Accelerated Reader research misses the point, again

Accelerated Reader research misses the point, again

Stephen Krashen April, 2015

Still another study has been published claiming that Accelerated Reader (AR) works (Shannon, Styers, Wilkerson, and Peery, 2015).  And once again, the study fails to provide a real comparison group. *

All we are told is that the comparison group had "traditional" instruction that included independent reading, but we have no idea of how much reading time was set aside.  Those in the AR group (grades 1 through 4) averaged more than 30 minutes per day self-selected reading over 24 weeks "as a supplement to their core reading program" (p. 24).  ("Classrooms in both the treatment and comparison condition had the same amount of class time devoted to reading and language arts instruction" p. 24).

As pointed out elsewhere (Krashen, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007), it is no surprise that AR produces gains in reading achievement. The important question is whether the tests and awards contribute to these gains. To determine this, AR needs to be compared not with traditional programs, but with programs in which equal time is spent in self-selected reading, without the AR tests and prizes.  This has not yet been done.

*The study was paid for by Renaissance Learning, the parent company of Accelerated Reader.

References

Krashen, S. (2003). The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of accelerated reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29 (2), 9,16-30.
Krashen, S. (2004). A comment on Accelerated Reader: The pot calls the kettle black. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47(6): 444-445.
Krashen, S. (2005). Accelerated reader: Evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest, 33(3), 48-49.
Krashen, S. (2007). Accelerated reader: Once again, evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest 36 September/October. Available at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/knowledgequest/kqwebarchives/v36/361/361krashen

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