Five More Questions Worth Asking
As the faculty meeting agenda and the teachers' comments about the AR video suggest, teachers, instructional lead teachers, principals, district curriculum supervisors, and district administrators are feeling pressures from within and without to reach goals in four key areas related to literacy:
Educators, parents, business partners, and administrators wonder if the AR program is consistently effective in helping meet goals in these areas. For a program whose design is intended to free teachers from spending time and effort reading children's book reports, from keeping logs of books children have read, and from scoring comprehension questions about those books (How AR Works, 1995), it appears to cause many teachers to spend a great deal of time and effort on figuring out how to achieve “good” program implementation.
Topping notes that AR is not a reading incentive program; however, he does indicate that a fundamental purpose of the program is to motivate children's wide reading of various types of literature. This seems to be a rather slight distinction, but is one worth exploring. Additionally, the assumptions and theoretical perspectives underlying the AR program relate to the notion that there are inherent benefits for students in the wide reading of books. At the same time, however, narrowly conceived AR tests hold students accountable to show they have indeed read the books. Although the purposes for AR appear to be rather wide in scope, the designers of the AR program seem to take a rather narrow view about certain aspects of the program. Consider the following five questions that are worth asking.
What are the long-term effects of the psychometric properties of The Accelerated Reader?
The design, format, and purpose of the computerized assessment program known as The Accelerated Reader are intended to help teachers know if students have read particular books and if they have understood what they have read -- at the level of literal comprehension. Topping cites an Institute for Academic Excellence (1998) report, How Accelerated Reader Quizzes Are Designed, which explains that literal-level questions are the focus of the quizzes because such lower level questions are less subject to bias. The report also explains that test designers purposefully avoid items that might require higher order thinking because students who are already successful readers could easily outscore lower ability readers on such questions.
Some studies have found improvements in students' scores on tests that are closely related to the materials and text formats included in computer-assisted instructional packages (Kulik & Kulik, 1991); however, such studies seldom shed light on the complicated issues and complex questions surrounding the use of computer technologies over time. The design of AR quizzes parallels the design of standardized tests, and the program is likely to be valued as a test-preparation tool in schools that are attempting to improve students' test scores. Like standardized tests, AR quizzes are designed with reliability and validity in mind for the purpose of measuring reading practice. Interestingly, this design feature of focusing on literal-level comprehension is listed by Topping as both an advantage and a disadvantage.
For all practical purposes, the AR quizzes that appear on the computer screen are electronic versions of the questions that used to be listed at the end of reading passages or on worksheets in basal reading series of the past. The psychometric properties of the instrument make it more like a standardized testing situation than a rich forum for reflecting on text. Shouldn't we be raising questions about basalizing and standardizing literature in the name of record keeping, about confirming only that the book was read and understood at a very minimal level? If the key to the AR program is the point system, then what does this say about what it means to comprehend a book?
Topping notes that AR is specifically intended to have strong formative effects on subsequent learning. This intent may be at the core of a larger problem. It is clear that questions remain to be answered about the potential implications of a steady diet of literal-level standardized assessment for students' schemata and strategies for meaning making. It is possible that AR's strong formative effects on subsequent learning may have unintentionally negative consequences. For example, if children are consistently reading books in ways that focus on their ability to answer literal-level or superficial questions on AR quizzes, will they also come to read non-AR books at a superficial level? Kohn (1999) notes that when students who are involved in AR read, they tend to skim for the facts needed to answer questions on the quizzes, “which is altogether different from the sort of thoughtful engagement we'd like to see kids come to adopt when they open a book” (p. 269). If teachers value the number of AR points earned over more substantive interactions around the ideas in books, will some children come to take a narrow view of the purposes of reading?
Further, Salomon (1994) suggests that cognitive interactions with digital media, as presented on a computer screen, leave an impression or a “cognitive residue” on the thinking processes and brain of the user. Thus, interacting with features of technology over time may significantly alter the user's cognitive and strategic abilities.
A research question worth exploring asks if the design of Accelerated Reader quizzes has an affect on children's meaning-making strategies over the short and long terms.
Is the AR interpretation of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) too narrow and potentially misleading?
