AR vs. Traditional the Accelerated

¶ … AR vs. Traditional

The Accelerated Reader program has received significant attention in the last few years, as it is reported to have shown great promise for correcting reading deficiencies in most grade levels. The program is a significant boost for some readers, as it offers rewards and excitement for increased reading behaviors and it also has an intrinsic assessment aspect that many educators find useful in understanding the reading levels of students. Yet, it is also a significant allocation for many schools as it requires resources that might not already be in place and has a rather significant price tag on top of that. The program has received positive and negative reviews from users and educators, and requires training and education to use it, that if missing seems to limit its capabilities. Additionally, the program is reported to be most effective as a supplement to traditional reading programs rather than as a stand alone program used for all reading tasks.

It is for these reasons and many others that there needs to be more research on the effectiveness of the program as a basis for advocating and utilizing it. It must also be noted that the AR and traditional reading programs have been only very limitedly compared, as within the education system the tendency is to throw everything you have at the learner and hope something sticks. This mentality is necessary as most would agree that reading is such a core skill and that no time should be lost at any level, but for the sake of comparative outcomes-based research it makes comparison of one program to another difficult as most students, and especially those who test below grade level will be exposed to as many tools as the educator has at his or her disposal. (Bovair & Kieras, 1991, p. 206) the current trend of outcomes-based research as well as the demonstrative establishment of best practices then runs contrary to the "throw everything at it" mentality as it offers research only a very limited opportunity for the development of a clear understanding of how one tool is "better" than another, when it comes to reading and many other core knowledge bases.

It is clear that high percentages of below grade level readers in our public school system is a problem that has consequences beyond the ability of the current system to asses. Traditional reading programs have addressed this problem for centuries, and many are significant in their ability to affect reading skills, in both a normal scoring set and a below grade level set, given the appropriate time and application. Some assessments of standard reading programs say they are ineffective because they do not resolve the core problem of desire and motivation to read. The changing climate of educational offerings, increased nontraditional sources of information such as computers and video learning games, video games in general and television have, some would say slanted this generation of potential readers toward a format of learning that is not answered by the traditional hard copy format. "The favorite lament of the public and of some educators is that low reading scores on standardized tests are a result of excessive media use outside the classroom, especially the use of television." (Tyner, 1998, p. 142)

Many argue that the venue of fast paced and extrinsic rewards of video learning and technology pass times has created in this generation, and likely the one that will follow it, a different set of expectations for learning. These expectations do not necessarily favor quietly sitting in a room and reading a book, or even quietly sitting in a room full of peers and being read to. Intrinsic desire to read according to some has gone down significantly over the years as kids have become more exceedingly exposed to the modern brand of instant entertainment available in their own living rooms. Educators and enterprising education program suppliers have in turn attempted to add a whole subset of options for the school consumer that reportedly bridge the gap between the modern information society in which we live and the traditional model of learning core skills, such as reading. One of these so called alternative options, is the much touted Accelerated Reader Program, which will be further explained later in this work.

The federal government, state governments and all the respective school districts have made significant efforts to try to ebb the tide of substandard reading, yet there has yet to be a consistent comprehensive plan that demonstratively increases reading scores, especially among high risk students. (Le Tendre, 1996, p. 109) the new climate of reading instruction, as per the extension of Title I funding to whole schools rather than individual students, as it has been dispersed in the past and the No Child Left Behind legislation which demands accountability and outcome-based change has changed the focus of both instruction and assessment. (Stewart, 2004. p. 732) (Long, 2001, p. 30) (Greenlee & Bruner, 2001, p. 77) ("Helping All Students Succeed," 2001, p. 14)

Just released results from a yearly federal assessment of student achievement reveal that two-thirds of fourth graders read below grade level, that 37% lack basic reading skills, and that the weakest students have fallen further behind. Although reading problems are apparent in the majority of schools, the worst reader is typically a male minority student living in a high-poverty urban area, who watches six hours or more of television a day. ("The Week," 2001, NP)

One of the proposed plans associated with changing this increasing trend is associated with a computerized, interactive reading practice and assessment computer program. The program, called Accelerated Reader is designed for K-12 students and contains 27,000 books at all different levels that the student chooses and reads. The assessments occur after reading and the program offers extrinsic rewards to students that seem to be effective in encouraging further reading practice which effectively supplements reading curriculum. (Cuddeback & Ceprano, 2002, p. 89) ("Taking a Hi-Tech Path," 2005, p. 14)

In comparison the definition of what is known as a "traditional reading program" for the purposed of this paper is a program that is designed to increase phonic awareness and vocabulary as well as further the work of the previous grades (K-1) in teaching the children sentence structure as well as reading order through the means of reading aloud, independently and through supplemental worksheet and blackboard exercises that are applied by the teacher. No formal prepackaged reading program will be used in this assessment as the goal of the research is to determine the comparative effectiveness of traditional vs. AR.

