Blogpost by Sinead Kelleher, GradDip in Library and Information Studies, Graduating in the Summer of 2021
In an information rich
society, it is evident that literacy skills and in particular, reading is an
essential skill to have. The Department of Education in Ireland recognises this
need and in 2019, provided a practice report to teachers, “Effective
Interventions for Struggling Readers A Good Practice Guide for Teachers” (Department
of Education and Skills, 2019), this report explored new forms of reading
intervention methods. Different intervention methods using technology to
improve reading skills (Valmont, 2003) are being used more often by teachers.
One method the report suggested for struggling students to improve their
reading was a web-based reading intervention program called Accelerated Reader
(Department of Education and Skills, 2019). In 2019, two hundred schools in
Ireland were using this Accelerated Reading programme, (Department of Education
and Skills, 2019). This literary review will explore the literature
surrounding the Accelerated Reading programme and in particular how Accelerated
Reading effects a student’s reading in terms of quality, quantity and the effectiveness
of the programme in improving reading standards. This review will also explore how
the implementation of the Accelerated Reading Program in schools has an effect
on the results of the Accelerated Reading programme. Within this paper the term
Accelerated Reading/Reader will be abbreviated to AR for the sake of ease of
reading.
How the Accelerated
Reading Programme Works
The Accelerated Reading
programme was developed by Renaissance Learning as a reading tool to assess,
analyse and develop a student’s reading and is done in the following way. The
student reading level is assessed through their STAR reading level test. The
results are automatically fed back to the teacher, who then allocates a target
level of points for the student to read. Students then read a book within their
reader level bandwidth and do an AR comprehension test based on the book they
have read. Books are levelled using the ATOS reading formula. Students earn
points in the test based on how many questions they answered correctly with an
aim to reach their points target assigned by their teacher (Cuddeback et al.
2002). Literature such as Cuddeback et al. (2002) suggests that AR could be
used as a tool to measure a student’s reading by using this three-pronged
approach of measuring the quantity of the number of books read by the students
the quality of the reading tested through the AR comprehension test and the reading
challenge by progressing through the reading level bandwidths.
Quantity of Reading
The literature that
supports the Accelerated Reading programme indicates that the more you read,
the better a reader you become and that students who are not such good readers
will avoid reading, (Topping et al. 1999). In this sense the Articulated
Reading programme gives the student the opportunity to read more (Topping et
al. 1999; Krashen, 2003; Moyer et al., 2011). Research papers including
Cuddeback et al. (2002) supports the premise that AR gives its user’s a gentle
nudge into reading although it does concede that their research mainly focused
on reluctant readers. Studies such as (Topping et al. 1999; Cuddeback et al.
2002) show that the AR system allows teachers to measure the number of the
books students have read and in this way, teachers can use the AR system as a
tool to monitor students reading levels and therefore identify students who are
at risk readers.
Quality of Reading in
terms of Comprehension and Challenge
As well as monitoring the
reading levels of students the AR system is promoted as a tool to monitor the
quality of the participants reading levels (Topping et al. 1999). The
literature within this review found varying different results from different
studies on this. The findings in (Foster et al., 2014; Shannon et al., 2015)
supports the premise that the AR program is an effective tool to analyse the
quality of the participants reading comprehension. Foster’s findings were based
on an evaluation of an American school in the Caribbean. His results showed
that if a student does not do any additional AR reading that their reading
level will fall behind, in addition research in this paper showed that the
Accelerated Reading program’s use of reading levels was a valuable tool in
designing personal reading goals for students, which contributed to the quality
of their reading achievements.
Other studies in the
United Kingdom such as Gorard et al. (2015) evaluated the AR reading system
involving a randomised control test of 349 participants in 4 schools, the
participants did a 22-week programme of AR and reports indicated an increase in
the level of reading comprehension, with a particular increase with children
from disadvantaged communities.
Most educators and advocates
of reading will agree that the quality of reading will improve by challenging a
reader, it is not enough to read the same type of books at the same level, even
students at a high reading level will benefit from reading at and above their
level, this method is promoted through the AR program in testing and reading at
appropriate reading bandwidths (Topping et al. 1999). This supports the
scaffolding model of education, a model which is used in most school
environments, and is used in primary schools in Ireland. In this sense the AR
system is the scaffolding model which supports the students reading, the zone
of proximity, which is when an educator or peer exacts the correct level of
knowledge Zygotsky (1963), or in this case the reading level of the student in
order to challenge the student by reading to the next level, not reading below
or too far ahead in reading levels. The student will progress under the
guidance of the teacher by following the feedback from the AR testing system.
In this sense the literature in the review examines the Accelerated Reader as
an evaluation tool to determine reading levels. Nunnery et al. (2006) reports
the positive effects AR has on the reading achievements of at-risk students and
children with learning disabilities. Literature such as Johnson et al. (2003) showed
that there was an increase in reading achievement and vocabulary development in
a group of students from a low socio-economic background.