Topping states that “'Reading practice' is not a homogenous, unitary activity, and the quality and effectiveness of that practice also require consideration. Arguably, students need to practice silent reading at a level that exposes them to the challenge of new vocabulary and concepts -- within their zone of proximal development...but not below or beyond it.” While it is no doubt important to consider book selection in light of a book's readability (i.e., either at the low end of a child's independent reading level or at the high end of an instructional reading level), this interpretation of the ZPD seems especially narrow in light of the sociocultural and sociocognitive learning theories that highlight the important role of social interaction and oral discussions in utilizing the ZPD.
Technically, the ZPD refers to a range of cognitive abilities that children can only perform with adult assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). Children are able to learn higher orders of thinking through internalizing social relationships that occur within their ZPD. This broader view suggests that children's ability to comprehend books unfolds and develops over time through their meaningful oral interactions with adults.
Topping notes research that suggests that reading to and with students results in achievement gains; however, he does not clearly indicate if AR is designed to utilize reading to and with students as an integral part of the day-to-day use of this stand-alone program. Indeed, when viewed from a sociocognitive perspective, the ways in which teachers guide discussion makes time spent reading aloud a powerful instructional activity that creates effective oral support for children's literary development (Heath, 1983; Martinez & Teale, 1993; Teale, 1986). Simply providing a good readability match between a student and a book does not automatically mean that children are operating within a sociocognitive or sociocultural dimension of their zone of proximal development. How do teachers who use AR interpret the role of ZPD within the program? Do they take a narrow or a broad view of ZPD?
What are the long-term effects of the role that external motivation plays in AR program implementation?
Topping, explaining that AR is not a reading incentive program, underplays the role of extrinsic motivation in managing the AR program when he states,
Accelerated Reader reports and videos indicate that the program is designed around a game-theory motivational model -- meaning that the program is structured as a noncompetitive game that results in independent recognition. Some AR materials remind teachers that they can create incentive systems (e.g., point-level “clubs”) to make AR points both materially and socially desirable for students (Paul, VanderZee, Rue, & Swanson, 1996). It is no wonder that many teachers I come into contact with in various settings across the United States indicate that one of their primary “motivators” for using the program is the lure of the rewards children relate to earning AR points. However, many educators, like those in the faculty meeting scenario, feel conflicted about their use of points and awards.
Perhaps the time has come to shift the focus from motivation, as it is usually viewed in relation to AR, to a consideration of children's “dispositions toward learning” that may result from long-term AR involvement. Neuman and Roskos (1993) suggest that children's dispositions toward learning consist of their attitudes, values, stances, expectations, and motivations for learning that persist long after instruction has occurred. Gottfried (1983) noted additional intrinsic inclinations such as curiosity, exploration, and investigation.
Children's acquired dispositions toward learning may have long-term results, such as development of an appreciation of literary language, enhanced self-esteem, a sense of belonging to a discourse community, and a growing awareness of and empathy for others (Neuman & Roskos, 1993). What is the disposition toward learning of children who are involved with AR? What do they value about reading? What is the nature of their acquisition of literary language and understanding? Do they feel a sense of belonging to a rich discourse community? What do they think about the purposes of reading?
Also worth questioning is the notion that enabling extended time on task in reading will automatically provide opportunities for children to develop positive dispositions toward the activity. Teachers, such as those present at the faculty meeting, wonder why some children involved in the program choose not to read. They may want to reflect on the nature of these children's developing dispositions toward learning and reading. As mentioned above, Salomon (1994) suggests “cognitive residue” results from interactions with computer-related texts. Might there also be an affective residue, a particular type of emotional stance toward meaning making that results from interactions with a program that consistently employs a game-theory sort of motivation and that highlights the value of external points and rewards?
For example, if children are reading primarily in order to earn points or awards, they may be consistently exposed to extrinsically driven habits of thinking or dispositions toward meaning making that persist beyond their involvement in the program. This might result in children who can read but choose not to. Kohn (1999) cites research that suggests that students do not value reading and are very likely to engage in cheating when teachers emphasize high test scores or good grades (or AR points?) over more substantive and intrinsically engaging avenues for learning.
What role does The Accelerated Reader play in classroom literacy activities?
Unfortunately, most of the research noted by Topping addresses questions about AR that are narrow in focus. Many of the studies do not explore student experiences, teacher practices, school contexts, or what additional literacy instruction was occurring in AR classrooms. This narrow focus, generally intended to seek out correlations between the presence of AR in schools and students' scores on standardized tests, involves statistical analyses that do not delve into the complexities and gritty details of classroom life.
