Colorado Association of Libraries

1. Colorado Association of Libraries 2004 Conference October 21-24, 2004 Marriott at the Tech CenterDenver, Colorado Considerations for Creating and Maintaining an AR (Accelerated Reader) Collection: The Controversy Presenter: Lee Ricciardi

2. Purpose of Computer-Based Literacy Programs Integrate technology into the curriculum Differentiate instruction for students Accelerated Reader (AR) from Renaissance Learning Scholastic’s Reading Counts!

3. What is Accelerated Reader (AR)? Originally published by Advantage Learning Systems and School Renaissance Institute Presently Renaissance Learning, a NYSE company Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12 Reading Software Purpose: Creating better readers by interacting with computers Advisory Board of four educational psychologists; two classroom teachers; one reading specialist; one librarian; six school administrators; one educational consultant and one test developer

4. What is STAR? AR program starts with STAR STAR is the Standardized Test for Achievement of Reading Computer adaptive, norm-referenced reading test Students choose best word to complete a sentence Software delivers the next question Instructors can then access testing results that diagnose reading ability and courses of improvement Generates a grade-equivalent score that can be used to give a current approximation of a student’s “zone of proximal development”

5. Disadvantages of STAR STAR does not incorporate oral reading comprehension STAR does not consider teacher observations STAR does not consider reading behaviors of students

6. Defining the Zone of Proximal Development The ZPD (zone of proximal development) is the range of book readability levels suitable for a student, based on his or her responses to a set number of vocabulary words Based on Russian educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky's (1986) work Vygotsky defined ZPD as a dynamic continuum of independent and assisted activities Vygotsky refuted the idea that testing determines what a child is capable of doing because it measures only independent performance

7. Determining Readability AR determines readability levels of trade books by using an automated Flesch-Kincaid Reading Index

8. Evaluating Comprehension Comprehension studies show that interest in the reading material has a positive impact on comprehension Students with a high interest in a topic are able to read more difficult material than an assessment would otherwise indicate Conversely, students with little interest in a topic will demonstrate low comprehension

9. Evaluating Comprehension – 2 AR determines comprehension by a computer-generated multiple choice test AR does not consider written responses, extension activities, or repeated interaction with the text No text-to-text or text-to-self connections are required of students using AR

10. AR’s Plan for Reader Development Beginning readers are “read to” Developing readers are “read with” Eventually, students become “independent” readers Achievement at higher rates is achieved when the free reading time is combined with direct instruction and reading extension activities

11. Motivation Theory and Reading AR focuses on external motivation that is strengthened by the reward and competitive point system The company’s literature refers tot pizza lunches, skating parties, AR stores to shop for rewards, recognition buttons, and other behavior-related privileges Skinnerian approach poses a threat of extrinsic motivation once the rewards are withdrawn Satiation is risked once AR is perpetuated year in and year out

12. Motivation Theory and Reading -- 2 Research shows that extrinsic reward methods counter indicate AR methods Students who are motivated by competition also show a high degree of reading avoidance, particularly outside of school Reduces internal motivators to read AR discourages teachers’ praise when effort is not significant, i.e., not earning enough AR points Points are calculated by the number of words in a books and the student’s test performance

13. Motivation Theory and Reading -- 3 The low-ability student who is working very hard will not achieve a point score equivalent to his or her counterpart Without acknowledging effort, it is easy to see why discouragement and reading avoidance become prevalent

14. AR’s Role of the Teacher Models reading behavior Provides motivation so that each student is reading appropriate books within his or her ZPD Provides guidance for book selection Maintains record keeping status of individual students and class

15. The Role of the Teacher-Librarian Generates and distributes copies of AR reading lists for specific grade levels Reader adviser roles diminishes with little room for selecting or evaluating AR becomes a selection tool: if a book has a test, then it should be added to the shelves Separation of color-coded dots that coincide with reading-level groups

16. Role of the Teacher-Librarian – 2 Diminishes discussions with students regarding theme, underlying messages, character development, or symbolism No evidence of higher-level thinking skills being developed AR has achieved reported success in circulation statistics Will these students become lifelong learners who are able to select materials for no other reason than a tangible reward or for the points that are listed on the spine?

17. The Argument Against Accelerated Reader Minimizes the instruction role of the teacher Little mention of teacher providing direct instruction in reading strategies as is done in a balanced-literacy program Does not promote the use of literature circles or engaging students in reading extension activities Students denied access to books outside their range or designated levels Monies go to purchase of STAR and the AR CD-ROM’s for network systems

18. The Argument Against Accelerated Reader – 2 Absence of well-designed and supportive research (Chenoweth, 2001) AR does not review books for age-appropriateness or objectionable context (Ishizuka, 2002) Books are rated only by reading level Although participating schools read more books, once the program was over, they read no more books than before (Pavonetti, Brimmer and Cipielewski, 2002)

19. The Argument Against Accelerated Reader – 3 “Educators want a quick and dirty solution to the reading problem. They believe this can be accomplished with computer technology instead of making sure their teachers are well trained.” (Moats, National Institute of Child Health and Development) Leveling is not an exact science; it can be misleading and discouraging to students. Quizzes do not test critical thinking but tests the details of a book Questionable whether AR improves reading fluency, comprehension, or positive attitudes

20. Using AR: Successful Strategies AR used as a supplement to an already-existing reading program Used as a tool, not a stand-alone system (Sanders, 1999) Use as a teacher management tool for independent reading No rewards or formal recognition for passing tests Requests for more materials at the 0 – 2.7 levels AR increases circulation statistics anywhere from 25% to as high as 75%

21. Using AR: Successful Strategies Teachers can write their own tests Successful use with special education and remedial reading programs (Anderson, 2001) Structure of program provides ranges for students who may need this direction (Anderson, 2001) Used successfully with Reading Recovery programs AR can be used with staff/ professional development opportunities

22. Using AR: Successful Strategies De-emphasize the point value (and points earned) when selecting a book Use the immediate, individualized feedback to direct ongoing reading practice Use AR Spanish language books and tests Make certain individual student’s reading goals include non-AR titles Encourage reading for enjoyment Match students to books, not to AR levels Allow students to read outside their ZPD range Link reading with writing