along with the text structures and literary devices 

or elements of author’s craft about which items may be developed. 

The matrices are designed to show the following aspects of literary and informational 

text:

• Genres and types of text to be assessed.

• Text structures and features about which items may be asked. 

• Aspects of author’s craft about which items may be asked. 

Types of text refers to the idealized norms of a genre (Fludernik 2000), not the source of 

the stimulus material per se. 

Text structures and features define the organization and elements within the text. The 

organization and elements refer to the ways ideas are arranged and connected to one 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

16

another. Features refer to visual and structural elements that support and enhance the 

reader’s ability to understand the text.

Author’s craft pertains to the specific techniques that an author chooses to relay an 

intended message.

Entries listed within each cell of the matrices should be construed as neither definitive 

nor inclusive of all text structures and features or techniques of author’s craft. However, 

it is important to delineate the type of text to be used in reading comprehension tests 

(Kobayashi 2002; Wixson and Peters 1987). Understanding the range of text types for 

inclusion in the NAEP Reading Assessment illuminates the complex nature of reading 

comprehension passages and the accompanying questions. Items will assess students’ application of knowledge about text types, text features and structures, and author’s craft, 

not their recognition of specific terminology in isolation. The designation of entries in the 

matrices by grade level reflects the levels at which these components of text are presented 

in state English language arts standards. They have further been confirmed by experienced teachers and teacher educators. 

LITERARY TEXT

The literary text matrix shown in exhibit 3 outlines the common forms of continuous 

prose and poetry that may be included. The matrix is divided into three sections (fiction, 

literary nonfiction, and poetry) and provides information on the aspects of text about 

which items will be developed. Successively more complex text forms are added at each 

level.2

 

 

2

A detailed explanation of the literary and informational text matrices will be provided in the Specifications 

for the NAEP Reading Assessment. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

17

Exhibit 3. Literary text matrix: Fiction

Genre/Type of Text

Text Structures and 

Features Author’s Craft

Fi

ction

Grade 4

• Adventure stories

• Historical fiction

• Contemporary realistic 

fiction

• Folktales

• Legends 

• Fables

• Tall tales

• Myths

• Fantasy

• Themes

• Morals

• Lessons

Organization

• Plot: sequence of 

events

• Conflict

• Solution

• Resolution

Elements

• Setting

• Characterization

Diction and word choice

• Dialogue

• Exaggeration

• Figurative language

• Symbolism

• Simile and metaphor

Grade 8

• Science fiction

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Organization

• Parallel plots

• Circular plots

Elements

• Point of view

• Contradictions

• Internal vs. external 

conflict

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Mood

• Imagery

• Flashback

• Foreshadowing

• Personification

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Grade 12

• Satire 

• Parody

• Allegory

• Monologue

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8

Organization

• Differentiation of plot 

structures for different 

purposes and audiences

Elements

• Interior monologue

• Unreliable narrators

• Multiple points of 

view 

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8

• Dramatic irony

• Character foils

• Comic relief

• Unconventional use of 

language

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.

FICTION

As suggested in the matrix, students in elementary and middle schools read many 

different kinds of stories for enrichment and enjoyment. These texts are representative of 

the developing conceptual understandings formed by students during this period. At 

grades 8 and 12, more complex genres of fiction are common including satires, parodies, 

science fiction, and allegories. For purposes of the NAEP Reading Assessment, these 

genres may be either intact passages or passages excerpted from longer genres such as 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

18

novels. Material excerpted from longer pieces will be carefully analyzed to ensure that it 

has the structural integrity and cohesion necessary to sustain item development. 

The matrix also shows the aspects of text structures and features and author’s craft that 

may be assessed. These components, as well as the purposes for reading, become increasingly complex and sophisticated as students move through the elementary, middle, and 

high school grades. For example, themes may be more abstract; plots may involve internal or external conflicts; characterization may develop with antagonists, protagonists, and 

narrators with intertwined motives, beliefs, traits, and attitudes; the theme and setting 

may be more integral to one another; the plot may consist of a series of rising and falling 

actions within episodes; and the point of view or vantage point chosen by the author to 

reveal ideas, characters, or actions becomes more sophisticated, often including a shifting 

point of view or multiple points of view. 

Authors select from a range of stylistic devices to enhance their presentation. In the 

matrix, these are referred to as author’s craft. At grade 4, author’s craft includes figurative language such as symbolism, simile, metaphor, diction and word choice, dialogue, 

and exaggeration. More abstract elements, such as flashback and imagery, are part of author’s craft at grade 8 in addition to more complex applications of the types of author’s 

craft listed for grade 4. Fictional passages for grade 12 are complex and may include the 

following literary devices—dramatic irony, character foils, comic relief, and unconventional use of language—in addition to the devices listed at grades 4 and 8. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

19

Exhibit 3 (continued). Literary text matrix: Literary nonfiction

Genre/Type of Text

Text Structures and 

Features Author’s Craft

Literary Nonfi

ction

Grade 4

• Personal essay

• Autobiographical and 

biographical sketches

Organization

• Description

• Cause and effect

• Comparison

• Chronology

Elements

• Point of view

• Themes or central ideas

• Supporting ideas

• Logical connections

• Transitions

• Diction and word 

choice

• Use of exposition, 

action, or dialogue to 

introduce characters

• Exaggeration

• Figurative language

• Symbolism

• Simile and 

metaphor

Grade 8

Character sketch

• Memoir

• Speech

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Voice

• Tone

• Imagery

• Metaphoric language

• Irony

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Grade 12

• Classical essay

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8 

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Denotation

• Connotation

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.

LITERARY NONFICTION

The second type of literary text is literary nonfiction, which may include elements of 

narration and exposition and is often referred to as mixed text (Alexander and Jetton 

2000). Literary nonfiction is an example of mixed text because it uses literary techniques 

usually associated with fiction or poetry and also presents information or factual material. 

Stylistically, it frequently blends literary elements and devices with factual information 

with the dual purpose of informing and offering reading satisfaction. Text types for literary nonfiction at grade 4 include autobiographical and biographical sketches, and 

personal essays. At grade 8, additional forms of literary nonfiction used include character 

sketches, memoirs, and speeches. Classical essays are introduced as literary nonfiction at 

grade 12. Unlike texts that can be categorized as informational because of their sequential, chronological, or causal structure, literary nonfiction uses a storylike structure. 

Classical essays may interweave personal examples and ideas with factual information to 

attain their purpose of explaining, presenting a perspective, or describing a situation or 

event. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

20

Literary nonfiction selected for inclusion on NAEP will conform to the highest standards 

of literary quality. Literary nonfiction combines structures from both literary and informational texts. At grade 4, text structures and features in literary nonfiction include 

description, cause and effect, comparison, chronology, point of view, themes and central 

ideas, and supporting ideas. At grades 8 and 12, increasingly complex structures listed 

above are noted in literary nonfiction. Text features such as logical connective devices 

and transitional devices are listed at grade 4.

A range of literary devices and techniques termed author’s craft are present in literary 

nonfiction. Examples of author’s craft at grade 4 include diction and word choice, various 

ways to introduce characters, exaggeration, and figurative language. At grade 8, increasingly complex techniques are listed for author’s craft: voice, tone, imagery, metaphoric 

language, and irony. Denotation and connotation are listed at grade 12 for author’s craft. 

Grades 8 and 12 will include more complex forms of the text structures and features and 

author’s craft listed at grade 4.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

21

Exhibit 3 (continued). Literary text matrix: Poetry

Genre/Type of Text Text Structures and 

Features

Author’s Craft

Poetry

Grade 4

• Narrative poem

• Lyrical poem

• Humorous poem

• Free verse

Organization

• Verse

• Stanza

Text features 

• Repetition

• Omission

• Dialogue

• Line organization

• Patterns

Elements

• Rhyme scheme

• Rhythm

• Mood

• Themes and intent

• Diction and word choice 

(including the decision to 

omit words that may 

leave the reader with 

much to infer)

• Choice of different forms 

of poetry to accomplish 

different purposes

• Exaggeration

• Use of imagery to provide detail

• Figurative language

• Simile

• Metaphor

• Imagery

• Alliteration

• Onomatopoeia

Grade 8 

• Ode

• Song (including ballad)

• Epic

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Elements

• Abstract theme

• Rhythm patterns

• Point of view 

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Figurative language

• Symbolism

• Personification 

Plus increasingly complex application of grade 4

Grade 12

• Sonnet

• Elegy

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8 

Elements

• Complex themes

• Multiple points of

• view

• Interior monologue

• Soliloquy

• Iambic pentameter

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 

8

• Denotation

• Connotation

• Irony

• Tone

• Complex symbolism

• Extended metaphor and 

analogy

Plus increasingly complex application of grades 4 and 8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.

POETRY

The third type of literary text included in the NAEP Reading Assessment is poetry. Like 

fiction, poetry has distinctive forms, functions, and structures further guided by literary 

structures and textual features. The matrix lays out the kinds of poetry that students 

encounter at different grade levels. Thus, basic poetic forms at grade 4 are narrative, 

lyrical, and humorous poems and free verse. Additionally at grade 8, odes, songs, and 

epics are included in the matrix for possible item development. More complex poetic 

forms are included at grade 12, such as sonnets and elegies. It is possible that two poems 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

22

may be used together in intertextual item sets to allow students to perform complex reading tasks, such as comparing thematic treatment in two poems or contrasting two poets’ 

choices of literary devices.

Readers use the structure of poetry to aid in comprehension. Poetic structures range from 

simple to complex. Students at grade 4 can be expected to be familiar with simple organizational patterns such as verse and stanza along with the basic elements of rhyme 

scheme, rhythm, mood, and themes and intent. At grades 8 and 12, increasingly complex 

poetic organizational patterns and elements will be included. Students will also be 

expected to understand the use of “white space” as a structural feature of poetry.

Understanding a poet’s choices also aids in understanding poetry. Language choice is of 

particular importance because the meaning in poetry is distilled in as few words as possible. Poets choose from among a range of rhetorical structures and figurative language, 

using, for example, repetition, dialogue, line organization and shape, patterns, and many 

forms of figurative language. Increasingly complex application of figurative language, 

rhetorical devices, and complex poetry arrangements are included at grades 8 and 12. 

INFORMATIONAL TEXT

As stated in chapter one, informational text on the NAEP Reading Assessment will be of 

three types: exposition, argumentation or persuasive text, and procedural text or documents. Exhibit 4 presents the ways informational text will be assessed at grades 4, 8, and 

12. The matrix consists of three parts, each of which is accompanied by explanatory text.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

23

Exhibit 4. Informational text matrix: Exposition 

Genre/Type of Text

Text Structures and 

Features Author’s Craft

Exposition

Grade 4

• Informational trade 

book

• Textbook

• News article 

• Feature article

• Encyclopedia entry

• Book review

• Organization

• Description

• Sequence (e.g., 

enumeration, 

chronology)

• Cause and effect

• Problem and solution

• Comparison and 

contrast

Content features

• Point of view

• Topics or central ideas

• Supporting ideas and 

evidence

Graphic features

• Titles

• Subheadings

• Italics

• Captions

• Sidebars

• Photos and illustrations

• Charts and tables

• Transitional words

• Signal words

• Voice

• Figurative language and 

rhetorical structures

• Parallel structure

• Quotations

• Examples

• Repetition

• Logical arguments

Grade 8

• Historical document

• Essay (e.g., 

informational, 

persuasive, analytical)

• Research report

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Irony

• Sarcasm

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4 

Grade 12

• Essay (e.g., political, 

social, historical, 

scientific, natural 

history)

• Literary analysis

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 8

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Denotation

• Connotation

• Complex symbolism

• Extended metaphor and

analogy

• Paradox

• Contradictions/

• incongruities

• Ambiguity

Increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

24

EXPOSITION

As they progress beyond the early grades, students read expository text with increasing 

frequency both in and out of school (Broer, Aarnoutse, Kieviet, and Van Leeuwe 2002). 

The primary goals of expository text for school-age readers are to communicate information and to advance learning. Forms that may be assessed at grade 4 are informational 

trade books, textbook passages, news stories, feature stories, and encyclopedia entries. At 

grade 8, expository text genres include historical documents, various grade-appropriate 

essays, and research reports. More complex essay formats will be included for assessment 

at grade 12 such as political, social, historical, or scientific essays that primarily communicate information. 