Although literature such
as Biggers (2001) argues that the AR programme only assessed a lower
more literal level of comprehension ignoring a higher level of reading
comprehension which would generally include a more critical or analytical
comprehension of the book. Literature such as Cuddeback et al. (2002) argues
that educators should not put the importance of higher comprehension over lower
level comprehension. Literal comprehension can sometimes be undervalued.
Cuddeback et al. (2002) suggests that higher order comprehension can be
sometimes a result of a student’s background and in this sense the AR program
reduces the bias in testing all students at a more literal level. Literature
such as Cuddeback et al. (2002) supports the use of the Accelerated Reading
Program with the added measures of other teaching directives that promote a
lower and higher level of reading comprehension.
Accelerated Reading
Program and Incentives
An integral part of the
AR programme is its reward system to encourage reading. Cuddeback et al. (2002)
points out that literature such as Cameron et al. (1994) shows that motivators
when properly administered will have a positive effect and actually encourage
intrinsic motivation. However, Biggers (2001) argues that the AR system favours
the more competitive child and questions whether reading levels will drop when
the rewards stops. Edmunds, et al. (2003) shows that when reading motivation
decreases, reading decreases, however, although there wasn’t a decrease in
motivation when students were given non- reading incentives to read, incentives
alone have not had a positive impact on children’s reading motivation. Other
motivators such as a teacher reading aloud and allowing students to talk about
what they are reading can be used as powerful motivators in reading for
students. Literature such as (Chenowith 2001) also discusses this challenge
with the Accelerated Reader programme that although students who participate
initially do read more books than the non-participants of the AR system, in her
study the reading slowed down or even stopped when the program finished. Further
studies such as Belland et al. (2013) suggests that a combined effort of
computational scaffolding such as with AR with teacher support can benefit the
student. Other literature sources such as Pavonetti et al. (2002) discusses how
the AR system does not promote long-term reading using points and testing
strategies. This variation in findings suggest a gap in the literature
indicating that further research is needed into the longevity of the effects of
the Accelerated Reading program on a student’s reading habits.
An obvious incentive to
foster a student’s reading development is to provide material that they are
interested in reading. Students surveyed in a study, (Thompson et al. 2008)
described how within the AR reading lists there was a lack of supply of
multicultural books or of books with a high readability level. Biggers (2001)
suggests that the AR publisher does not take into account the reader’s
interests when compiling reader’s list to correspond with the star test
results. The students surveyed in Huang (2012) suggested that the biggest
negative experience associated with the AR programme was the lack of the
selection of reading material. As the school in question purchased the economy
package from the publisher the reading selection was curtailed and therefore
student choices were limited. Research such as Huang (2012) cited that the
economy package restricted the reading material to authors from big publishing
companies and newer or books from smaller less-known publishers/authors were
not made available to them. Pavonetti et al. (2002) discussed also the economic
limitations of the Accelerated Reading Program, in that it is an expensive
package, the school just pays for the program and that the price does not
include any books. Krashen (2013) suggests that instead of spending money on
expensive reading software that the money would be better spent on providing
more reading material and a reading environment.
Implementation of the
Accelerated Reading System
Literature has shown that
the incorrect implementation of the AR Programme can have detrimental effects
on the results of the tool, Foster et al. (2014) has
pointed out that students who read a lot and did well on the reading tests did
better than those who didn’t get the correct guidance from their teacher, thus
showing that teacher’s need to pay attention to best practice when using the AR
system. Nunnery et al. (2006) also found that children with learning difficulties
achievements had higher reading gains when the AR system was implemented well
in comparison to a group where the AR system wasn’t implemented well. Waters
(2016) also explores the importance of the correct implementation of the
AR system and cites the lack of guidance from Renaissance learning in using the
system for the teacher and suggests more input in training from them as a
factor to resolve this. Moyer et al. (2011) showed in that with the teacher’s
participation a more customised approach to the Accelerated Reader program
increases the reading results for the students. Waters (2016) discusses the
importance of involving parents within the AR system, suggesting that the
school could have parent evenings in which the students could discuss the
various reports from the books they read. This would become another motivator
for the student, extending the incentive aspect of the Accelerated Reader
program.
Literature such as Gorard et. al (2017) in looking
at methods to support the correct implementation of AR found that many children
in the UK were leaving primary school with low levels of literacy skills and
although they were offered the support of the AR system within secondary
schools, AR coupled with the new challenges of starting in secondary school
proved to be too much an adjustment. These findings show that the AR system is
more appropriately suited to primary school levels although more research in
this area is needed.
Gorard et al. (2015) also
focuses on the value of a good implementation of the AR system, for an AR
system to operate effectively it’s important to have a well-stocked library, a
wide collection of books of varying interest including fiction and non-fiction banded
accordingly and easy access to computers with internet connection. Critics of
AR such as Biggers (2001) have also noted that in school libraries where
the books have been divided into AR reading books and regular reading sections
students have been denied access to those reading sections.
