Re: [LM_NET] AR as a Tool

[Shonda Brisco <sbrisco@GMAIL.COM>]

To provide equal time (and coverage) to the issue of AR and the
ability of students to select materials that are of interest to them
(and in a continual stance of "loving" opposition to J.K. Greer who
wrote the "Point" to my "CounterPoint" in "Teacher-Librarian"), I am
submitting my original article regarding my experience with AR (from
1990-2003).

Since the original article, I have continued to review, read, and
research students' activities as they relate to the program.  And
while I do believe that struggling readers, non-readers, and some
reluctant readers can and will achieve success with the AR program, I
have also seen the program create a (near) generation of "aliterate"
students who hate to read and do not understand the idea of "reading
for enjoyment."

My stance in opposition of the program has NOT changed since the
original article only because I have seen how the program is being
used by teachers (not as one tool within their "bag of tricks" but as
a "reading program" within their classrooms) or prescribed by
administrators (often without the opportunity for a librarian to have
a voice) AND how the program is being used as a "substitute" for a
librarian (when those professionals are eliminated from their
important positions within the school and clerks are hired to replace
them to appear to assume the duties of the librarian ---much of which
does not include sharing the wide-ranged love of reading, teaching
students how to select a "just right" book of their choice, or
shelf-talking the latest novel because it is just "SO good!")

As the program continues to spiral out of control in its use/ abuse
within many schools, I have watched many students, who have
participated in the program for nearly 17 years become "non-readers"
once they have graduated from the program.  Rather than the program
creating avid readers, the program and its misuse have created
students who are repulsed by the idea of reading because it isn't fun.
 Even without the rewards attached, students who were required to read
only specific books for grades have learned (through "Pavlovian
behavior" with the program, their teachers and labeled books) that
reading is "work" and is not be something that can be enjoyed.

I also find that the use of computers / technology has significantly
changed since the implementation of the program in the late 1980's /
early 1990's which was one of the initial "motivators" of the use /
purchase of the program at that time (especially for administrators
who needed to justify the expense of these new gadgets in their
schools).  Technology has now exceeded the confines of the AR program
and has made the program into nothing more than an "Access" database,
an expensive online grading / bookkeeping system, and a virtual
dinosaur in our Information-Powered, Information-Generated, Web 2.0
world.

Where are the updates to make this program educationally interactive?
Where are the streaming videos showing teachers talking about the
book, asking questions, or posing viewpoints not considered during an
"isolated" reading experience by the child? Where are the real time
social interaction components that allow a child to talk to other
students about the book, ask questions that might make understanding
the content more understandable, or provide the opportunity for the
student to state their opinion concerning the content?  Where are the
mouse-overs, voice-activated, higher-leveled open-ended questions that
challenge today's digital natives and require them to apply critical
thinking AND writing skills regarding the book that they've just read?
 Even video games have changed since the 1980's...so why do we
continue to "make a wish and throw a kiss" while paying outrageous
prices for a program in hopes that our students are learning how to
read (for enjoyment and comprehension) from one of the lowest possible
uses of technology in our schools?  Why are we updating our systems to
allow students to access multiple choice tests online with this
product when we could create the same format free of charge using
SurveyMonkey?

(Hello....if this program is supposed to engage and motivate students
to become better readers, then where is the creativity?)

Why are some convinced that the ZPD (zone of proximal development) is
defined as the level of reading that takes place with the greatest of
ease for a child reading alone....when in reality it means the "zone"
in which a child is capable of doing something WITH the assistance of
an adult who MODELS the process?  The theory behind Lev Vygotsky's
"ZPD" is that at a certain stage in development, children can solve a
certain range of problems only when they are interacting with people
and in cooperation with their peers.

What child is interacting with other people or working in cooperation
with their peers using an "isolated" AR program---perhaps some
creativity from the company using technology from the latest social
networking tools along with the testing program COULD create a zone or
ZPD...but it's not interactive now by a long-shot.   In addition, what
teacher is MODELING the process of reading when there is an AR program
in the building that allows them to merely review test results and not
actually read the books themselves, create projects to involve readers
at all levels and abilities, and provide alternatives to students
requiring differentiated instruction? Can your teachers book talk ten
books within your library?  Are they well-read...do they even read
anymore?

My final comments (in this email) are these:  The AR program is a tool
that saw great excitement in the early days of computers in the
classroom, but now it is an over-priced, time-involved bookkeeping
system that truly does not meet the needs of many of our students
today.  If AR is implemented in a school, I believe it should be used
with specific guidelines that define how it will be used, who it
should be used with, and a timeline by which it should be used before
it "kills" the enthusiasm for reading for a child.  If  a student is
consistently showing success at reading at or above level, this child
does NOT need an online bookkeeping, multiple choice testing program
to motivate or inspire them to read.  They NEED an energetic,
enthusiastic, well-read professional librarian who encourages students
AND teachers to read and discuss the books that they encounter.
Because without the human interaction of book discussion, the
opportunities for expressing opinions and ideas, and the reflection
which comes from reading and writing about an experience from the
pages of a book, we are not encouraging students to become stronger
readers oreven individuals who love libraries or books.