Expository texts are characterized by internal sets of “grammars” similar in function to 

the story grammars discussed in chapter one. These grammars are designed to move the 

exposition forward and to help the reader comprehend the text. As shown in the matrix, 

the major organizational structures of exposition are description, sequence, cause and 

effect, problem and solution, and comparison and contrast (Meyer 1975). As mentioned 

in chapter one, exposition may also include lists as a structural component with lists of 

descriptions, causes, problems, solutions, and views presented within other structures. 

Commonly, exposition does not contain just one structural format, but rather combines 

several structures embedded in the text. 

Specific elements within these organization structures signal meaning to the reader. 

Sequence, point of view, topics or central ideas, and supporting ideas and evidence are 

listed at grade 4; at grade 8 and grade 12, the structural organization and elements will be 

assessed at increasingly complex levels and with increasingly sophisticated texts. Some 

surface-level or graphic features support the text structures of exposition and guide the 

reader through the text. Other textual features can be categorized as reflecting author’s 

craft; these features guide the reader through the use of transitional words, signal words, 

voice, figurative language, and rhetorical structures. At grades 8 and 12, increasingly 

complex use of these features and of the author’s craft will be included for assessment. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

25

Exhibit 4 (continued). Informational text matrix: Argumentation and persuasive text

Genre/Type of Text

Text Structures and 

Features Author’s Craft

Argument

ation and Persu

asive Text

Grade 4

• Informational trade book

• Journal

• Speech

• Simple persuasive essay

Organization

• Description

• Sequence (e.g., 

enumeration, 

chronology)

• Cause and effect

• Problem and solution

• Comparison and contrast

Content features

• Author’s perspective or 

position

• Topics or central ideas

• Supporting ideas and 

evidence

• Contrasting viewpoints 

and perspectives

• Presentation of the 

argument (e.g., issue 

definition, issue choice, 

stance, relevance)

Graphic features

• Titles

• Subheadings

• Italics

• Captions

• Sidebars

• Photos and illustrations

• Charts and tables

• Transitional words

• Signal words

• Voice

• Figurative language and 

rhetorical structure

• Parallel structure

• Quotations

• Examples

• Repetition

• Exaggeration

• Emotional appeal

• Tone

Grade 8

• Letter to the editor

• Argumentative essay

• More complex 

persuasive essay

• Editorial

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

• Irony

• Sarcasm

• Figurative language and 

rhetorical structure

• Parallel structure

• Quotations

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grade 4

Grade 12

• Essay (e.g., political, 

social)

• Historical account

• Position paper (e.g., 

persuasive brochure, 

campaign literature, 

advertisements)

Plus increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 8

Increasingly complex 

application of grade 4 

Increasingly complex 

application of grades 4 and 8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

26

ARGUMENTATION AND PERSUASIVE TEXT

Many forms of informational text pose an argument or attempt to persuade readers 

toward a particular viewpoint. These texts present information to support or prove a 

point, to express an opinion, and to try to convince readers that a specific viewpoint is 

correct or justifiable. Various logical fallacies and forms of bias may be found in argumentation and persuasive text. As the matrix shows, there is considerable similarity in 

structure, literary features, and elements among exposition, argumentation, and persuasive text. The real distinction lies in the purpose for which an author writes these particular kinds of informational text; as stated, exposition seeks to inform and educate, whereas 

argumentation and persuasive text seek to influence their readers’ thinking in other, often 

subtle but significant ways.

At grade 4, argumentation and persuasive texts listed in the matrix are informational trade 

books that specifically argue a position or persuade the reader toward a stance, journals, 

speeches, and simple persuasive essays. However, in 2011 NAEP will not assess argumentation and persuasive texts at grade 4 due to difficulty in locating high-quality texts 

appropriate for this grade level. At grade 8, there are more complex forms of argumentation and persuasive texts: letters to the editor and editorials and argumentative and gradeappropriate persuasive essays. At grade 12, argumentation and persuasive texts become 

increasingly complex with a variety of types of essays such as political and social commentary essays, historical accounts, and position papers such as persuasive brochures, 

campaign literature, and advertisements.

Particular organization techniques and elements are used to create a clear argument or to 

form a persuasive stand. The differences between exposition and argumentation and 

persuasive text lie not in the structural organization, but rather in the way the texts are 

elaborated through the use of contrasting viewpoints, shaping of arguments, appeals to 

emotions, and other manipulations of the elements of text and language. The organizational structures at all levels are the same as in exposition: description, sequence, cause 

and effect, problem and solution, and comparison and contrast; they are represented in 

grades 8 and 12 with increasing complexity. 

Elements within these organizational structures include the author’s perspective, topics or 

central ideas, supporting ideas, contrasting viewpoints or perspectives, and the presentation of the argument (e.g., issue definition, issue choice, stance, and relevance). These 

elements appear at all grade levels with complexity increasing at higher grade levels. In 

addition, at grade 12 students may be asked about the structure of a given argument; connections among evidence, inferences, and claims; and the structure of a deductive versus 

inductive argument. Twelfth grade students may also be asked questions about the range 

and quality of evidence, and logical fallacies, false assumptions/ premises, loaded terms, 

caricature, leading questions, and faulty reasoning in argumentation and persuasive texts. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

27

Exhibit 4 (continued). Informational text matrix: Procedural texts and documents 

Genre/Type of Text Text Structures and Text Features

Proc

edural Texts and Documents

Grade 4

Embedded in text

• Directions

• Map

• Timeline

• Graph

• Table

• Chart

Organization

• Description

• Procedures

• Sequence (e.g., enumeration, 

chronology) 

Graphic features

• Titles

• Labels

• Headings

• Subheadings

• Sidebars

• Photos and illustrations

• Charts and graphs

• Legends

Grade 8

Embedded in text

• Recipe

• Schedule

Plus increasingly complex application of 

grade 4 Increasingly complex application of grade 4

Grade 12

Stand-alone material

• Application

• Manual

• Product support material

• Contract 

Plus increasingly complex application of 

grades 4 and 8 

Increasingly complex application of grades 

4 and 8

Note: Entries listed within each cell should be construed as neither definitive nor inclusive of all text structures and 

features or techniques of author’s craft.

PROCEDURAL TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS

Research indicates that adults spend considerably more time reading documents (i.e., 

information in matrix or graphic form) than they do reading prose materials (Guthrie and 

Mosenthal 1987; Kirsch and Mosenthal 1990; Mosenthal 1996; Mosenthal 1998). Documents and procedural texts are indeed common in our society; for example, we interpret 

bus schedules, assemble simple devices, order goods from a catalog, or follow directions 

to set the VCR clock. Such texts are used frequently in elementary and secondary 

schools, where students encounter textbooks replete with graphs, tables, and illustrations 

to accompany and expand traditional continuous text. 

Procedural text may be primarily prose arranged to show specific steps toward accomplishing a goal or it may combine both textual and graphic elements to communicate with

the user. Documents, in contrast, use text sparingly, in a telescopic way that minimizes 

the continuous prose that readers must process to gain the information they need. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

28

As the matrix shows, document texts on the NAEP Reading Assessment may include, but 

are not limited to, tables and charts. Stand-alone procedural text or documents will not be 

included at grades 4 and 8; such text will be embedded in or ancillary to continuous text. 

They may appear as stand-alone stimuli at grade 12 but their use will account for only a 

small amount of the stimuli in the entire assessment. It is likely that many of the documents may be used as part of intertextual item sets. For example, a student might encounter a bar graph and a timeline with items that relate to both texts.

Documents and procedural text features act as necessary clues to the organization of the 

text. As textual supports, these features guide the reader through the text. For the purposes of the NAEP Reading Assessment, graphic features include titles, labels, headings, 

subheadings, sidebars, photos and illustrations, charts and graphs, and legends at grades 

4, 8, and 12. More complex examples of these will be included at each successive grade. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF TEXTS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION 

Passages selected as stimulus material for the NAEP Reading Assessment must meet 

rigorous criteria. They will all be authentic texts of the highest quality, evidencing characteristics of good writing, coherence, and appropriateness for each grade level. Passages will be drawn from a variety of contexts familiar to students nationwide. Stimulus material must be engaging to students at each grade level. Furthermore, material must reflect 

our literary heritage by including recognized works from varied historical periods (Ravitch 2003). 

It is true that children’s experience differs from that of adults, and 

therefore the application of standards should be consonant with 

child life. Nevertheless, one must keep in mind the emotional 

maturity of the children for whom the book or books are intended. 

This does not mean that the works must be watered down so as to 

meet the reading ability levels of young children. On the contrary, 

some books of lasting value outstrip their vocabulary lists and connect with children on emotional-maturity levels so that they can be 

understood and enjoyed by the young themselves. ... [T]he standards basic to good writing in adult literature are also basic to good 

writing for children (Georgiou 1988). 

Most material included on the assessment will be presented in its entirety as students 

would encounter it in their own reading. However, some material may be excerpted, for 

example, from a novel or a long essay. Excerpted material will be carefully analyzed to 

ensure that it is coherent in structure. 

PASSAGE LENGTH

Material on the assessment will be of differing lengths as shown in exhibit 5.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

29

Exhibit 5. Passage lengths for grades 4, 8, and 12 

Grade Range of Passage Lengths

(Number of Words)

4 200–800

8 400–1,000

12 500–1,500

Passages of these lengths are used for several reasons. To gain the most valid information 

about students’ reading, stimulus material should be as similar as possible to what 

students actually encounter in their in-school and out-of-school reading. Unlike many 

common reading tests that use short passages, NAEP will present longer material that 

challenges students to use their strategic reading skills in ways that reflect the kinds of 

reading they do in nontest situations (Paris, Wasik, and Turner 1991). Furthermore, short 

passages usually will not yield approximately 10 distinct items, the required minimum 

number for each NAEP item set. Longer passages, with clear structural patterns, can 

support the development of multiple, distinct, nontrivial items that cover the range of 

content included in the literary and informational text matrices. These items will also allow broad coverage of the cognitive targets discussed later in this chapter. 

It is expected that in some cases, two poems will be used together to assess students’ ability to compare them in terms of their themes and stylistic features. Prose passages used in 

intertextual item sets will also be fairly short. Likewise, it is possible that two documents 

might be included as intertextual stimuli at grade 12.

SELECTION OF LITERARY AND INFORMATIONAL PASSAGES

Several methods of evaluating passages will be used to ensure that the best possible stimulus material is included. Authentic material must be of the highest quality, and it must 

come from authentic sources such as those students would encounter in their 

in-school and out-of school reading. Material must be coherent and allow items that assess domain-specific knowledge (Kobayashi 2002). Additionally, systematic efforts will 

be made to ensure that texts selected for inclusion will of interest to the widest number of 

students. Readers become more engaged in text and consequently comprehend a selection 

better when they find the material interesting (Bauman 1986; Wade, Buxton, and Kelly 

1993; Wade and Moje 2000; Wade et al. 1993). Texts will reflect literary heritage by 

representing varied historical periods. 

Passages selected for inclusion on the assessment will be well written, interesting to read, 

and considerate; that is, easily comprehensible because they are well organized, have 

appropriate vocabulary, and, where needed, have useful supplemental explanatory features such as definitions of technical terms or topographical features. Ideas marked by 

graphic features such as italics, bold print, and signal words and phrases tend to be 

processed more easily and recalled longer than unmarked information. In selecting passages, attention will be paid to written clues within text that can help readers understand 

structure, guide the development of main ideas, and influence the recall of information. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

30

For example, readers tend to organize and remember emphasized information better when 

authors lead them with signal words indicating main ideas (for example, the most important point here), with phrases indicating sequencing (such as words like first, second, 

third), and with statements cross-referencing disparate parts of text (Armbruster 1984). 

Especially in the selection of informational text, the degree of content elaboration will be 

an important criterion for passage selection. Sufficient elaboration of new concepts is 

needed if students are to gain sufficient information to respond to questions. Tersely written informational text tends to be more difficult for students to comprehend compared 

with text written with more elaborated explanations. Whether text is tersely written or 

presents fully elaborated content is particularly important with topics that may be beyond 

the background knowledge of some students. 

An inviting writing style can also enhance interest and thereby increase comprehension. 

Material may be interesting not because of what is said but because of how it is said. For 

example, writers can increase interest by using active rather than passive verbs, by 

including examples that make the writing less abstract, and by using vivid and unusual 

words. An inviting writing style also influences voice. Voice, the qualities that help a 

reader view text as communication between an author and a reader, can have a positive 

effect on recall (Beck, McKeown, and Worthy 1995). 