Conclusion
In conclusion although the
literature review shows that the Accelerated Reader programme has an effect on
student’s who are in the at-risk reading group, it does also highlight
limitations of the Accelerated Reading programme.
Most of the studies of
the AR programmes are conducted with at risk readers, therefore studies on the
effects of the Accelerated Reading programme on a more generalised normative
student population would need to be done. Most of the literature’s
findings are based on studies in American elementary and middle schools there
is very little peer-reviewed literature based on studies in Irish schools. More
research would be needed on this within the Irish school system to evaluate properly
the programme within Ireland. Further research into a comparative studies of
other reading intervention assessments such as the Lexile framework which has
shown some positive results, Archer (2010), would be a useful study. Also, more
studies on the long-term effects of the Accelerated Reader programme are needed
to establish whether it is a tool with long term reading benefits. Finally,
there is a limited number of peer-reviewed published papers available on this
subject so further studies on the gaps in the literature on AR as shown in this
literary review is essential to provide a more thorough evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Accelerated Reading programme.
References
Archer, L.E. (2010).
Lexile reading growth as a function of starting level in at-risk middle school
students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (4), 281-290.
Belland,
B.R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M.J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds
that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48 (4)
243-270.
Biggers,
D. (2001). The argument against accelerated reader. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 45(1), 72-75.
Cameron, J., &
Pierce, W. (1994). Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A
Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.
Retrieved November 10, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170677.
Chenoweth, K. (2001).
Keeping score. School Library Journal, 47, 48-52.
Cherry, K. (2020). The
Zone of Proximal Development as Defined by Vgotsky. Very Well Mind. Retrieved
from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-zone-of-proximal-development-2796034.
Cuddeback, M. J., &
Ceprano, M. A. (2002). The use of accelerated reader with emergent readers.
Reading Improvement, 39(2), 89.
Department of Education
and Skills - National Educational Psychological Services, Ireland (2019).
Effective Interventions for Struggling Readers A Good Practice Guide for
Teachers. Dublin: Department of Education and skills.
Edmunds, K. M., &
Tancock, S. M. (2003). Incentives: The effects on the reading motivation of
fourth-grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(2), 17-37.
Foster, D. K., &
Foster, D. P. (2014). Estimating reading growth attributable to accelerated
reader at one American school in the Caribbean. Reading Psychology, 35(6),
529-547. doi:10.1080/02702711.2013.789764.
Gorard, S. Siddiqui, N
and Huat See, B (2015). Accelerated Reader, Evaluation Report and Executive
Summary. Durham University, Education Endowment Foundation.
Gorard,
S., Siddiqui, N., & Huat, S.B. (2017). What works and what fails? Evidence from seven popular literacy
‘catch-up’ schemes for the transition to secondary school in England. Research Papers in Education, 32:5, doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1225811.
Huang, S., PhD. (2012). A
mixed method study of the effectiveness of the accelerated reader program on
middle school students' reading achievement and motivation. Reading
Horizons, 51(3), 229-246.
Johnson, R. A., &
Howard, C. A. (2003). The effects of the accelerated reader program on the reading
comprehension of pupils in grades three, four, and five. The Reading Matrix,
3(3).
Krashen, S., The Lack of
Experimental Evidence Supporting the Use of Accelerated Reader. Journal of
Children's Literature 29(2), 16-30.
Moyer, M., &
Williams, M. (2011). Personal programming: Customizing accelerated reader helps
delsea regional high school encourage student reading. Knowledge Quest, 39(4),
68-73.
Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S.
M., & McDonald, A. (2006). A randomized experimental evaluation of the
impact of accelerated Reader/Reading renaissance implementation on reading
achievement in grades 3 to 6. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 11(1), 1-18. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1101_1.
Pavonetti, L. M., Brimmer,
K. M., & Cipielewski, J. F. (2002). Accelerated reader: What are the
lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school students exposed to
accelerated reader in elementary grades? Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 46(4), 300-311.
Shannon, L. C., Styers,
M. K., Wilkerson, S. B., & Peery, E. (2015). Computer-assisted learning in
elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Computers in the Schools, 32(1),
20-34. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.969159
Thompson, G., Madhuri,
M., & Taylor, D. (2008). How the accelerated reader program can become
counterproductive for high school students. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 51(7), 550-560. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.7.3.
Topping, K. J., Terry,
P.D. (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale
survey using accelerated reader data. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(3),
213-231. doi:10.1080/105735699278198.
Valmont, W. (2003). Technology
for Literacy Teaching and Learning. Houghton Mifflin.
Waters, T. K. (2016). Improving
reading: A case study of the accelerated reader program. (2016) (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Gardner-Webb University School of Education, North
Carolina.
Posts