One exception is a small-scale classroom-based report conducted by McKnight (1992). Topping admits that it is somewhat difficult to ferret out the impact of AR on children's reading achievement in this study because of the numerous literacy activities that occurred in classroom. It is entirely possible that the children's reading achievement improved because of the multiple reading initiatives that were occurring in conjunction with AR reading and quizzing. Nevertheless, McKnight's description of a 12-week intervention, designed to reduce children's television viewing by motivating them to read AR books, offers a detailed account of classroom literacy activities. Interestingly, McKnight reports that points, tokens, and rewards played a key role in the success of the program for several of the students. McKnight provides a list of points and prizes:
Topping takes a rather narrow either-or stance toward how teachers vary as good or poor implementers of the AR program. (See Reinking, Labbo, and McKenna, in press, for a wider developmental view of how teachers integrate computer-related technologies into literacy instruction.) Teachers I come into contact with report a wide range of literacy instructional activities related to their implementation of the AR program. Many of them indicate that they have received Reading Renaissance training, but the realities of life in their particular classrooms reshape their AR program implementation.
On a continuum of possible implementation, some teachers indicate that AR has become the entire reading program, others that AR books are included in class discussions when they relate to curricular themes, others that AR is relegated entirely to a stand-alone program that has no connection to their literacy instruction or curriculum. What key factors are at play that shape and reshape the way AR is implemented? What impact does AR have on the literacy curriculum? Do children who are involved with AR have opportunities to engage in rich literary discussion? Are there multiple opportunities for them to make the intertextual connections that are important for developing higher order thinking skills related to comprehension? Are there multiple opportunities for them to respond to literature in a variety of personal ways?
More qualitative studies that delve into how AR influences the literacy and literary curriculum are needed. Ethnographic studies are needed to determine the various ways AR is being implemented and why.
Does The Accelerated Reader program offer the best way to use computers in classrooms?
Times have changed since 1990, when Judith Paul, director of Read Up program development for AR, stated in the AR video that the program “is an exciting breakthrough in the use of computers as educational tools.” Computers in classrooms may now be used to connect children to a world of information on the Internet (Leu & Kinzer, in press), provide a creative tool for children's multimedia exploration of ideas (Labbo, 1996), and offer interactive software that support's children's development of literacy skills and strategies (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1993; Labbo, in press).
In light of new software, websites, and computer-related innovations, AR seems to present an especially narrow use of computers in classrooms. The program basically offers electronic versions of paper-and-pencil tests of low levels of reading comprehension. The primary advantage seems to be that it provides programmed feedback reports to students and the teacher. There is little doubt that the AR program is helpful as a record keeper of students' reading, particularly for middle school and high school teachers who may have more than 200 students to keep up with each day. Features of the program allow teachers to keep track of information in the form of print-outs of AR quiz information including titles of books, numbers and levels of books, and points earned by their students. But is it worth it?
Technology use in classrooms and relevant theories about learning that drive that use have changed over the years since AR was first conceptualized and brought to the market. The AR program is designed along an objectivist orientation. Duffy and Jonassen (1992) explain that when following such an orientation, software and instructional designers “produce a test that stands separate from the instruction and is designed to probe the knowledge acquired in an objective way. Furthermore, we can look for mastery of learning, an assumption that everyone has acquired the same basic information and now has it available to use” (p. 3). They go on to explain that constructivism, an orientation that guides much of the development of current software and classroom instruction, is based on the notion that “there are many ways to structure the world, and there are many meanings or perspectives for any event or concept. Thus there is not a correct meaning that we are striving for” (p. 3). The Accelerated Reader provides a narrow, objectivist notion of comprehension of books and comprehension instruction. Teachers who wish to create learning environments based on constructivist notions engage children in open-ended response to book activities and discussions that are not bound by lower level comprehension questions as presented on AR tests.
Finally, what it means to be literate is being changed by computers. Leu (1997; online document) suggests that “traditional reading and writing are but the initial layers of the richer and more complex forms of literacy required in this electronic context” (p. 63). Being literate in the next millennium will involve more than being able to answer literal-level comprehension questions on a computer screen. According to Leu, being literate will involve the ability to
It is worth asking if the AR program, and the time devoted to using the program in classrooms, is the best possible literacy-related use of a school's large investment in computers.
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted November 1999
© 1999-2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232