Expert judgment will be the primary method for evaluating and selecting passages for 

inclusion on the assessment. Additional methods include the use of story and concept 

mapping and vocabulary mapping. At least two research-based readability formulas will 

also be used to gather additional information about passage difficulty (Klare 1984; White 

and Clement 2001). Passages will be thoroughly reviewed for potential bias and sensitivity issues. 

Story and concept mapping procedures have been used to identify appropriate passages 

for previous assessments (Wixson and Peters 1987). These procedures result in a graphic 

representation of a possible stimulus selection that clearly highlights the hierarchical 

structure and the interrelatedness of the passage components. Story mapping, for example, will show how the setting of a story is related, and contributes to, the development of 

plot and theme. Concept mapping shows the structure of informational text along with the 

concepts presented and the relational links among concepts. Organizing information hierarchically within a passage allows the identification of various levels of information 

within a text so that items can target the most important aspects of what students read. 

As NAEP begins to assess vocabulary in a systematic way, the story and concept mapping procedures will be modified to ensure that appropriate words are selected for item 

development. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

31

SELECTION OF POETRY 

In selecting poetry for the NAEP Reading Assessment, it will be important to determine 

that potential poems present a theme instead of stressing primarily the melodic or stylistic 

aspects of language use. Especially at grades 4 and 8, the theme should be implicitly 

presented in terms that are not so abstract that they are beyond students’ comprehension. 

Words and phrases should be used with economy to support and amplify the meaning 

inherent in the text; the style should be distinguished by author’s craft and project the 

poet’s feelings about his or her topic or theme. The ideas presented must be accessible to 

students and it must be clear that poetry, rather than prose, is the better mode for presenting these ideas. A good question to ask in selecting poetry is: 

Does the poetry, through its expression of theme and ideas, carry children 

beyond their immediate experiential level to extensions where language 

and imagination meet? (Georgiou 1988) 

SELECTION OF NONCONTINUOUS TEXT AND DOCUMENTS

In addition to continuous text prose and poetry, the assessment will include prose augmented by noncontinuous textual elements such as embedded tables or charts. It will also 

include stand-alone documents at grade 12. An analysis of layout will be essential to 

ensure that embedded noncontinuous text is used appropriately in a way that is well integrated into the prose text and not gratuitously distracting. Equally, stand-alone documents 

must be rich with appropriate information about which questions can be asked. The number of categories of information presented graphically and the clarity of the layout of 

documents will be essential criteria for selecting documents for inclusion. The vocabulary 

and concept load of multimedia elements and of documents will also be considered. 

Exhibit 6 summarizes the considerations for selecting passages and documents. The first 

two columns present considerations for literary and informational continuous text. The 

third column presents considerations that must be made in selecting noncontinuous text 

that is embedded within continuous text or documents that will be used as stand-alone 

stimulus material at grade 12. Certain considerations are considered essential for each 

kind of stimulus material and represent the fundamental characteristics that make a text 

or document appropriate for inclusion. All potential stimulus material must also be 

grade-appropriate to ensure that students will be able to understand the concepts presented and are familiar with the material’s stylistic features. Finally, balance must be 

considered so that the assessment as a whole reflects the full range of print and noncontinuous text that students encounter in their in-school and out-of-school reading.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

32

Exhibit 6. Considerations for selecting stimulus material

Literary Text Informational Text

Graphical Displays of 

Information

Essential characteristics

• Ability to engage readers

• Well-written, rich text

• Recognized literary merit

• Theme/topic appropriateness by 

grade level

Grade appropriateness

• Complexity of characters

• Number of characters

• Vocabulary

• Sophistication in use of literary 

devices

• Complexity of dialogue

• Point of view

• Complexity of theme

• Multiple themes (major/minor)

• Use of time (flashbacks,

progressive/digressive)

• Illustrations

Balance

• Reflective of our literary

heritage

• Style

• Variety of sentence and

vocabulary complexity

• Appropriateness of mode (prose 

vs. poetry) 

• Classical as well as

contemporary

• Representative of varied

historical periods, cultures,

socioeconomic backgrounds,

etc.

• Genre

Essential characteristics

• Ability to engage readers

• Well-written, considerate text

• Coherence

• Theme/topic appropriateness

by grade level

Grade appropriateness

• Topic 

• Vocabulary

• Concepts (number, 

familiarity, abstractness)

• Curricular appropriateness at 

grade level

• Integrity of structure

• Types of adjunct aids

• Explicitness of perspective

• Style

Balance

• Varied content areas

• Style

• Genre

• Variety of sentence and

vocabulary complexity

• Appropriateness of mode

Essential characteristics

• Coherence

• Clarity

• Relevance (when embedded)

Grade appropriateness

• Structural complexity

• Topic 

• Vocabulary

• Concepts (number,

familiarity, abstractness)

• Number of categories of

information presented

• Amount of information 

within categories

Balance

• Embedded documents

balanced with stand-alone

documents (at grade 12) 

• Format

VOCABULARY ON THE NAEP READING ASSESSMENT

In 2011, there will be an assessment of vocabulary in the context of passages that 

students read. Vocabulary knowledge is considered to be one of the five essential components of reading as defined by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. In this 

context, vocabulary is construed not as isolated word meanings but as real knowledge of 

vocabulary that can advance comprehension. 

NAEP will not test definitions in isolation from surrounding text; that is, students will not 

be assessed on their prior knowledge of definitions. The definition of meaning vocabulary will guide the development:
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

33

Meaning vocabulary is the application of one’s understanding of word 

meanings to passage comprehension. 

IMPORTANCE OF VOCABULARY FOR READING COMPREHENSION

The associations between vocabulary and learning to read and then between vocabulary 

and reading comprehension are well documented in research (Hart and Risley 1995).3

Studies have repeatedly shown that students’ vocabulary is a fundamental factor in their 

ability to comprehend what they read. Not knowing the meaning of words as used in a 

given text may result in decreased comprehension of that text. Comprehending any reading passage requires knowing the meaning of the important content-bearing words of that 

passage, but often, the meaning of many key words in a passage depends on an interaction of word meaning and passage meaning (Bauman, Kame’enui, and Ash 2002; Landauer, Foltz, and Laham 1998). Because of this interaction, measurement of word meaning by NAEP should be integrated with the measurement of passage comprehension. 

Several major factors are known to affect readers’ comprehension of what they read and 

can highlight the connection between word meaning and passage meaning; these include: 

 

• The context for reading (e.g., for study, for skimming, for leisure). 

• Fluency in identifying the words of the text. 

• Background or domain knowledge of the content of the text. 

• Knowledge of “the sense of the meaning” of the words the author uses to convey 

important content (Miller 1991). 

• Comprehension monitoring. 

REASONS FOR ASSESSING VOCABULARY ON NAEP READING

The growing body of research documenting the link between vocabulary and reading 

comprehension provides a strong rationale for the inclusion of a systematic measure of 

vocabulary. Past assessments have included a few vocabulary test items, all of which 

measured vocabulary in context; however, the number of items was scant and there were 

no specific vocabulary-related criteria for selecting the items or distractors. Furthermore, 

NAEP reports provided no information about performance on those items or how vocabulary performance might be related to reading comprehension. This change for the NAEP 

Reading Assessment, then, is significant. All vocabulary items will function both as a 

measure of passage comprehension and as a test of readers’ specific knowledge of the 

word’s meaning as intended by the passage author. 

MEASUREMENT OF MEANING VOCABULARY

Vocabulary items will be developed about the meaning of words as they are used in the 

context of the passages that students read. Students will not be asked to draw on their 

 

3 For a complete list of references substantiating vocabulary assessment, see the bibliography. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

34

prior knowledge by providing a written definition of each word on a list or in a set of 

words. There are two reasons for this approach. First, knowledge as explicit as a written 

definition of a word is not the specific ability required for passage comprehension. In 

reality, readers may not be able to provide a complete definition of a word they encounter 

but do have enough of the sense of the word’s meaning as used in text that their comprehension is not impeded. 

A second argument against demanding specific definitions is that word meaning often 

depends on the context in which the word appears. Finding out whether readers know one 

specific definition of a word will not indicate whether they understand that word as it is 

used in a given text. Indeed, there is evidence that readers who know one definition of a 

word but not the meaning in a given text try to alter the sense of the text in keeping with 

their known definition: leading, of course, to misunderstanding the text (Deegan 1995). 

In addition, writers often use words in a manner that goes beyond concrete, familiar definitions, but do so in ways that skilled readers can interpret effectively. Jacques Barzun 

describes this: 

Language is not an algebra; that is, the symbols do not stay put, nor can 

they be carried from place to place with an assurance that their value will 

not change. If language were like an algebra there could be no poetry or 

other fiction, no diplomacy or intimate correspondence, no persuasion or 

religious literature. If language were like an algebra, uncomfortable would 

mean not able to be comforted, and a myriad other nuances of human feelings would have to remain unrecorded and unshared (Barzun 1975). 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING VOCABULARY

In selecting passages, test developers must create a “map” of the story or expository 

selection to identify a passage’s key features. This procedure has included identifying 

candidates for vocabulary items, but the process will be enhanced to ensure that passages 

contain enough candidate words or terms for item development. 

The intent of the vocabulary assessment is to determine whether readers know and understand the meanings of the words that writers use to convey new information or meaning, 

not to measure readers’ ability to learn new terms or words. Hence, the assessment will 

focus on words that characterize the vocabulary of mature language users and characterize written rather than oral language. The words selected for item development will 

convey concepts, ideas, actions, or feelings that the readers most likely know. In general, 

the words selected as targets for item development characterize the language of mature 

readers and are used in texts from a variety of content domains (Beck, McKeown, and 

Kucan 2002).4

 

4

Referred to as “tier 2” words, a term that distinguishes them from tier 1 words, which are common, everyday words basic to the speech and writing of most students, and from tier 3 words, rarely used words or 

technical terminology.

 Considerations for selecting words for item development are summarized 

in exhibit 7. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

35

Exhibit 7. Considerations for selecting vocabulary items and distractors

Vocabulary Words To Be 

Tested

Vocabulary Words 

Excluded From Testing

Considerations for 

Distractors

• Characterize the 

vocabulary of mature 

language users and 

characterize written rather 

than oral language. 

• Label generally familiar 

and broadly understood 

concepts, even though the 

words themselves may 

not be familiar to younger 

learners.

• Necessary for 

understanding at least a 

local part of the context 

and linked to central 

ideas such that lack of 

understanding may 

disrupt comprehension.

• Are found in grade-level 

reading material.

• Narrowly defined and not 

widely useful, such as 

those related to specific 

content domains (e.g., 

photosynthesis, fiduciary) 

or words with limited 

application (e.g., deserter, 

hamlet).

• Label or name the main 

idea of the passage (e.g., 

the word “emancipation” 

would not be tested in an 

article dealing with the 

“Emancipation 

Proclamation”).

• Already likely to be part 

of students’ everyday 

speaking vocabulary at 

grade level.

• Meanings readily derived 

from language context 

(e.g., appositives, 

parenthetic definitions, 

idiomatic expressions). 

• Present a different 

common meaning of the 

target vocabulary word, 

which must be ignored in 

favor of the meaning in 

context. 

• May present correct 

information or content 

from the text that is not

what is meant by the target 

word. 

• May be an alternative 

interpretation of the 

context in which the target 

word occurs. 

• May be the meaning of 

another word that looks or 

sounds similar to the 

target word.

• May present a common 

but inaccurate association 

with the target word.

Words that are appropriate for inclusion denote concepts or things that readers already 

know. That is, the word denotes an object, idea, feeling, or action that has been experienced or has been seen by the readers. However, the test item is not designed to determine whether readers know the thing, but rather whether readers are able to link this 

knowledge (object, idea, feeling, action) to the word the author uses to convey this meaning. NAEP presumes that most readers will likely have the background knowledge of the 

object, idea, feeling, or action in a passage, but because the words are difficult and 

uncommon, readers may not readily link that knowledge to the specific word the author 

uses to convey that meaning. If readers do not connect a meaning with the author’s word, 

their comprehension will suffer. NAEP vocabulary items are designed to test readers’ 

ability to connect an appropriate meaning to the candidate words to gain comprehension. 

