On the one hand, Accelerated Reader is an amazing product.
In one easy-to-use space, children, schools, and teachers have access to over
100,000 books. This is a tremendous
resource that can instantly grow a school library’s collection, particularly in
lower-income districts. Furthermore,
studies have shown statistically significant improvement in standardized
testing for those utilizing the Accelerated Reader model. However, many
scholars and experts have challenged these results and many of the core
elements of an Accelerated Reader program.
HOW IT WORKS: Accelerated
Reader provides increased access to books, due to its mammoth collection, along
with built-in additional time for student reading. It also has children take
computerized tests on what they read that can then earn them points for their
correct answers. These points can then be exchanged for prizes. Accelerated
Reader has constructed a colossal incentive reading program that it claims
encourages greater reading.
There are many challenges to Accelerated Reader’s model. Stephen
D. Krashen’s article, The
(Lack of ) Experimental Evidence Supporting the Use of Accelerated Reader
offers a rather scathing deconstruction of much of the research supporting the
program.[1]
If you are interested in the methodology do check out his fascinating article.
Krashen proves, rather convincingly, that Accelerated Reader has, in some ways,
been selling a bill of goods. By emphasizing the gains largely created by
increased reading, the Accelerated Reader program is inculcating testing and
incentives as interconnected. As he analogizes:
A
hypothetical example may help us understand whether AR should be used or not.
Drug A and Drug B are both designed to cure a specific disease. A is known to
be effective with highly beneficial long-term effects. There is little evidence
for or against B, but suggestive evidence that it may be harmful in the long
run. A drug company produces AB, more expensive than A alone, and justifies it
by providing studies showing that AB tends to be effective. A scientist
reviewing the research shows that no study has compared AB to A alone. Clearly
such studies are called for before the medical establishment endorses or even
approves AB. A is providing access and time to read. B is tests and rewards.
Accelerated Reader is AB.
Clearly the most important factors in improving reading are
first, allocating time for reading, and second providing access to more books.
And I think Krashen is right to really challenge the role of testing and
incentives. From his findings, it seems that these latter two goals have no
positive effects, and potentially harmful long-term effects. However, I would
caution us against focusing ONLY on what Accelerated Reader does NOT do.
Krashen dismisses Accelerated Reader because, “only aspect of AR that has a
positive effect is the increased access to books and increased time to read
them.” But this is a SIGNIFICANT thing. If Accelerated Reader can provide more
children with greater access, and built in reading time, then that alone is
providing a service. Is it perhaps overhyped and overvalued? Yes. But let us
not undermine the importance of increasing reading time, period.
In the end, we have to see Accelerated Reader as only one
tool in education, not a magic pill. While it may not live up to its initial
expectations, if only by its insistence on building in more reading time and
providing more content, it can still be
a valuable resource in many districts.
[1] Stephen
Krashen, “The (Lack of ) Experimental Evidence Supporting the Use of
Accelerated Reader,” Journal of
Children's Literature (2003) vol .29 (2): 9, pp. 16-30. Accessed September
5, 2012, http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/does_accelerated_reader_work/
.
No comments:
Post a Comment