This work will serve first as a review of the measure of effectiveness of both AR and traditional programs through the available literature associated with both, and most importantly in comparison. The work will then propose a research study that will independently test the effectiveness of AR as compared to traditional reading programs to improve the reading scores of sub-grade level readers. The work will focus on a content area, where AR is said to be most effective, i.e. grades 1-4 and compare the scores of those who used AR with those who were offered a traditional reading program with limited supplemental time with a reading specialist during the term. The assessments that will be compared will be scores on a preparation pretest, for the 3rd grade standardized test given to all third graders in this district. The preparation test scores looked at will be in reading alone.

Review of Literature:

In one research article the use of Accelerated Reader was assessed using at-risk students who had been randomly assigned to several summer school programs utilizing AR. The students identified as below grade level through "Subjects who received AR treatment were 12 of 36 students from a rural high-need school who, after completing first grade, did not meet the district DRP benchmark (a score of at least 12) for promotion. " (Cuddeback & Ceprano, 2002, p 89) the findings of the research were limited in size and time but the results indicate a demonstrable increase in reading ability and comprehension. The findings lead the authors to conclude that AR did contribute to children's reading comprehension improvement when utilized in conjunction with other materials and teaching procedures.

AR by itself is very motivating and as with many programs, can be made even more effective when coupled with instructional directives that promote comprehension improvement -- both literal- and higher level. AR does accomplish its goal of giving students more reading practice time and also goes beyond the goal by increasing comprehension knowledge. It is our feeling that AR can be beneficial if teachers are trained on how to use the program correctly and also how to supplement the program to increase higher level thinking skills. (Cuddeback & Ceprano, 2002, p. 89)

The value of the program was proven as it effectively improved the reading scores of these twelve students, over short-term use. The limitations of the study include its size, duration and the fact that the students were previously identified as below grade level in reading. To generalize the results a passing population would need to be studied as well as a larger group over a longer period. One limitation that may have been missing from the study's own assessment of limitations is that the penalization of attending summer school tends to incite improvement in students, as this is seen as their last chance to have an opportunity to move forward with their own classmates and friends the following year. Due to the age of the students, (first graders) this may be a collaborative cause or impetus for motivation and therefore improvement. One can also postulate that the rote nature of the pre-reading skills that are needed for success at this level, lend themselves well to the basic low-level comprehension that is broken down for the student with AR. In other words the "scientific" success of the program may be limited only to those readers who need help learning the rudimentary skills of reading and not so much for those who have mastered these skills and simply have no desire to read, although some argue that the reward system intrinsic to AR will likely increase reading desire and outside reading behavior, this was not discussed or analyzed in this particular study. The insight of this work is consistent with other scientific studies regarding AR, i.e. that it is most effective with emergent readers and below grade level readers when applied in conjunction with regular reading curriculum and by trained staff.

Cuddeback & Ceprano also point out several limitations or concerns about the program, extrinsic reward, low-level comprehension of material (Cuddeback & Ceprano, 2002, p. 89) and lastly one that is brought out by other reading experts non-phonemic instruction. (Santi, Menchetti & Edwards, 2004, p. 189) Others suggest that the lasting effects of AR use have not been conclusively studied, in what the NCLB legislations would consider a "scientific" manner. ("Accelerated Reader: Lasting Effects," 2003, p. 4) Challenges to AR have been based upon several of the above points but most researchers conclude that the program is useful when applied correctly as a supplement to traditional reading curriculum, but not as a stand alone reading program, despite its relatively high cost, which for many low SES schools is prohibitive. (Krashen, 2004, p. 444) Traditional reading programs have also been challenged as unable to respond effectively to differing learning skills, i.e. those acquired through interactive electronic learning systems and pass time activities which move quickly and are peppered with interesting images and actions.

One comparative research study that has raised as many questions as it has answered concluded that AR does not seem to make lifelong readers, as per a comparative results from several other research studies.

A when the Accelerated Reader program is used in elementary school it does not result in middle school students who read more relative to those who did not use it. In fact, students who did not have AR in elementary school in these two districts are reading more relative to their AR-exposed peers. (Pavonetti, Brimmer & Cipielewski, 2002, p. 300)

In fact, according to the authors the program can be detrimental to long-term reading patterns, the results are mostly conjecture, as they simply found that among this relatively small group those who read at higher rates were less likely to have been exposed to AR in early grades.

