I agree that this article doesn't give an argument supporting the use of the program. The original poster brought up the use of literal level questions. I think the independent research they cite to defend their use of literal-level questions is very interesting (and not just as related to AR).
Krashen seems to criticize AR mainly because their is little research to support its use--not because it has been _proven_ to be ineffective or harmful. --------------------- He says, "Despite the popularity of AR, we must conclude that there is no real evidence supporting it, no real evidence that the additional tests and rewards add anything to the power of simply supplying access to high quality and interesting reading material and providing time for children to read them. This survey thus comes to the same conclusions as a previous review (McQuillan, 1997). This is not to say that I have proven that AR is ineffective. I have only concluded that data supporting it does not exist. Although McLoyd's results suggests that rewards actually inhibit reading, we must withhold judgment until additional controlled studies confirm this. What we can conclude, however, is that the enthusiasm for AR is not supported by research. Before purchasing AR, and submitting students to tests, a more prudent policy might be to ensure that high-interest reading material is easily available to students, and that students have time to read and a place to read." Accelerated Reader: Does it Work? If So, Why? Stephen Krashen School Libraries in Canada, Volume 22 Number 2, 2002 -------------------- My school uses AR but doesn't have a system in which the students trade points for trinkets or prizes of any kind. It is used by teachers to track students' reading. Students are recognized for reaching their reading goals and certain point levels. I wonder if recognition has the same effect on students as giving a prize. ???... On 9/3/07, ljackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically, I feel this is saying it is tough to teach and assess higher > level thinking skills and I can't see that as a argument for supporting > use > of a program that does not. No surprise, either, that the research cited > by > Renaissance supports their program. Stephen Krashen has much to say about > AR and cites plenty of research to suggest it is just not valid. > > Lori > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