Thus, test items will not target technical terms or words identifying the central idea(s) of 

the passage because those words often represent new knowledge, concepts, or conceptualizations for readers. Passage comprehension items will measure readers’ learning from 

text; vocabulary items will measure readers’ knowledge of certain important words the 

author uses to impart this meaning. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

36

Clearly, some students will know and understand some test words before taking the 

assessment. This is unavoidable. Furthermore, we anticipate that some readers will not 

have the background to link to the author’s words and thus will either choose an incorrect 

response for the item because of their background knowledge or identify the meaning of 

the word from context and mark the correct response. Recognizing this possibility, NAEP 

will ensure that the vocabulary test items represent a continuum of difficulty across readers at a given grade (as will reading passages and comprehension items). The intent is to 

identify words that the majority of grade-level students do not generally use in speaking 

or writing, but have seen or heard at least a few times.

COGNITIVE TARGETS 

Items will be developed to assess students’ comprehension of literary and informational 

text. The term cognitive targets refers to the mental processes or kinds of thinking that 

underlie reading comprehension. Test questions will be aligned to cognitive dimensions 

applicable to literary and informational texts and also to cognitive dimensions specific to 

each text type. The remainder of the chapter presents those cognitive dimensions targeted 

by the items (hence the term cognitive targets) and discusses the item types included on 

the assessment. Inclusion of specific cognitive targets reflects the intent of the definition 

of reading that guides the assessment. The definition, explained in chapter one, follows. 

Reading is an active and complex process that involves: 

• Understanding written text.

• Developing and interpreting meaning. 

• Using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose, and situation. 

READING PROCESSES INCLUDED IN COGNITIVE TARGET MATRICES

The reading processes included in the three sections of the cognitive target matrix, exhibit 

8, illustrate the complex nature of reading. The research literature contains numerous studies that show how students use different reading processes when reading various types 

of text (see chapter one). Hence, the sections of the matrix representing literary and informational text emphasize that different texts elicit different kinds of reading behaviors. 

The reading processes presented in the matrix are also grounded in the research 

literature on comprehension, most specifically the literature that uses protocol analysis 

(“think-alouds”) as its research methodology (Garner 1982; Guthrie, Britten, and Barker 

1991; Norris and Phillips 1987; Pressley and Afflerbach 1995; Olvshavsky 1976–77). 

Furthermore, they reflect the cognitive processes assessed on international reading 

assessments such as the Progress in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) 

(Campbell et al. 2001) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 

(OECD 2000). The behaviors presented in exhibit 8 are illustrative, not comprehensive. 

The Specifications for the NAEP Reading Assessment will provide a detailed listing of the 

cognitive targets for item development.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

37

Locate and Recall

The first cognitive behaviors are locate and recall. As students locate or recall information from what they read, they may identify clearly stated main ideas or supporting 

details or they may find essential elements of a story, such as characters, time, or setting. 

Their process in answering assessment items often involves matching information given 

in the item to either literal or synonymous information in the text before they can then use 

the textual information to develop a response. As readers engage in these behaviors, they 

monitor their reading in order to understand when they are comprehending and when they 

are not. When they realize that the text is not making sense, they employ specific strategies to ensure that they begin to comprehend again. 

A salient activity [in reading] is to find the main ideas in the text and make 

certain that these ideas are remembered—or at least can be found again if 

needed. The big ideas, of course, are always relative to the goals of the 

reading with respect to the text. That is, very different ideas may be considered main ideas if a reader is reading for one purpose versus another 

(Pressley and Afflerbach 1995, p. 44). 

Items assessing this component of reading usually focus on information contained in relatively small amounts of text: a sentence, a paragraph, or two or more adjacent paragraphs. 

These items provide information about the most basic comprehension skills, those that 

ultimately form the foundation for a more elaborate understanding of what is read. At the 

same time, these items address the kinds of reading that occur routinely in school and in 

out-of-school reading activities.

Regardless of a reader’s goal—whether reading is done in preparation for 

a test, in anticipation of a writing assignment, with the expectation of 

sharing it in a conversation, to determine an author’s perspective, or as 

part of staying abreast in an area of interest—it is necessary to identify the 

important information in a text (Pressley and Afflerbach 1995, p. 31). 

Integrate and Interpret

The next set of reading behaviors refers to what readers do as they integrate new information into their initial sense of what a passage says, often interpreting what they read in 

the process. When readers engage in behaviors involving integrating and interpreting, 

they make comparisons and contrasts of information or character actions, examine relations across aspects of text, or consider alternatives to what is presented in text. This 

aspect of the reading is critical to comprehension and can be considered the stage in 

which readers really move beyond the discrete information, ideas, details, themes, and so 

forth presented in text and extend their initial impressions by processing information logically and completely. As readers integrate information and interpret what they read, they 

frequently form questions, use mental images, and make connections that draw on larger 

sections of text, often at an abstract level. They also draw on their knowledge of the 

structure and elements of literary and informational text.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

38

In applying these behaviors, readers invariably think across large portions of text, across 

the text as a whole, or even across multiple texts; they relate textual information to knowledge from other sources such as their previous content learning or to internalized criteria 

and logic. Thus, readers might ask themselves whether something they are reading makes 

sense to them within the realm of their own experiences or when considered against what 

they have read in other sources. They examine the text in terms of their 

specific reading goals or the needs they have for the information that the text can provide. 

In certain reading situations, readers may apply what they know to what they are reading, 

for example, determining a real-world application of suggestions in a text on bicycle safety. They also apply information gained from reading, for example in following 

instructions for repairing a bicycle or reading a map to determine where bike routes have 

been designated in a city.

Readers are aware of many different aspects of text and the reading task 

they are performing from the outset of reading. Their perceptions of the 

text and how it relates to their task/ reading goals does much to shape the 

processing of text, with readers processing some parts of the text superficially and others very carefully. ... Good readers not only know what they 

are doing but also why they are doing it, ever aware of the characteristics 

of text they are confronting and their own reading goals (Pressley and 

Afflerbach 1995, p. 68). 

Items assessing these behaviors might ask students to form generalizations about a piece 

of informational text or make statements about how the setting of a story contributes to 

the creation of theme. Other items might require interpretation, for example, of a character’s motivations or of an author’s reasons for attempting to persuade readers about an 

issue. Other questions might ask for alternative actions that a character might have taken 

or an interpretation of an implied message or moral from a story.

Critique and Evaluate

The final set of reading behaviors, critiquing and evaluating text, requires readers to 

stand back from what they read and view the text objectively. The focus remains on the 

text itself but the reader’s purpose is to consider the text critically by assessing it from 

numerous perspectives and synthesizing what is read with other texts and other experiences. Items may ask students to evaluate the quality of the text as a whole, to determine what is most significant in a passage, or to judge the effectiveness of specific textual features to accomplish the purpose of the text (e.g., the effectiveness of details selected to support a persuasive argument). Items might ask for the likelihood that an event 

could actually have taken place, the plausibility of an argument, or the adequacy of an 

explanation for an event. Items can ask students to focus at the level of language choices 

(for 

example, nuances expressed in a metaphor) or at the broader level of the entire text (for 

example, evaluating the effectiveness of an author’s craft to accomplish his or her overall 

goals). 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

39

To answer these questions, students draw on what they know about text, language, and 

the ways authors manipulate language and ideas to achieve their goals.

Sometimes readers recognize from the very start that they are likely to be 

evaluative with respect to a text, and likely to react to it affectively. ... 

Although some readers evidence great consistency in their evaluative 

stances as they read some texts, evaluations are often much more discriminated. Regardless of whether a reader is globally positive, globally negative, or a mixture of both, evaluations occur with respect to the style and 

context of text (Pressley and Afflerbach 1995, p. 76). 

Assessing Cognitive Targets 

Exhibit 8 presents the cognitive target matrix for the development of items to be used on 

the NAEP Reading Assessment.5 The term cognitive targets is used to refer to the mental 

processes or kinds of thinking that underlie reading comprehension; the cognitive targets 

serve to guide the test development process in that item writers “target” these processes 

or kinds of thinking as they write items. The cognitive targets remain the same across all 

three grades on the assessment, but the passages and documents about which items are 

developed will be of increasing sophistication at each grade. 

 

5 The cognitive targets matrix is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered an exhaustive 

list. The cognitive targets will be elaborated further in the Specifications for the NAEP Reading Assessment. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

40

Exhibit 8. Cognitive targets 

Locate/Recall Integrate/Interpret Critique/Evaluate

Both Literary and 

Informational Text

Identify textually explicit 

information and make 

simple inferences within 

and across texts, such as:

• Definitions. 

• Facts. 

• Supporting details. 

Make complex inferences 

within and across texts to: 

• Describe problem and 

solution or cause and 

effect. 

• Compare or connect 

ideas, problems, or 

situations. 

• Determine unstated

assumptions in an

argument. 

• Describe how an author 

uses literary devices and 

text features. 

Consider text(s) critically 

to:

• Judge author’s craft 

and technique. 

• Evaluate the author’s 

perspective or point of 

view within or across 

texts. 

• Take different 

perspectives in relation 

to a text. 

Specific to Literary Text

Identify textually explicit 

information within and 

across texts, such as:

• Character traits. 

• Sequence of events or 

actions. 

• Setting. 

• Identify figurative 

language. 

Make complex inferences 

within and across texts to:

• Infer mood or tone. 

• Integrate ideas to 

determine theme. 

• Identify or interpret a 

character’s 

motivations and 

decisions. 

• Examine relations 

between theme and 

setting or characters. 

• Explain how rhythm, 

rhyme, or form in 

poetry contribute to 

meaning. 

Consider text(s) critically 

to:

• Evaluate the role of 

literary devices in 

conveying meaning. 

• Determine the degree 

to which literary 

devices enhance a 

literary work. 

• Evaluate a character’s 

motivations and 

decisions. 

• Analyze the point of 

view used by the 

author. 

Specific to Informational Text 

Identify textually explicit 

information within and 

across texts, such as:

• Topic sentence or main 

idea. 

• Author’s purpose. 

• Causal relations. 

• Locate specific 

information in text or 

graphics. 

Make complex inferences 

within and across texts to:

• Summarize major 

ideas. 

• Draw conclusions and 

provide supporting 

information. 

• Find evidence in 

support of an 

argument. 

• Distinguish facts from 

opinions. 

• Determine the 

importance of 

information within 

and across texts. 

Consider text(s) critically 

to:

• Analyze the 

presentation of 

information. 

• Evaluate the way the 

author selects language 

to influence readers. 

• Evaluate the strength 

and quality of evidence 

used by the author to 

support his or her 

position. 

• Determine the quality 

of counterarguments 

within and across texts. 

• Judge the coherence, 

logic, or credibility of 

an argument. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

41

Items will be developed to assess all cognitive targets at each grade level, but the distribution of cognitive targets will vary across grades. In determining the distribution across 

grade levels, careful thought was given to the kinds of texts that students encounter at 

each level. Reference was also made to the distribution across reading processes in the 

two international reading assessments, PISA and PIRLS (Campbell et al. 2001; OECD 

2000). Exhibit 9 displays the distribution of cognitive targets across grades 4, 8, and 12. 

Exhibit 9. Percentage distribution of cognitive targets by grade

Grade Locate/Recall Integrate/Interpret Critique/Evaluate

4 30 50 20

8 20 50 30

12 20 45 35

ITEM TYPES 

The NAEP Reading Assessment will include multiple-choice and constructed-response 

items. Both item types yield valuable information about students’ reading and allow a 

rich, full description of how the nation’s students approach different kinds of text. The 

inclusion of both types of items affirms the complex nature of the reading process 

because it recognizes that different kinds of information can be gained from each item 

type. It also acknowledges the real-world skill of being able to write about what one has 

read.

Multiple-choice items will include four options: the right response and three incorrect 

responses. It is assumed that a multiple-choice item will take students approximately 1 

minute to complete. Short constructed-response items can be answered by one or two 

phrases or by one or two sentences; they should take students approximately 2 to 3 minutes to complete. Extended constructed-response items should elicit longer, more elaborated answers of a paragraph or two. They should take students approximately 5 minutes 

to complete. Scoring rubrics for short and extended constructed-response items will focus 

on the content included in answers, not on spelling or grammatical considerations. However, students must answer constructed-response questions by using information from the 

text to receive credit. Details regarding the scoring and short and extended constructedresponse items appear in the Specifications for the NAEP Reading Assessment.