Statement of Problem:

Some educators point out that the reason for limited success of AR is associated with its offer of only extrinsic reward, which challenges the need of the individual student to develop intrinsic motivation for learning during formative years. In other words if the student does not learn self-motivation at an early age through an academic need and the early childhood desire for success they may never do so. According to some educators over utilizing programs such as AR, especially as stand alone programs may be an insurmountable error, as children then never seek learning through self-motivation and instead seek external gratification. (Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simos & Protopapas, 2006, p.159) Some even argue that teaching children through extrinsic rewards may create a missed opportunity in the development of intrinsic desire to learn. It must also be noted that this complaint has been waged against systems as inherent as grading, or reward systems such as those often created by local public library systems and business partnerships that give students pizzas or toys as a reward for reading behavior. Though others argue that these programs are extremely motivational and are helping expose children to materials they would likely never have been motivated to read before, and can be instrumental in improvement.

Some researchers urge the use of direct instruction, with open time for discussion and questions from the student, for the improvement of reading in children with behavioral problems, rather than focusing intervention on AR or other non-personal reading programs. Barton-Arwood, Wehby & Falk in fact do not recommend the tool (AR) as it would seem to have the propensity to be unsuccessful or only marginally successful in cases where real disabilities, rather than simple lack of desire or lack of basic skills holds up a reader. (Barton-Arwood, Wehby & Falk, 2005, p.7) Though others would likely argue that the use of AR is intrinsic to finding these students, as those who are unsuccessful with it or who consistently score low on the continual assessment aspect may have other problems that need to be addressed that would not have been recognized otherwise. (Cuddeback & Ceprano, 2002, p. 89)

Yet, another investigator compared the use of AR with the use of multimedia book reviews (utilizing another computer-based reading tool, Hypercard) and a secondary qualitative test to measure the student attitude toward reading. What the researcher found was that the multi-media book review method significantly improved student's attitudes about reading, while AR with its extrinsic rewards did not significantly improve reading attitudes. "The analysis of the quantitative data revealed statistically significant effects in favor of several classrooms involved in using multimedia book reviews when compared to the classrooms using the Accelerated Reader program." (Reinking, 2001, p. 214) what the study suggests is that the AR system is not as effective as other tools in raising the students' desire to read, even outside of school. Another issue pointed out by this researcher is that the use of Hypercard seemed to change the environment of the classroom;

we discovered that the challenge of working with Hypercard changed the social dynamics of the classrooms. Interactions among students increased when they were working with Hypercard in the computer lab. The teacher was no longer the focal point of class activities. Likewise, many students seemed to acquire a different persona in the computer lab. Some low-achieving students who were often marginalized in other academic activities became class experts in using Hypercard because of their ability to create interesting effects on the computer screen. In that role, they were often consulted by their higher achieving classmates. We observed some low-achieving students in this role develop more positive attitudes toward reading, which in turn led to increased reading. (Reinking, 2001, p. 214)

Reinking in short, attributed some of the comparative success of the Hypercard system to the creative challenges of the program, which create intrinsic rewards, and require higher-level comprehension. Though this research is not specific to AR or traditional reading instruction it is however important to note that there are alternatives to AR that answer the needs of the increasingly technology savvy education consumer and some may actually work better than AR as a motivational, long-term high expectation developers.

One of the claims of the AR creators and marketers is that AR creates long-term readers, who are engaged in and excited about learning. The studies I have read, do not suggest or substantiate these claims, in a scientific way. The research in fact gives a good indication that AR is a good supplemental program, but that the extrinsic reward, system in conjunction with non-phonemic instruction and low-level comprehension support make AR an expensive tool with only moderate demonstrative "scientific" success. This is contrary to the preconceived notions about the success of the program, which may have been skewed by the fact that those who make the considerable investment that is required for AR tend to extol its success with students and it has been marketed very heavily in the education system as a cure all for the ills of below grade level readers.

Information about AR, for it to be deemed "scientific" and accountable must be limited to isolated comparative studies as the application of AR tends to be in conjunction with many other reading interventions at any given school, all of which may play a part in the conception of the success and/or failure of the AR system to motivate and therefore increase reading skills in normal or below grade level readers. (Adler, 2002, p. 252) as has been stated before, the emphasis of many districts and schools is basically, on throwing everything we have at the problem and hoping something will stick, but in the case of AR the relative cost prohibitive nature of the program may alienate those schools who need the help the most. Additionally, AR is limited only to those schools that have or can afford computers to run it and networking to allow those computers to be used. (Krashen, 2004, p. 444) in short the manner in which AR is tested needs to be based on results that include blind testing with control groups and comparative models, to be deemed, "proven" effective. For this reason the methodology of this proposed research will be using two separate classrooms, as each classroom will not be internally effected by the ability of one student over another to utilize a resource the other can.

