[MOSAIC] Accelerated Reading

[Beverlee Paul]

Scholastic has some data they'd be willing to share as well, I'm sure.

----Original Message Follows----
From: ljackson <ljackson at gwtc.net>
Reply-To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email 
Group"<mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email 
Group"<mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Accelerated Reading
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:23:31 -0600

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


On 9/3/07 11:32 AM, "Diane Strickland" <dianestrickland at gmail.com> wrote:

 > On 9/2/07, Marg Epp <marg.epp at spiritsd.ca> wrote:
 >>
 >> it tests kids on very literal comprehension, but it doesn't teach kids
 >> about how to think about their reading which is something we are working 
on.
 >>
 >>
 >
 > Is there anyone out there who uses AR in a way that supports "Mosaic of
 >> Thought" thinking?  (I warn you, it has to be a VERY good argument to
 >> convince me!!!!).
 >
 >
 > Here's what Renaissance Learning says about literal comprehension and
 > higher-order thinking questions.
 >
 >  http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/39.pdf
 >
 > [Q]uestions focusing on "higher-order" thinking skills are prone to bias,
 > more so than questions focusing on literal comprehension. Higher-order
 > thinking skills may reflect students' backgrounds rather than their
 > achievement. As noted by Popham (1999), questions intending to measure
 > higher-order thinking might
 > measure what students already know instead of what they learn in class.
 > Additionally, ACT (2006) discovered that literal and inferential
 > understanding did not differentially affect average percent correct on 
the
 > ACT. In fact, the relationship between these two comprehension categories
 > and average percent correct was nearly identical. Thus, the assessment of
 > literal understanding is closely tied to inferential comprehension or
 > "higher-order" thinking and would provide just as much information as
 > assessments on higher-order skills.
 >
 > Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don't measure educational 
quality.
 > Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15.
 >
 > ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines:What the ACT reveals about
 > college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.
 > _______________________________________________
 > Mosaic mailing list
 > Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
 > 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.
 >

--
Lori Jackson
District Literacy Coach & Mentor
Todd County School District
Box 87
Mission SD  57555

http:www.tcsdk12.org
ph. 605.856.2211


Literacies for All Summer Institute
July 17-20. 2008
Tucson, Arizona




_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
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.

_________________________________________________________________
Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. 
http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_MSNHMTxt_1