In a learning information system, learning activities managed directly by the teacher lead to computerized curriculum-based self-assessment by the student and formative computerized evaluative feedback to the student and teacher, intended to improve learning effectiveness. As an example of such a system, AR provides structured and detailed feedback directly to the student, directly to the teacher, and to the student as mediated and interpreted by the teacher. The expectation is that this feedback will lead to adjustment and promote more effective subsequent performance -- an example of a cybernetic system (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Butler & Winne, 1995; Lhyle & Kulhavy, 1987; Van Houten, Hill, & Parsons, 1975). Kluger and DeNisi (1996) meta-analyzed the effects of feedback interventions on performance, concluding that feedback could yield a significant positive effect and that computer feedback was associated with particularly large effect sizes. Goal clarity and student commitment and belief in success were important moderating influences on effectiveness. Paul (1995, 1996) has elaborated this theoretical rationale in the context of cybernetic feedback systems.

Considering impact at a very simplistic level, AR tests do ensure that students have actually read the books. More subtly, for the student, the points give fairly detailed and certainly timely feedback on the successfulness of self-chosen reading in terms of essential components understood. This enables students to have greater control over their reading activities by managing the level of challenge and other parameters of the reading process (Shapiro & Cole, 1994). Thus, metacognitive awareness is likely to be heightened and learners' feelings of self-efficacy enhanced (Schunk, 1994; Schunk & Rice, 1993). The Accelerated Reader can thus be described (inter alia) as a “reading motivation” program, aiming to encourage students to read more, longer, and harder books by providing better quality and quantity of feedback.

For the teacher, AR provides detailed feedback on the reading performance of all students in the class with minimal expenditure of time. An immediate indication of the success of each student's reading performance is available, in relation to that student's functional reading level and the number and difficulty of books he or she is choosing to read. Thus, the teacher can ensure that all students are operating as readers within their own zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978), maximizing challenge, minimizing failure, and avoiding unproductive reading at levels too low or high for meaningful learning to take place. Students who are reading ineffectively are quickly flagged as “at risk” by the system.

Of course, information on student learning is of no significance if it is not acted upon. Bangert-Drowns et al. (1991) concluded from their meta-analysis that feedback improved learning effectiveness only in cases where its “mindful reception” was assured. Teachers are expected to intervene appropriately with students (through informal counseling or other guidance), and then to use the AR system to track the impact of their intervention. The system thus facilitates early intervention -- and the evaluation of that intervention. It is intended to help teachers teach more effectively. It seeks to increase students' effective and accountable engagement with literature, rather than mere exposure to it.

The potential impact of formative evaluation was highlighted by Fuchs and Fuchs (1986), who conducted a meta-analysis of 21 controlled studies of curriculum-based measurement that was conducted at least biweekly, yielding an average effect size on student achievement of 0.70. This figure was higher for those studies that employed graphical display of student progress. The authors comment that the construction of “Individual Educational Programs” for children often proceeds on hypothetico-deductive lines and is of doubtful reliability and validity, whereas regular formative evaluation is inductive, immediately empirical, more ecologically valid, much more closely linked with daily educational decision making, and thus more likely to maximize the effectiveness of instruction.

More recent reviews confirm the utility of formative assessment (see, e.g., Crooks, 1988, which emphasizes the importance of quality as well as quantity of feedback; Natriello, 1987). The review conducted by Black and Wiliam (1998) concludes that assessment that precisely indicates student strengths and weaknesses and provides frequent constructive individualized feedback leads to significant learning gains when compared to traditional summative assessment. The active engagement of students in the assessment process was seen as critical, and self-assessment was considered an essential tool in self-improvement. Affective aspects, such as the motivation to respond to feedback and the belief that it made a difference, were also important.

Go to map