Setting and Subjects:

The setting of this research will be two classes of 20 2nd grade students, mid year to the close of the academic year. The school is a small school of 250 students with 2 classes per grade (grades 1-6). Students come from mostly single income homes in the low to moderate middle class range, though there are also several students in the low SEC bracket, (15% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch). There is also a full time reading specialist on hand who works with all grades of students who are referred by a teacher for special assistance with reading. This specialist will assist with the traditional reading program portion of the study, and be asked not to supplement the AR students, unless the AR assessments indicate the need for intervention, related to a possible learning difficulty, that would under normal circumstances be flagged as needing reading specialist intervention. In short the reading specialist will see only those students who, through the course of the term are deemed to be in need of special instruction. In other words the reading specialist will be asked to intervene as she is directed by her role, in all cases where there is a referred need for assessment for learning difficulties. Those students who receive more than the specialists assessment, i.e. who are deemed in need of reading specialist intervention on a long-term basis will be excluded form the findings in the research data, but will still participate in which ever program they were first involved in and student who has already been involved in reading specialist instruction will be included in the data set. To better understand this one must understand that the reading specialist, on average sees only two students and occasionally three from each 2nd grade classroom in a given year, as emergent readers having difficulties are often already involved in reading specialist instruction before the 2nd grade and many have resolved the initial problem as emergent skills have caught up with grade level by 2nd grade unless there is an underlying learning disability involved. Students who have seen the reading specialist in the past but are not currently seeing her will not be excluded from the study, unless they have been diagnosed with a learning disability that could again skew results of such a small sample size. (Slavin & Madden, 2001, p. 18) Efficacy of including grade-level and non-grade level readers is essential to a full understanding of comparing the two models as AR has been claimed to be effective for both populations but is often studied only in the context of below grade level readers.

Methodology:

The proposed research work will consist of a mixed methodology utilizing both quantitative measure (pre-exposure reading test) and post exposure (AR assessments and a traditional assessment) and a qualitative questionnaire designed to elicit teacher's true assessment of effectiveness of both tools. Therefore the students' success will be measured and teacher's response to the use of the tool will also be gleaned, to form a clearer understanding of both alternatives and an assessment of use of time and perceived motivation of the students. The work will also be used in two separate classrooms, though each teacher will partner with the other classroom teacher and administer each program part of the time, so each will have a clear perception of the tool. Students will not be separated by ability, i.e. both grade level and below-grade level students will be used for the research as in the past much research has been focused only on below-grade level readers, and could be skewed by this fact. Each classroom will be given a pretest that will consist of a standardized reading score assessment, given by the reading specialist. Each student will take the reading readiness or reading skills test alone, with the reading specialist and scores will subsequently be divided by classroom for comparison to later assessment, i.e. The same tool provided at the end of the term.

Test Classroom

AR will be applied in standard usage, i.e. As a supplement to a smaller traditional reading curriculum to one class. With a two hour core 45 minutes of instruction will be traditional and 1:15 will be AR. Students will be offered interactive opportunity to ask the instructor questions regarding the usage of the AR program and a comprehensive 1 hour introduction to the AR program before program assessments begin. Any student who asks for additional help using the program will be offered such help as the study is ongoing. The AR teacher and possibly a computer resource room specialist will be available the entire time that students are utilizing AR to answer any questions students' might have about using the program, to ensure that each is proficient enough to demonstrate real results and no students are struggling with format at the expense of the study and effective use o the material

Traditional Reading Classroom

In the other classroom all of the two hour block will be traditional reading program based, with the inclusion of reading aloud by the teacher, sentence and reading exercises found in worksheets from the standardized curriculum resources used by the teacher. The students will also be offered 1 hour of library time per week, where students will choose from a list of 200 recommended grade level books, in any area of interest and a half hour of silent reading time per day. The final 15 minutes of the reading block will be responsive journaling, so the teacher will have an ongoing idea of where comprehension lies with each student. The emphasis in the classroom will be on silent reading skills and comprehension as well as the development of auditory reading skills, such as phonics and sound, structure awareness. The teacher will be asked to limit electronic media interaction of other kinds and simply utilize "old fashioned" teaching to instruct students in the reading curriculum. Subject material will not be limited by theme and self-selected books will only be limited by the number of books in the recommended reading list, which will be chosen by the librarian based on those books most often checked out by 2nd graders, excluding only those which are all illustration. The teacher will pull read aloud material from this list as well, and do so prior to the library time for the week, so the students and the teacher will be ensured to be reading different materials.

Comparison

Classroom instruction in each room will be similar in format but time with AR, or conversely no time with AR will be the only mitigating difference between the two. Comparison will be drawn between both collective data, the comprehensive scores on journals, by teacher impression and the assessment scores generated by AR. The pretest assessment, given by the reading specialist will be compared to the score on the same assessment at the end of the term. Teachers will then fill out a qualitative questionnaire discussing issues such as ease of use, time allotment and perceived effectiveness of either the traditional reading program or the AR supplemented reading program. Teachers will also be given the opportunity to free form any impression they have of either tool and asses it for merit overall, and in the case of anecdotal opinion based on the work of one or two students, if they so desire. Together all the assessments as well as the pretest and post test will be collected and compared.