~Shonda

Here's my article:

*********************************

AR: What are Motives Behind the Motivation?
By: Brisco, Shonda, Teacher Librarian, 14811782, Apr2003, Vol. 30, Issue 4
Database: Professional Development Collection


Being wrong is hard to admit sometimes. Like everyone else in the
early 1990s, I was intrigued by the idea that a computerized testing
program would create lifelong readers in my school. However, as I have
watched the progress of the Accelerated Reader program, I have begun
to question the motives behind "the motivation."

Instead of librarians and teachers working together to involve
students in reading for classroom discussions or unique book projects,
teachers are requiring students to read "within grade level" to obtain
points. These points transfer to anything from a grade in class to a
free pizza party. And in their eagerness to win prizes or recognition,
students begin reading everything in sight...that is, if there's a
test for it.

Although the Accelerated Reader program has changed significantly in
the past 10 years, most significant is that it now has become a
multi-million dollar "catch-phrase" for any company that wants to
promote its books to teacher-librarians. Instead of suggesting and
selecting books through thoughtful review processes and evaluations,
teacher-librarians generate copies of AR reading lists for specific
grade levels and distribute them to students.

For many teacher-librarians, the Accelerated Reader program has also
become an accepted selection tool. As a result, regardless of the
quality of the product, if a book has an AR test, it is certain to
find its way to a school library shelf. Therefore, teacher-librarians
who fail to use professional selection tools to carefully choose
materials for their younger patrons may find high-interest, low
vocabulary books for high school students on elementary shelves
because of the AR reading levels.

Once the computer program is in place for the entire student body,
most serious discussions between the teacher and the student regarding
a book's underlying messages, its symbolism, or even character
development come to an end. Instead, books are pulled off the shelves,
examined for points, and then, without regard to genre or perhaps true
interest, read by students in hopes of passing a 10- to 20-question
multiple-choice test. This alone demonstrates that teachers and
teacher-librarians are forgoing the instructional concepts of Bloom's
taxonomy when it comes to literature instruction.

As with any behavior modification program, AR has taught teachers and
teacher-librarians to give up all common sense and educational
theories, and put their trust (and money) in the hands of those who
know how to "motivate" children to read. In turn, these followers of
the program continue to report success in student reading and library
circulation statistics without evaluating the possible repercussions
of the product. With no evidence of higher-level thinking skills being
developed among readers, the question becomes, "Will these students
become lifelong readers who can later evaluate and select materials
for reasons other than a tangible reward or points listed on the
inside of a cover?"

To skeptics of the program and those who question the long-term
success of students, reports are offered as proof -- reports written
by Advantage Learning Company, developer of the Accelerated Reader
program. And when independent researchers question the program's
ability to create lifelong readers, such reports are ignored by AR's
true believers.

Because research into the effect of a program on students is often
difficult unless it is long-term, many teachers and
teacher-librarians, it seems, are not willing to wait and are forging
ahead with the program. Perhaps it is this blind acceptance of AR's
promise to "motivate" and reward students while "creating readers"
that is most disturbing, as it seems to have overshadowed educators'
normal skepticism over products offering quick fixes to deep-rooted
problems.

Although such problems might require the expertise of reading
specialists, teachers and librarians, it appears that the 17
individuals who make up the Accelerated Reader's Advisory Board
consist of four educational psychologists, two classroom teachers, one
reading specialist and one librarian. The remaining 13 members are a
mixture of school administrators (6), education consultants (1) and
test developers (1). I maintain that this suggests that the company's
emphasis is in changing "behavior" rather than improving reading (and
thinking) skills.

Because the AR program suggests (and offers) extrinsic rewards for
points gained through reading, it is important to question if the
company (which is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange) is truly
designed to help students become better readers. For if better readers
were the company's primary goal, shouldn't there be less emphasis
placed on psychology and more on reading? Otherwise, wouldn't there be
more than one reading specialist, one librarian, and two elementary
teachers seated on the board?

As librarians and teachers continue to work through their problems
with the Accelerated Reader program, thousands of dollars are spent
each year by districts hoping to "create readers" by seating students
in front of computers containing a program that generates
multiple-choice questions -- the same type of questions that could be
written by a classroom teacher.

For the poor students, struggling readers or non-readers, the AR
program should be placed in the Reading Recovery classroom to assess
those who need intensive reading practice in order to catch up with
their peers. However, as a tool to "motivate" students who are capable
of independent reading and who are reading on grade level, the AR
program has become an addiction of points and prizes that no one seems
to know how to overcome.

As librarians and teachers, we understand the difficulty of reading
and we understand the success that it can bring through thoughtful
discussion and creative activities. However, in our rush to produce
readers of quantity, we have forgotten that without thoughtful review
of literature, we create mediocre readers who will not be able to
achieve the same success that we had when our teachers made us think
beyond the literal written word and apply our own personal insight and
creativity into what we chose to read. In my opinion, it's time to
close the book on this program.



-- 
Shonda Brisco, MLIS
District Librarian
Peaster ISD
Weatherford, TX 76086

Digital Bookends wiki / blog:
http://digitalbookends.pbwiki.com
http://shonda.edublogs.org/
sbrisco@gmail.com

Resources for Texas School Librarians:
http://txschoollibrarians.ning.com/
http://txschoollibrarians.wikispaces.com/

"Digital Resources" columnist
School Library Journal

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
 3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
 * LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------