6

The distribution of multiple-choice and constructed-response items will vary across the 

grades assessed by the NAEP Reading Assessment. The percentages in exhibit 10 refer to 

the amount of assessment time that students will spend responding to these particular 

kinds of items. Hence, grade 4 students will spend approximately 50 percent of the 

 

6

The specifications will guide the development of the assessment. It will provide detailed information about 

the kinds of reading selections to be included, item types, and scoring criteria for constructed-response 

items. The specifications will also discuss test administration procedures, any considerations to be given to 

special populations, and special studies to be conducted in conjunction with the assessment (see appendix 

C).
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

42

assessment time responding to multiple-choice items and 50 percent of the assessment 

time preparing written responses. Students at grades 8 and 12 will spend more time 

preparing written responses. 

Approximately two items per passage will assess vocabulary knowledge. These items 

may be either multiple choice or short constructed response in format. Exhibit 10 shows 

the distribution of time to be spent on each kind of item. 

Exhibit 10. Percentage distribution of time to be spent on specific item types

Grade Multiple Choice

Short Constructed 

Response

Extended Constructed Response

4 50 40 10

8 40 45 15

12 40 45 15

Less time is allocated to constructed-response items at grade 4 to reflect developmental 

differences. Students at grade 4 may not be as familiar with written responses to reading 

questions as are older students (Kobayashi 2002). 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

43

CHAPTER THREE

REPORTING RESULTS 

Results of the NAEP Reading Assessment administrations are reported in terms of 

average scores for groups of students on the NAEP 0–500 scale and as percentages of 

students who attain each of the three achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and 

Advanced) discussed below. This is an assessment of overall achievement, not a tool for 

diagnosing the needs of individuals or groups of students. Reported scores are always at 

the aggregate level; by law, scores are not produced for individual schools or students. 

Results are reported for the nation as a whole, for regions of the nation, for states, and for 

large districts that volunteer to participate in the NAEP trial urban district assessment 

(TUDA). 

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND PROVISIONS FOR NAEP REPORTING 

Under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, states receiving 

Title I grants must include assurance in their state plans that they will participate in the 

reading and mathematics state NAEP at grades 4 and 8. Local districts that receive Title I 

funds must agree to participate in biennial NAEP administrations at grades 4 and 8 if they 

are selected to do so. Their results will be included in state and national reporting. Participation in NAEP will not substitute for the mandated state-level assessments in reading 

and mathematics at grades 3 to 8.

In 2002, NAEP initiated TUDA in five large urban school districts that are members of 

the Council of Great City Schools (the Atlanta City, City of Chicago, Houston Independent, Los Angeles Unified, and New York City Public Schools districts). Ten large 

districts participated in 2003 and 2005. The number of districts participating in TUDA 

has grown over time. Districts that participate in TUDA receive their own data, which 

they can use for assessing the achievement of their own students and for comparative 

purposes. 

ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

Since 1990, the National Assessment Governing Board has used student achievement levels for reporting results on NAEP assessments. The achievement levels represent an informed judgment of “how good is good enough” in the various subjects assessed. 

Generic policy definitions for achievement at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels 

describe in very general terms what students at each grade level should know and be able 

to do on the assessment. Reading achievement levels specific to the NAEP Reading 

Framework were developed to elaborate on the generic definitions. New reading-specific 

achievement level descriptors 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

44

replaced those aligned to the previous framework (NAGB 2003). Preliminary achievement level descriptors were developed for the assessment as a whole and for the vocabulary component of the assessment. These preliminary achievement levels were used to 

guide item development and initial stages of standard-setting. The preliminary achievement level descriptions were refined as a result of the achievement level setting process. 

Exhibit 11 presents the generic achievement level descriptors. See appendix B for the 

final achievement level descriptions.

Exhibit 11. Generic NAEP achievement levels

Achievement Level Policy Definition

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

Proficient This level represents solid academic performance for each 

grade assessed. Students reaching this level have 

demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, 

including subject-matter knowledge, application of such 

knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills 

appropriate to the subject matter.

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge 

and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each 

grade.

REPORTING NAEP RESULTS

NAEP Reading Assessment results are reported in terms of average scores for groups of 

students on the NAEP 0–500 scale and as percentages of students who attain each of the 

three achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). Information is also provided 

about students who score below Basic. These students are not necessarily nonreaders; 

many can complete some tasks on the assessment but are not able to attain the minimum 

score required for Basic. 

Data are reported on subgroups of students by gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free 

or reduced-price lunch, region of the country, type of community, public or nonpublic 

school, and other variables of interest. Data are never provided for individual students or 

schools. Subscores should be provided for literary and informational texts. Results will 

also be provided about students’ responses to the vocabulary items. 

The 2011 results will continue to use a 0–500 cross-grade scale. Use of such a scale affirms 

that reading is a development process and that students’ reading skills mature throughout 

their school years as they read increasingly diverse and sophisticated texts.

The primary vehicle for reporting NAEP reading results is the NAEP Reading Report 

Card issued after each assessment administration. The report provides detailed information on the assessments, the students who participated, and the assessment results. Results 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

45

are disaggregated by specific groups and are also presented for states that participate in 

the NAEP state assessment. Among the focal groups are males and females, students 

from various racial/ethnic backgrounds, and students who took the assessment with and 

without accommodations. 

NAEP data and information about the assessments are also available electronically 

through the National Governing Assessment Board (www.nagb.org) and the National 

Center for Education Statistics/NAEP (nces.ed.gov) websites. Furthermore, the NAEP 

Data Explorer can be used by interested education administrators, researchers, and other 

stakeholders to develop focused reports. The NAEP e-Library (nces.ed.gov) provides 

access to other information such as access to NAEP reports, sample assessment passages, 

items, scoring rubrics with student-constructed responses, and data sources for more 

in-depth analysis of student achievement results or of the assessments themselves. 

REPORTING STATE NAEP RESULTS

As discussed above, states receiving Title I funding must participate in the NAEP Reading Assessment at grades 4 and 8. Results are reported in the aggregate for participating 

students and are also disaggregated for specific reference groups of students. Individual 

state reports are generated in addition to reports that contrast results from participating 

states and from the nation as a whole. The NAEP Report Generator allows state and local 

administrators and others to customize reports and to investigate specific aspects of 

student reading achievement.

REPORTING TREND DATA

According to NAEP law and Governing Board policy, long-term trend assessments are 

conducted as part of NAEP in order to continue the national trend reports. In reading, 

long-term assessments have been administered since 1971. The long-term trend reports 

provide the only continuous measures of student achievement over such extended periods 

of time. Passages and accompanying test items administered as part of the long-term 

trend assessments have remained unchanged from their initial administration in 1971. 

The 2009–2011 NAEP Reading Framework represents several important changes from 

the framework that has guided the assessment from 1992 to 2007 (see exhibit 2). The 

2011 NAEP Reading Assessment will use the same framework used in 2009. The Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress replaced the 

framework first used for the 1992 reading assessment and then for subsequent reading 

assessments through 2007. Compared to the previous framework, the 2009 reading 

framework included more emphasis on literary and informational texts, a redefinition of 

reading cognitive processes, a new systematic assessment of vocabulary knowledge, and 

the addition of poetry to grade 4. 

The 2009 NAEP Reading Report Card included trend data on student reading performance from 1992 to 2009. Results from special analyses determined the 2009 reading 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

46

assessment results could be compared with those from earlier assessment years. These 

special analyses started in 2007 and included in-depth comparisons of the frameworks 

and the test questions, as well as an examination of how the same students performed on 

the 2009 assessment and the earlier assessment. A summary of these special analyses and 

an overview of the differences between the previous framework and the 2009 framework 

are available on the web at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ trend_study.asp. 

The 2011 NAEP Reading Report Card will report trends in student reading performance 

from 1992 to 2011. 

NAEP reports are useful in providing trend results over time to inform decisions and 

allocations of resources and framing of policy about reading. The questions that NAEP 

addresses include these:

• Are students improving in reading achievement over time? 

• Are percentages of students at the upper achievement levels increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same?

• Are the gaps in achievement among various groups narrowing? 

Assessments aligned to the 1992 framework and its subsequent versions have yielded 

trend data from seven national and six state administrations as shown in exhibit 14. 

Exhibit 12. Years of administration of NAEP reading assessments 

Year

Grades for 

National 

Administration

Grades for State 

Administration

1992 4, 8, 12 4

1994 4, 8, 12 4

1998 4, 8, 12 4, 8

2000 4

2003 4, 8, 12 4, 8

2005 4, 8, 12 4, 8

2007 4, 8 4, 8

2009 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12

BACKGROUND VARIABLES

Students participating in the NAEP assessments respond to background questionnaires 

that gather information on variables important to understanding reading achievement 

nationwide. Teachers and school administrators also complete background questionnaires. To the extent possible, information is also gathered from non-NAEP sources such 

as state, district, or school records to minimize the burden on those asked to complete the 

questionnaires. Questions are nonintrusive; free from bias; secular, neutral, and nonideological; and do not elicit personal feelings, values, or attitudes.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

47

As stated in Governing Board policy, the collection of background data on students, 

teachers, and schools is necessary to fulfill the statutory requirement that NAEP include 

information whenever feasible that is disaggregated by race or ethnicity, socioeconomic 

status, gender, disability, and limited English proficiency. Background information serves 

the additional purpose of enriching the reporting of NAEP results by examining factors 

related to academic achievement in the specific subjects assessed. 

To satisfy the goal of enriching reports on student achievement in reading, background 

variables are selected to be of topical interest, timely, and directly related to academic

achievement. The selection of variables about which questions will be developed may 

reflect current trends in the field, such as the use of technology in reading instruction or 

the extent to which students use the Internet as a reference tool. Recommendations on 

background variables for the NAEP Reading Assessment were presented as a separate 

document. 

NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DEFINITION OF READING

Campbell, J.R., D.L. Kelly, I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, and M. Sainsbury. (March 2001). 

Framework and Specifications for PIRLS Assessment 2001. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education, PIRLS International Study Center. 

Lyon, G.R. (1998). “Overview of Reading and Literacy Research.” In S. Patton and M. 

Holmes, eds., The Keys to Literacy. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. 

Frye, N. (1964). The Educated Imagination. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.

Washington, DC: Author. 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, P.L. 107-110, signed by President George 

W. Bush, January 8, 2002. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000). Measuring Student 

Knowledge and Skill: The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical and 

Scientific Literacy. Paris: Author.

RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ruddell, R.B., and N.J. Unrau (1994). “Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The 

Reader, the Text, and the Teacher.” In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, and H. Singer, 

eds. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.):996–1056. Newark, DE: 

International Reading Association. 

TEXT TYPES, MATRICES, AND COGNITIVE TARGETS

Achieve (2004). Executive Summary of the American Diploma Project. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

Alexander, P.A., and T.L. Jetton, T.L. (2000). “Learning From Text: A Multidimensional 

and Developmental Perspective.” In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and 

R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research (III):285–310. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Armbruster, B.B. (1984). “The Problem of ‘Inconsiderate Text’.” In G.G. Duffy, I.R. 

Roehler, and J. Mason, eds., Comprehension Instruction: Perspective and Suggestion:202–217. New York: Longman. 

Barr, R., M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds. (1991). Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Bauman, J. (1986). “Effect of Rewritten Textbook Passes on Middle-Grade Students’ 

Comprehension of Main Ideas: Making the Inconsiderate Considerate.” Journal of 

Reading Behavior 18:1–22. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

50

Bauman, J.F., E.J. Kame’enui, and G.E. Ash (2002). “Research on Vocabulary Instruction: Voltaire Redux.” In J. Flood, D. Lapp, D.R. Squire, and J. Jensen, eds., Handbook of Research on the Teaching of the English Language Arts:752–785. Mahwah, 

NJ: Erlbaum. 

Beck, I., M. McKeown, and J. Worthy (1995). Giving a Text Voice Can Improve Students’ Understanding. Reading Research Quarterly 30:220–238. 

Bovair, S., and D.E. Kieras (1991). “Toward a Model of Acquiring Procedures From 

Text.” In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of 

Reading Research vol. II:206–229. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Broer, N.A., C.A.J. Aarnoutse, F.K. Kieviet, and J.F.J. Van Leeuwe (2002). “The Effect 

of Instructing the Structural Aspect of Texts.” Educational Studies 28(3):213–238. 

