To raise student achievement in reading, increases in both the quantity and quality of reading practice are needed. Monitoring and managing this is a daunting task for the classroom teacher. The Accelerated Reader, a computerized curriculum-based learning information system for reading, is potentially a useful tool for this purpose. It enables more frequent, detailed, consistent, and stable assessment of student reading comprehension of “real” books. However, the information it generates constitutes nothing but noise if it is not received mindfully by teacher and student. Feedback to the teacher should lead to appropriate, timely, and consistent intervention with the student. Feedback to the student should raise motivation and metacognitive awareness, and can be enhanced by appropriate scaffolding on the part of the teacher.

Of 12 studies of AR that cite substantial outcome data, only one failed to find evidence of a positive impact, mostly on norm-referenced test scores. However, these studies are of very mixed quality, with many failing to control confounding variables or to provide data on implementation integrity; they are consequently unable to be definitive about causal direction. However, recent studies suggest that, with good quality implementation, the AR program can contribute to teacher effectiveness, in terms of value added in reading and other core curricular areas. In short, it is not whether you have the software but rather what you do with it that makes a difference.

The characteristics of good and poor implementation were outlined, together with the potential advantages and disadvantages of the program. Whatever its advantages, AR is not a substitute for balanced reading instruction. Rather, it is intended as a supplementary and complementary resource -- albeit a powerful one under the right circumstances -- that can help the teacher deliver the curriculum effectively.

These conclusions have implications for local, state, and national guidelines on literacy instruction that aim to raise teacher effectiveness and standards of achievement. Placing intelligent software in classrooms does not guarantee it will be used intelligently. Information technology is not a replacement for the teaching professional, but a tool with the potential to enhance teacher effectiveness. In the case of AR, as for other learning information systems, appropriate and sufficient high-quality training and support for teachers are needed if implementation integrity is to be sustained at the level necessary to raise student attainment. Or as Everhart (1998) expressed it, “For a computerized reading management program to be successful, it may not lie in the features of the software, but ultimately in the people running it.”

Go to map