The current ACT CCRS for English offer one approach to capturing the complex reading, writing, and reasoning skills required for success in college and careers. The rapid shift toward what is called a “global knowledge economy” has increased the demand for students to have a strong, adaptable, and integrated set of literacy skills. Both the value and the definition of literacy have changed under these pressures. Educators have tried to keep pace through numerous high-level research initiatives and reforms over the past two decades (Bills, 2004; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). This report draws on this body of research and practice to develop an ELA framework that builds on the traditional strengths of the English framework while accommodating and encompassing an expanded set of literacy skills.

To attain the literacy skills vital for success in school and at work, students must learn to engage  with complex print and digital texts written for a variety of purposes, think critically about what they  read and hear, articulate their thoughts in a range of spoken and written genres, and communicate  collaboratively with others. Equally important is the ability to integrate these skills in complex tasks, like research projects and presentations, and to transfer this learning to new situations and problems (ACT, 2012).

Evidence shows that facility with the English language positively predicts important outcomes at the high-school-to-college transition (N. E. Jackson, 2005; Reder, 2000). Efforts to improve foundational literacy in the US have produced favorable results with students in the primary grades, but adolescents and students at the secondary level continue to demonstrate lower literacy skills than their counterparts in other leading nations (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010). To meet the requirements of a postsecondary curriculum, students need to be able to comprehend and evaluate complex texts, synthesize information, and clearly communicate their ideas in writing (ACT, 2012). Today, colleges and universities invest considerable resources in remedial or developmental reading and writing programs for underprepared first-year students (NCES, 2001; Parsad, Lewis, & Greene, 2003). Such remedial or developmental courses do not award college credits, and research shows that up to 50% of students will not complete such courses and thus are unlikely to obtain a college degree (T. Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010). Approximately two-thirds of US high school students struggle with literacy proficiency (NCES, 2011), and educators at multiple levels are concerned that high school students do not have adequate ELA skills upon graduation (Prior, 2012). One consequence of inadequate literacy proficiency is that students are less prepared to handle the complex reading tasks required in college, leading to diminished overall performance (Schoenbach, Greenleaf, & Murphy, 2012).

Inadequate literacy proficiency continues to plague individuals as they transition into the workforce, and communication skills are widely regarded as a primary concern as new graduates enter organizations (Conrad & Newberry, 2011; Kassim & Ali, 2010). Research indicates that speaking,  listening, reading, and writing skills are useful, if not necessary, for career success (College Board,  2004; Cooper, 1997; Roebuck, 2000) and influence important outcomes such as manager ratings  (Maes et al., 1997; Mueller & Lee, 2002), sales (Ramsey & Sohi, 1997), salary (Finn & Gerber, 1998),  success in management positions (Maes et al., 1997), and ability to socialize into an organization (Miller, 1996; Morrison, 1993). A lack of communication skills is a primary deterrent to individuals’ ability to stay employed and succeed in their careers (Corrado & Jäger, 2014). Furthermore, private organizations spend $3.1 billion each year to improve the writing skills of entry-level workers (College Board, 2004).

ACT has considered both academic and workplace literacy demands in the design of the ELA  framework presented here; as such, the framework takes a purpose-driven approach to proficiencies  in the different ELA domains. Because development is integrated across the more specific academic domains and strands of ELA, the framework is organized to show connections to the greatest extent possible. The traditional academic skill domains of Reading and Writing are complemented by a Speaking and listening strand, which includes oral-language skills vital to communicating one-on-one and in groups. Additionally, the Language for Learning and Communication strand offers a more integrated focus on literacy development. The Language strand emphasizes knowledge about the role language plays in a wide range of communication contexts, both in the classroom and the workplace. Literacy and applied linguistics researchers refer to these features, shared by many academic genres, as “the language of school” and “academic language.” Research suggests that student proficiency with academic language has a significant impact on many learning outcomes (A. L. Bailey, 2007; Schleppegrell, 2004; Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Language for Learning and Communication does not simply focus on knowledge about linguistic features of written texts, but also includes knowledge about structural and stylistic differences between spoken and written genres, both of which are crucial for education and work success.

Another important consideration in the ELA framework design was the changing nature of the texts students encounter as they progress through school and into the world of work. ACT has been a leading voice in the conversation around “text complexity.” Texts do not simply become increasingly difficult as students move upward (ACT, 2006); their difficulty stems from different linguistic and semantic structures related to the purposes they serve. Students must read texts that are longer  and that have more sophisticated vocabulary, sentence, and text organization and higher conceptual  density—the kinds of texts students must understand, assimilate, and produce in challenging majors  and careers (C. D. Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje & Speyer, 2008).

For this reason, both the Reading and Writing strands emphasize higher-order skills for analyzing and evaluating text content and structure, as well as rhetorical knowledge about how different features produce effects on the audience. Because progress with text complexity requires flexibility and breadth, the framework also draws on current research about strategies and dispositions in literacy activities. ACT is already applying this forward-thinking approach to texts in our current assessments through a mixed-methods approach for evaluating reading passage complexity and a new student Progress with Text Complexity indicator. The ELA framework builds on these innovations.