Burke, J. (2000). Reading Reminders: Tools, Tips, and Techniques. Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann.

Burke, J. (2001). Illuminating Texts: How To Teach students To Read the World. 

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne (2000). “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.” International Journal of Science Education 84:287–

312. 

Duke, N.K. (2000). “3.6 Minutes Per Day: The Scarcity of Information Texts in First 

Grade.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:202–224. 

Fludernik, M. (2000). “Genres, Text Types, or Discourse Modes? Narrative Modalities 

and Generic Categorization.” Style 34(2):274–292. 

Garner, R. (1982). “Verbal-Report Data on Reading Strategies.” Journal of Reading Behavior 14:159–167. 

Georgiou, C. (1988). Children and Their Literature. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Gioia, D., X.J. Kennedy, and M. Bauerlein (2004). Handbook of Literary Terms. White 

Plains, NY: Longman. 

Goldman, S., and J. Rakestraw (2000). “Structural Aspects of Constructing Meaning 

From Text.” In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds., Handbook 

of Reading Research vol. III:311–335. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Graesser, A., J.M. Golding, and D.L. Long (1991). “Narrative Representation and Comprehension.” In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research vol. II:171–205. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Guthrie, J., T. Britten, and K. Barker (1991). “Roles of Document Structure, Cognitive 

Strategy, and Awareness in Searching for Information.” Reading Research Quarterly

25:300–324. 

Guthrie, J.T., and P. Mosenthal (1987). “Literacy as Multidimensional: Learning Information and Reading Comprehension.” Educational Psychologist 22(3–4):279–297. 

Hanauer, D.I. (in press). “What We Know About Reading Poetry: Theoretical Positions 

and Empirical Research.” In G. Steen and D. Schram, eds., The Psychology and Sociology of Literary Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.

Kamil, M.L., H.S. Kim, and D. Lane. (in press). “Electronic Text.” In J. Hoffman and D. 

Schallert, eds., The Texts in the Primary Grade Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: Center 

for Instruction in Early Literacy Acquisition. 

Kamil, M.L., P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds. (2000). Handbook of Reading Research vol. III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

51

Kim, H.S., and M.L. Kamil (2003). “Reading Electronic and Multimedia Text.” In A. 

Sweet and C. Snow, eds., Rethinking Reading Comprehension:166–175. New York: 

Guilford. 

Kirsch, I.S., and P.B. Mosenthal (1990). “Exploring Document Literacy: Variables Underlying the Performance of Young Adults.” Reading Research Quarterly 25:5–30. 

Kobayashi, M. (2002). “Method Effects on Reading Comprehension Test Performance: 

Text Organization and Response Format.” Language Testing 19:193–220. 

Leu, D.J., Jr., and C.K. Kinzer (2000). “The Convergence of Literacy Instruction With 

Networked Technologies for Information and Communication.” Reading Research 

Quarterly 35:108–127. 

Meyer, B.J.F. (1975). The Organization of Prose and Its Effects in Memory. New York: 

Elsevier.

Meyer, B.J.F. (2003). “Text Coherence and Readability.” Topics in Language Disorders 

23(3):204–224. 

Mosenthal, P.B. (1996). “Understanding the Strategies of Document Literacy and Their 

Conditions of Use.” Journal of Education Psychology 88:314–332. 

Mosenthal, P.B. (1998). “Defining Prose Task Characteristics for Use in ComputerAdaptive Testing and Instruction.” American Education Research Journal 35:269–

307. 

National Assessment Governing Board (May 2002). National Assessment Governing 

Board Policy on Framework Development. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Assessment Governing Board. (2003). Reading Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author. 

Norris, S., and L.M. Phillips (1987). “Explorations at Reading Comprehension: Schema 

Theory and Critical Thinking Theory.” Teachers College Record 38:281–306. 

Olvshavsky, J. (1976–77). “Reading as Problem Solving: An Investigation of Strategies.” 

Reading Research Quarterly 12:654–674. 

Osborne, J. F. (2002). Science Without Literacy: A Ship Without a Sail? Cambridge Journal of Education 3(2):203–215. 

Paris, S.G., B.A. Wasik, and C.J. Turner (1991). “The Development of Strategic Readers.” In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of 

Reading Research vol. II:609–640. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 

Pearson, P.D., and K. Camperell. (1994). “Comprehension of Text Structures.” In R.B. 

Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, and H. Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of 

Reading: (4th ed.:448–468). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 

Pressley, M. (2000). “What Should Comprehension Instruction Be the Instruction of?” In 

M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading 

Research vol. III:545–586. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Pressley, M., and P. Afflerbach (1995). Verbal Protocol Analysis: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Purves, A.C. (1973). Literature Education in Ten Countries. Stockholm: Almquist & 

Wiksell and New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Ravitch, D. (2003). The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students 

Learn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 

Robb, L., R. Klemp, and W. Schwartz (2002). Reader’s Handbook: A Student Guide for 

Reading and Learning. Wilmington, MA: Great Source Education Group. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

52

Stein, N.L., and C.G. Glenn (1979). “An Analysis of Story Comprehension in Elementary 

School Children.” In R.O. Freedle, ed., New Directions in Discourse Processing:53–

120. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Are We Reading Too Much Into Reading Tests? Journal of Reading 34:540–545. 

Vacca, J., and R. Vacca (1999). Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the 

Curriculum (6th ed.). New York: Longman. 

Wade, S., W. Buxton, and M. Kelly (1999). “Using Think-Alouds to Examine ReaderText Interest.” Reading Research Quarterly: 34(2):194–213. 

Wade, S., G. Schraw, W. Buxton, and M. Hayes (1993). “Seduction of the Strategic 

Reader: Effects of Interest on Strategy and Recall.” Reading Research Quarterly 

28(2):92–114. 

Wade, S.E., and E.B. Moje (2000). “The Role of Text in Classroom Learning.” In M.L. 

Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research vol. III:609–627. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Weaver, C.A., III, and W. Kintsch (1991). “Expository Text.” In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, 

P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research vol. II:230–

245. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Wineburg, S. (1991). “On the Reading of Historical Texts: Notes on the Breach Between 

School and Academy.” American Educational Research Journal 28:495-519.

Wixson, K.K., and C.W. Peters (1987). “Comprehension Assessment: Implementing an 

Interactive View of Reading.” American Psychologist 23:333–356. 

Zohar, A., and F. Nemet (2003). “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation 

Skills Through Dilemmas in Human Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science 

Teaching, 39(1):35–62. 

VOCABULARY ASSESSMENT

Barzun, J. (1975). Simple and direct. New York: Harper & Row.

Baumann, J.F., E.J. Kame’enui, and G.E. Ash (2002). “Research on Vocabulary Instruction: Voltaire Redux.” In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, and J.M. Jensen, eds.,

Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts: 752–785. Mahwah, 

NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I.L, M.G. McKeown, M.G, and L. Kucan (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust 

Vocabulary Instruction. New York: Guilford Press. 

Beck, I.J., M.G. McKeown, and R.C. Omanson (1987). “The Effects and Use of Diverse 

Vocabulary Instructional Techniques.” In M.G. McKeown and M. Curtis, eds., The 

Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition:147–163. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Beck, I.L., C.A. Perfetti, and M.G. McKeown (1982). “Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary 

Instruction on Lexical Access and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Educational 

Psychology 74(4):506–521. 

Blachowicz, C.L.Z., and P. Fisher (2000). “Vocabulary Instruction.” In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research vol. 

III:503–523. White Plains, NY: Longman. 

Brown, R.W. (1958). Words and Things. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

53

Calfee, R.C., and P.A. Drum (1985). “Research in Teaching Reading.” In M.C. Wittrock, 

ed., Handbook on Teaching 3rd ed.:804–849. New York: Macmillan. 

Carney, J.J., D. Anderson, C. Blackburn, and D. Blessing (1984). “Preteaching Vocabulary and the Comprehension of Social Studies Materials by Elementary School 

Children.” Social Education 48(3):195–196. 

Carver, R.P. (1994). “Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function 

of the Relative Difficulty of the Text: Implications for Instruction.” Journal of Reading Behavior 26:413–437. 

Cunningham, A.E., and K.E. Stanovich (1998). “What Reading Does for the Mind.” 

American Educator 22(1/2):8–15. 

Davis, F.B. (1944). “Fundamental Factors in Reading Comprehension.” Psychometrika 

9:185–197. 

Davis, F.B. (1968). “Research on Comprehension in Reading.” Reading Research Quarterly 3:449–545. 

Davis, F.B. (1972). “Psychometric Research on Comprehension in Reading.” Reading 

Research Quarterly 7:628–678. 

Deegan, D.H. (1995). “Exploring Individual Differences Among Novices Reading in a 

Specific Domain: The Case of Law.” Reading Research Quarterly 30(2):154–170. 

Halldorson, M., and M. Singer (2002). Inference Processes: Integrating Relevant Knowledge and Text Information. Discourse Processes 34(2):145–161. 

Hart, B., and T.R. Risley (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of 

Young American Children. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company. 

Jenkins, J.R., and D. Pany (1981). “Instructional Variables in Reading Comprehension.” 

In J.T. Guthrie, ed., Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews:163–202. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1987). “The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words.” 

Cognition 25:189–211. 

Kintsch, W. (1974). The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kintsch, W. (1986). “Learning From Text.” Cognition and Instruction 3:87–108. 

Klare, G.R. (1984). “Readability.” In P.D. Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research

vol. I:681–744. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Koury, K.A. (1996). “The Impact of Preteaching Science Content Vocabulary Using Integrated Media for Knowledge Acquisition in a Collaborative Classroom.” Journal 

of Computing in Childhood Education 7:(3–4):179–197. 

Landauer, T.K., P.W. Foltz, and D. Laham (1998). “An Introduction to Latent Semantic 

Analysis.” Discourse Processes 25:259–284. 

McKeown, M.G., I.L. Beck, R.C. Omanson, and C.A. Perfetti (1983). “The Effects of 

Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on Reading Comprehension: A Replication.” 

Journal of Reading Behavior 15(1): 3–18. 

Medo, M.A., and R.J. Ryder (1993). “The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction on Readers’ 

Ability to Make Causal Connections.: Reading Research and Instruction 33(2):119–

134. 

Mezynski, K. (1983). “Issues Concerning the Acquisition of Knowledge: Effects of Vocabulary Training on Reading Comprehension.” Review of Educational Research 

53:253–279. 

Miller, G.A. (1991). The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

54

Nagy, W.E., and P.A. Herman (1987). “Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge: 

Implications for Acquisition and Instruction.” In M.G. McKeown and M.E. Curtis, 

eds., The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition:19–35. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W.E., and J.A. Scott (2000). “Vocabulary Processes.” In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research vol. III:269–

284. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Nation, P., and J. Coady (1988). “Vocabulary and Reading.” In R. Carter and M. McCarthy, eds., Vocabulary and Language Teaching:97–110. New York: Longman. 

National Reading Panel (2000a). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for 

Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development. 

National Reading Panel (2000b). Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 

Nutall, G., and A. Alton-Lee (1995). “Assessing Classroom Learning: How Students Use 

Their Knowledge and Experience to Answer Classroom Achievement Text Questions in Science and Social Studies.” American Educational Research Journal 

32(1):185–223. 

Olshavsky, J.I. (1977). “Reading as Problem Solving.” Reading Research Quarterly 

7(4):654–674. 

Omanson, R.C., I.L. Beck, M.G. McKeown, and C.A. Perfetti (1984). “Comprehension 

of Texts With Unfamiliar Versus Recently Taught Words: Assessment of Alternative 

Models.” Journal of Educational Psychology 76(6):1253–1268. 

Ryder, R.J., and M.F. Graves (1994). “Vocabulary Instruction Presented Prior to Reading 

in Two Basal Readers.” Elementary School Journal 95(2): 139–153. 

Simon, H.A., and L. Siklóssy (1972). “Use of Context in Determining Meaning.” In H.A. 

Simon and L. Siklóssy, eds., Representation and Meaning: Experiments With Information Processing Systems: 207–209. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Spearritt, D. (1972). “Identification of Subskills and Reading Comprehension by Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly 8:92–111. 

Spearritt, D. (1977). “Measuring Reading Comprehension in the Upper Primary School.” 

Australian Journal of Reading 3:67–75. 

Stahl, S.A. (1983). “Differential Word Knowledge and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Reading Behavior 56(1):72–110. 

