Really reading: What does Accelerated Reader teach adults and children?

Schmidt, R. (2008). Really reading: What does Accelerated Reader teach adults and children? Language Arts,85(3), 202-211.

Here’s an indictment of the popular computerized reading program, Accelerated Reader (AR), from a teacher who used it and formerly supported it. Schmidt’s concerns have all been voiced elsewhere, but she makes some strong points.

When I think about AR, similar “programmed” reading packages come to mind, and I realize that AR is really nothing new. My memory goes back to the old SRA “Reading Laboratory” with its hierarchy of color levels (Purple was best) and its boring little readings on cardboard pieces plus multiple choice tests. From the offensive reading metaphors (reading “lab” and the “accelerated” idea of reading as a race) to the low-level assessments, to the solitary work, to the competitive, extrinsically motivated ethos, these packages are alike, and little has changed. It wasn’t good back then, and it isn’t good now.

Schmidt’s most telling point is when she points out how the developers of AR cite Rosenblatt’s transactional theory but completely misinterpret it. The whole crux of it is social construction of knowledge.