Stahl, S.A. (1991). “Beyond the Instrumentalist Hypothesis: Some Relationships Between Word Meanings and Comprehension.” In P.J. Schwanenflugel, ed., The Psychology of Word Meanings:157–186. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Stahl, S.A. (1999). Vocabulary Development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. 

Stahl, S.A., and M.M. Fairbanks (1986). “The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 56(1):72–110. 

Stahl, S.A., and M.G. Jacobson (1986). “Vocabulary Difficulty, Prior Knowledge, and 

Test Comprehension.” Journal of Reading Behavior 18:309–329. 

Stahl, S.A., M.G. Jacobson, C.E. Davis, and R.L. Davis (1989). “Prior Knowledge and 

Difficulty in the Comprehension of Unfamiliar Text.” Reading Research Quarterly 

24(1):27–43. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

55

Sternberg, R.J., and J.S. Powell (1983). “Comprehending Verbal Comprehension.” American Psychologist 38:878–893. 

Thorndike, E.L. (1917). “Reading as Reasoning: A Study of Mistakes in Paragraph Reading.” The Journal of Educational Psychology 8(6):323–332. 

Thorndike, R.L. (1973). Reading Comprehension Education in Fifteen Countries: An 

Empirical Study. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Thorndike, R.L. (1973–74). “Reading as Reasoning.” Reading Research Quarterly 

9:135–147. 

Thurstone, L.L. (1946). “Note on a Reanalysis of Davis’ Reading Tests.” Psychometrika 

11(3):185–188. 

Trabasso, T., and J. Magliano (1996). “How Do Children Understand What They Read 

and What Can We Do To Help Them?” In M. Graves, P. van den Broek, and B. Taylor, eds., The First R: A Right of All Children:160–188. New York: Teachers College 

Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

White, S., and J. Clement (August 2001). Assessing the Lexile Framework: Results of a 

Panel Meeting, Working Paper No. 2001-08. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Wixson, K. (1986). Vocabulary Instruction and Children’s Comprehension of Basal Stories. Reading Research Quarterly 21(3):317–329. 

NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

57

APPENDIX A 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

This glossary provides brief definitions of terms used throughout the NAEP Reading 

Framework. The terms are defined according to their use in the framework. The list 

includes terms that relate to types of reading materials, text structures and features, techniques of author’s craft, and other key terms. 

Allegory: Story in which the characters, settings, and events stand for abstract moral 

concepts.

Alliteration: Repetition of initial consonant sounds. 

Allusion: Reference to a mythological, literary, or historical person, place, or thing. 

Analogy: Comparison of two things to show their likenesses in certain respects. 

Argumentation: Writing that seeks to influence through appeals that direct readers to 

specific goals or try to win them to specific beliefs.

Audience: Writer’s targeted reader or readers.

Author’s craft: Specific techniques that an author chooses to relay an intended message. 

Autobiography: Written account of the author’s own life. 

Ballad: Song or songlike poem that tells a story. 

Biography: Account of a person’s life written by another person. 

Causation: Text structure that presents causal or cause and effect relationships between 

the ideas presented in the text.

Cognitive target: Mental process or kind of thinking that underlies reading comprehension; cumulatively, the cognitive targets will guide the development of items for the assessment.

Coherence: Continuity of meaning that enables others to make sense of a text. 

Comic relief: Event or character that serves as an antidote to the seriousness of dramatic 

events.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

58

Comparison: Text structure in which ideas are related to one another on the basis of similarities and differences. The text presents ideas organized to compare, to contrast, or to 

provide an alternative perspective. 

Conflict: Struggle or clash between opposing characters, forces, or emotions. 

Connotation: Implicit rather than explicit meaning of a word. It consists of the suggestions, associations, and emotional overtones attached to a word. 

Description: Text structure that presents a topic, along with the attributes, specifics, or 

setting information that describe that topic.

Denotation: Exact, literal definition of a word independent of any emotional association 

or secondary meaning. 

Detail: Fact revealed by the author or speaker that supports the attitude or tone in a piece 

of poetry or prose. In informational text, details provide information to support the author’s main point.

Diction: Word choice intended to convey a certain effect. 

Elegy: Poem that mourns the death of a person or laments something lost. 

Epic: Long narrative poem that relates the great deeds of a hero who embodies the values 

of a particular society.

Exaggeration or hyperbole: Deliberate, extravagant, and often outrageous overstatement. It may be used for either serious or comic effect.

Exposition: One of the classifications of discourse whose function is to inform or to instruct or to present ideas and general truths objectively. Exposition presents information, 

provides explanations and definitions, and compares and contrasts. 

Fable: Brief story that teaches a moral or practical lesson about life.

Fantasy: Story employing imaginary characters living in fictional settings where the 

rules of the real world are altered for effect.

Fiction: Imaginative literary works representing invented rather than actual persons, 

places, and events.

Figure of speech: Word or phrase that describes one thing in terms of something else, 

often involving an imaginative comparison between seemingly unlike things. 

Flashback: Scene that interrupts the action of a work to show a previous event. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

59

Fluency: Ability to read text quickly and accurately and comprehend what is read. 

Foil: Character who sets off another character by strong contrast.

Folktale: Short story from the oral tradition that reflects the mores and beliefs of a 

particular culture. 

Foreshadowing: Use of hints or clues in a narrative to suggest future action. 

Free verse: Poetry that has no regular meter or rhyme scheme.

Genre: Category used to classify literary and other works by form, technique, or content. 

Grammar: Coherent text structure on which readers rely as they seek to understand what 

they read; often referred to as “story grammar.” 

Graphic: Pictorial representation of data or ideas using columns, matrices, or other formats. Graphics can be simple or complex, present information in a straightforward way 

as in a list or pie graph, or embed or “nest” information within the document’s structure. 

Graphics may be included in texts or be stand-alone documents (grade 12 only). 

Historical fiction: Story that recreates a period or event in history and often uses historical figures as characters.

Iambic pentameter: Line of poetry made up of five metrical feet or units of measure, 

consisting of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. 

Imagery: Multiple words or a continuous phrase that a writer uses to represent persons, 

objects, actions, feelings, and ideas descriptively by appealing to the senses.

Inference: Act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true; the conclusions drawn from this process. 

Irony: Tension that arises from the discrepancy, either between what one says and what 

one means (verbal irony), between what a character believes and what a reader knows 

(dramatic irony) or between what occurs and what one expects to occur (situational irony).

Legend: Inscription or title on an object (e.g., a key to symbols used on a map). 

Literary device: Literary technique used to achieve a particular effect.

Literary heritage: Works by authors whose writing influenced and continues to influence the public language, thinking, history, literary culture, and politics of this nation. 

These works comprise the literary and intellectual capital drawn on by later writers. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

60

Literary nonfiction: Text that conveys factual information. The text may or may not 

employ a narrative structure and characteristics such as dialogue.

Lyrical poetry: Poems that focus on expressing emotions or thoughts. 

Meaning vocabulary: Application of one’s understanding of word meanings to passage 

comprehension. 

Memoir: Type of autobiography that usually focuses on a single time period or historical 

event.

Metaphor: Comparison of two unlike things without the use of “like” or “as.” 

Mixed text: Text that employs literary techniques usually associated with narrative or 

poetry while also presenting information or factual material, with the dual purpose of 

informing and offering reading satisfaction; requires readers to discern bias from fact. 

Monologue: Long, formal speech made by a character.

Mood: Atmosphere or predominant emotion in a literary work. 

Motivation: Circumstance or set of circumstances that prompts a character to act a 

certain way or that determines the outcome of a situation or work. 

Myth: Traditional story accepted as history, which serves to explain the world view of a 

people.

Narration: Telling of a story in writing.

Narrative poetry: Poems that tell a story in verse, often focusing on a single incident. 

Ode: Long lyric poem on a serious subject often for ceremonial or public occasions. 

Onomatopoeia: Use of words that mimic the sounds they describe; imitative harmony.

Parody: Imitation of a work of literature, art, or music for amusement or instruction. 

Parallel structure: Repetition of words, phrases, or sentences that have the same grammatical structure or that restate a similar idea.

Personification: Metaphor that gives inanimate objects or abstract ideas human characteristics.

Perspective: Position, stance, or viewpoint from which something is considered or evaluated.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

61

Persuasion: Form of discourse whose function is to convince an audience or to prove or 

refute a point of view or an issue. 

Plot: Sequence of events or actions in a short story, novel, or narrative poem. 

Point of view: Perspective or vantage point from which a literary work is told or the way 

in which the author reveals characters, actions, and ideas. 

Problem/solution: Text structure in which the main ideas are organized into two parts: a 

problem and a subsequent solution that responds to the problem, or a question and an answer that responds to the question. 

Procedural text: Text that conveys information in the form of directions for accomplishing a task. A distinguishing characteristic of such text is that it is composed of discrete 

steps to be performed in a strict sequence with an implicit end product or goal. 

Protagonist: Central character of a short story, novel, or narrative poem. The antagonist 

is the character who stands directly opposed to the protagonist. 

Purpose: Specific reason or reasons for the writing. It conveys what the readers have to 

gain by reading the selection. Purpose is the objective or the goal that the writer wishes to 

establish.

Repetition: Deliberate use of any element of language more than once: sound, word, 

phrase, sentence, grammatical pattern, or rhythmical pattern.

Rhetoric: Art of using words to persuade in writing or speaking. 

Rhetorical device: Technique used by writers to persuade an audience.

Rhyme: Repetition of sounds in two or more words or phrases that appear close to each 

other in a poem. End rhyme occurs at the end of lines; internal rhyme, within a line. Slant 

rhyme is approximate rhyme. A rhyme scheme is the pattern of end rhymes. 

Rhythm: Regular recurrence and speed of sound and stresses in a poem or work of prose. 

Sarcasm: Use of verbal irony in which a person appears to be praising something but is 

actually insulting it.

Satire: Prose in which witty language is used to convey insults or scorn. 

Sequence: Text structure in which ideas are grouped on the basis of order or time. 

Setting: Time and place in which events in a short story, novel, or narrative poem take 

place.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

62

Simile: Comparison of two different things or ideas through the use of the words “like” 

or “as.”

Sonnet: Fourteen-line lyric poem, usually written in iambic pentameter.

Stanza: Division of a poem, composed of two or more lines.

Style: Writer’s characteristic manner of employing language.

Symbol: Object, person, place, or action that has both a meaning in itself and that stands 

for something larger than itself, such as a quality, attitude, belief, or value. 

Syntax: Arrangement of words and order of grammatical elements in a sentence.

Tall tale: Improbable, incredible, or fanciful story. 

Theme: Central meaning of a literary work. A literary work can have more than one 

theme. Most themes are not directly stated but rather are implied. A literary theme is not 

the same as a topic.

Tone: Writer’s or speaker’s attitude toward a subject, character, or audience conveyed 

through the author’s choice of words and detail. Tone can be serious, humorous, sarcastic, objective, etc.

Trait: Distinguishing feature, as of a person’s character. 

Understatement: Kind of irony that deliberately represents something as being much 

less than it really is; the opposite of hyperbole or overstatement.

Voice: Distinctive style or manner of expression of an author or of a character. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

63

APPENDIX B 

NAEP READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL DEFINITIONS

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading achievement level 

descriptions present expectations of student performance in relation to a range of text 

types and text difficulty and in response to a variety of assessment questions intended to 

elicit different cognitive processes and reading behaviors. The specific processes and 

reading behaviors mentioned in the achievement level descriptions are illustrative of 

those judged as central to students’ successful comprehension of texts. These processes 

and reading behaviors involve different and increasing cognitive demands from one grade 

and performance level to the next as they are applied within more challenging contexts 

and with more complex information. While similar reading behaviors are included at the 

different performance levels and grades, it should be understood that these skills are being described in relation to texts and assessment questions of varying difficulty. Bold text 

is a short, general summary to describe performance at each achievement level.

NAEP READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS—GRADE 4 

Basic

(208)

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to 

locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use their understanding of the text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion. Students should be able to interpret the meaning 

of a word as it is used in the text. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to make 

simple inferences about characters, events, plot, and setting. They should be 

able to identify a problem in a story and relevant information that supports 

an interpretation of a text. 

When reading informational texts such as articles and excerpts from books, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to identify the main purpose and an explicitly stated main idea, as well as gather information from various parts of a text to provide supporting information. 

Proficient

(238)

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able 

to integrate and interpret texts and apply their understanding of the 

text to draw conclusions and make evaluations. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

identify implicit main ideas and recognize relevant information that supports 

them. Students should be able to judge elements of author’s craft and 

provide some support for their judgment. They should be able to analyze 

character roles, actions, feelings, and motives. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

64

When reading informational texts such as articles and excerpts from books, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

locate relevant information, integrate information across texts, and evaluate 

the way an author presents information. Student performance at this level 

should demonstrate an understanding of the purpose for text features and an 

ability to integrate information from headings, text boxes, graphics and their 

captions. They should be able to explain a simple cause-and-effect relationship and draw conclusions. 

Advanced 

(268)

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able 

to make complex inferences and construct and support their inferential 

understanding of the text. Students should be able to apply their understanding of a text to make and support a judgment. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

identify the theme in stories and poems and make complex inferences about 

characters’ traits, feelings, motivations, and actions. They should be able to 

recognize characters’ perspectives and evaluate character motivation. Students should be able to interpret characteristics of poems and evaluate aspects of text organization. 

When reading informational texts such as articles and excerpts from books, 

fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

make complex inferences about main ideas and supporting ideas. They 

should be able to express a judgment about the text and about text features 

and support the judgment with evidence. They should be able to identify the 

most likely cause given an effect, explain an author’s point of view, and 

compare ideas across two texts.

NAEP READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS—GRADE 8 

Basic

(243)

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to 

locate information; identify statements of main idea, theme, or author’s purpose; and make simple inferences from texts. They should be 

able to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text. Students 

performing at this level should also be able to state judgments and give 

some support about content and presentation of content. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should recognize major 

themes and be able to identify, describe, and make simple inferences about 

setting and about character motivations, traits, and experiences. They should 

be able to state and provide some support for judgments about the way an 

author presents content and about character motivation.

When reading informational texts such as exposition and argumentation, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to recognize inferences based on main ideas and supporting details. They should be 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

65

able to locate and provide relevant facts to construct general statements 

about information from the text. Students should be able to provide some 

support for judgments about the way information is presented.

Proficient

(281) 

Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able 

to provide relevant information and summarize main ideas and themes. 

They should be able to make and support inferences about a text, connect parts of a text, and analyze text features. Students performing at 

this level should also be able to fully substantiate judgments about content and presentation of content. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

make and support a connection between characters from two parts of a text. 

They should be able to recognize character actions and infer and support 

character feelings. Students performing at this level should be able to provide and support judgments about character motivation across texts. They 

should be able to identify how figurative language is used. 

When reading informational texts such as exposition and argumentation, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

locate and provide facts and relevant information that support a main idea or 

purpose, interpret causal relations, provide and support a judgment about the 

author’s argument or stance, and recognize rhetorical devices.

Advanced

(323)

Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able 

to make connections within and across texts and to explain causal relations. They should be able to evaluate and justify the strength of supporting evidence and the quality of an author’s presentation. Students 

performing at the advanced level also should be able to manage the 

processing demands of analysis and evaluation by stating, explaining, 

and justifying. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, literary nonfiction, and poetry, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

explain the effects of narrative events. Within or across text, they should be 

able to make thematic connections and make inferences about character 

feelings, motivations, and experiences. 

When reading informational texts such as exposition and argumentation, 

eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

infer and explain a variety of connections that are intratextual (such as the 

relation between specific information and the main idea) or intertextual 

(such as the relation of ideas across expository and argument text). Within 

and across texts, students should be able to state and justify judgments about 

text features, choice of content, and the author’s use of evidence and rhetorical devices.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

66

NAEP READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS—GRADE 12

Basic

(265)

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to 

identify elements of meaning and form and relate them to the overall 

meaning of the text. They should be able to make inferences, develop 

interpretations, make connections between texts, and draw conclusions; 

and they should be able to provide some support for each. They should 

be able to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, literary nonfiction, and poetry, 

twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to describe essential literary elements such as character, narration, setting, and 

theme; provide examples to illustrate how an author uses a story element for 

a specific effect; and provide interpretations of figurative language.

When reading informational texts such as exposition, argumentation, and 

documents, twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be 

able to identify the organization of a text, make connections between ideas 

in two different texts, locate relevant information in a document, and provide some explanation for why the information is included.

Proficient

(302)

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficienct level should be 

able to locate and integrate information using sophisticated analyses of 

the meaning and form of the text. These students should be able to provide specific text support for inferences, interpretative statements, and 

comparisons within and across texts.

When reading literary texts such as fiction, literary nonfiction, and poetry, 

twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

explain a theme and integrate information from across a text to describe or 

explain character motivations, actions, thoughts, or feelings. They should be 

able to provide a description of settings, events, or character and connect the 

description to the larger theme of a text. Students performing at this level 

should be able to make and compare generalizations about different characters’ perspectives within and across texts. 

When reading informational texts including exposition, argumentation, and 

documents, twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should 

be able to integrate and interpret texts to provide main ideas with general 

support from the text. They should be able to evaluate texts by forming 

judgments about an author’s perspective, about the relative strength of 

claims, and about the effectiveness of organizational elements or structures. 

Students performing at this level should be able to understand an author’s 

intent and evaluate the effectiveness of arguments within and across texts. 

They should also be able to comprehend detailed documents to locate relevant information needed for specified purposes. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

67

Advanced

(346)

Twelth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able 

to analyze both the meaning and the form of the text and provide complete, explicit, and precise text support for their analyses with specific 

examples. They should be able to read across multiple texts for a variety 

of purposes, analyzing and evaluating them individually and as a set. 

When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, 

twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to 

analyze and evaluate how an author uses literary devices, such as sarcasm or 

irony, to enhance and convey meaning. They should be able to determine 

themes and explain thematic connections across texts.

When reading informational texts, twelfth-grade students performing at the 

Advanced level should be able to recognize, use, and evaluate expository 

and argument text structures and the organization of documents. They 

should be able to critique and evaluate arguments and counterarguments 

within and between texts, and substantiate analyses with full and precise 

evidence from the text. They should be able to identify and integrate essential information within and across documents.

NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

69

APPENDIX C 

SPECIAL STUDIES: NAEP READING FRAMEWORK

Three special studies were proposed as part of the development of the 2009 NAEP 

Reading Framework. Although very different in topic, they have the common goals of 

improving the quality of the NAEP assessment and gaining maximum information about 

student achievement in reading. One of the special studies (meaning vocabulary) can 

inform test development by providing information about new item types if conducted 

prior to the administration of the 2009 assessment. Other studies propose using data 

gained from the assessment to examine English learners’ reading achievement as well as 

factors that have an impact on the gender gap in reading. Further details about the special 

studies, including methodology, appear in the 2009 specifications document. The special 

studies are presented here in priority order from highest to lowest. 

DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY: MEANING VOCABULARY ASSESSMENT

PURPOSE

Looking toward the addition of meaning vocabulary items to the NAEP Reading Assessment, this developmental study will evaluate the reliability and the construct, content, 

criterion, and concurrent validity of the proposed method of measuring meaning vocabulary. The study was to be conducted well in advance of the 2009 administration of the 

NAEP Reading Assessment to inform the development and use of meaning vocabulary 

items on NAEP. 

RATIONALE

Although NAEP has included a few vocabulary test items in the context of passages on 

past assessments, the number of items was scant and there were no specific vocabulary 

criteria for selecting the items or distractors. Furthermore, past reports from NAEP 

provided little information on how students performed on the vocabulary items and 

whether that performance was associated with comprehension achievement levels; thus, 

these reports did not provide a foundation for emphasizing the importance of vocabulary 

to reading comprehension. The importance of vocabulary in reading comprehension, as 

supported by research, will be much more widely understood and disseminated with 

NAEP’s initiative specifying vocabulary as a major component of reading comprehension; NAEP reports providing quantitative data about the performance of 4th, 8th, and 

12th grade students on meaning vocabulary questions and the developmental differences 

among grades; and NAEP reports describing the differences between Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and below Basic readers on vocabulary and the implications of these differences.
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

70

Recognizing a growing body of research that supports the argument that vocabulary is 

crucial to reading comprehension, the NAEP Reading Assessment includes a measure of 

vocabulary. All vocabulary items are to function both as a measure of comprehension of 

the passage in which the word is included and as a test of readers’ specific knowledge of 

the word’s meaning as intended by the passage author. NAEP will include a sufficient 

number of items to provide reliable and valid data for analysis and interpretation. A description of the criteria for word selection and number of items appears in chapter two of 

the NAEP Reading Framework and will be elaborated in the specifications document. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What is the correlation between reading comprehension and meaning vocabulary items, 

and how does the addition of meaning vocabulary items affect overall scores on the 

NAEP Reading Assessment?

How does the introduction of meaning vocabulary items affect the scores of ethnically, 

socioeconomically, and geographically varying groups and low-, average-, and highperforming readers?

What is the correlation between scores on the meaning vocabulary items and a vocabulary test such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd Edition (PPVT-III)? Answers 

to this question will address the concurrent validity of NAEP’s vocabulary measure. 

SPECIAL STUDY: ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

PURPOSE

This special study will examine the patterns of achievement among English language 

learner (ELL) students and the link between NAEP scores and other indicators of 

students’ ability and achievement, as well as the effects of the accommodations afforded 

students in these groups. 

RATIONALE

In today’s schools, the number of ELL students is on the rise. This population trend has 

implications for reading instruction and assessment as educators seek better ways to teach 

and evaluate. Clearly, they need more information about language and its relationship to 

reading comprehension and meaning vocabulary, a link indicated by past studies. 

Although past NAEP reports have provided scores by ethnicity, they have not provided 

information about the link between language minority students and reading ability. This 

special study seeks to examine this link, informing the discussion of how to develop a 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

71

dynamic assessment (adaptive testing) that more accurately maps the achievement of 

U.S. students.7

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What miscues occur most frequently among different ELL groups, and are these miscues 

consistent with different groups of English learners’ speech?

Are tests of English language proficiency predictive of NAEP comprehension and vocabulary scores?

What are the differential effects of English proficiency level on NAEP reading and vocabulary? 

How are reclassified fluent English proficient students (RFEP) achieving in comparison 

to other groups in reading comprehension and vocabulary, and how do they progress after 

1, 2, or 3 years of reclassification? 

At what minimum level of English proficiency is a student able to take an NAEP Reading 

Assessment written in English? 

Do accommodations given to ELL students give access to or change the construct of the 

test?

This study was not conducted because of lack of available funding. 

SPECIAL STUDY: GENDER DIFFERENCES

PURPOSE

This special study examines the differences in reading achievement between boys and 

girls, focusing on factors associated with the gender gap in reading. 

RATIONALE

The gender gap—a significant difference between the performance or achievement of 

boys versus girls—exists in a number of education-related settings and situations. Girls 

generally have higher secondary school graduation rates, college admission rates, and 

enrollment in Advanced Placement courses in the humanities, whereas boys have a higher incidence of diagnosed reading disorders. Although boys generally have higher ma-

 

7

The ELL special study may be informed by the results of the National Literacy Panel’s study on language 

minority children and youth. The NLP conducted a comprehensive review of research on the development 

of literacy among language minority children and youth that was completed in 2004. 
NAEP 2011 READING FRAMEWORK

72

thematics and science achievement, the gender gap in the language arts favors girls. Results from the 2002 NAEP Reading Assessment indicate the following: 

• The score gap between male and female grade 4 students in 2002 was smaller 

than in 2000, but it was not found to be significantly different from that in 1992. 

• The score gap between boys and girls at grade 8 was smaller in 2002 than in all 

prior assessment years. 

• The score gap between grade 12 boys and girls in 2002 was greater than it was in 

1992. 

• Girls outperformed boys at all three grades in 2002. 

As educators continue to grapple with the gender gap’s implications for instruction and 

assessment, this special study will examine variables in NAEP’s assessment design and 

their relationship to the gender gap in reading. This study will look specifically at the 

NAEP assessment design and at achievement data gathered from the 2009 administration. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How are question response modes (e.g., multiple choice, constructed response) related to 

reading achievement?

How are the types of texts (e.g., narrative, information, poetry) related to reading 

achievement?

How is the content of the selection (e.g., gender of main character, different themes, 

presence of moral) related to reading achievement?

This study was not conducted because of lack of available funding.