The Accelerated Reader (AR) Program has just been introduced to my K-12 school in the junior and middle school. I have been curious to read research about this program and it affects. I chose the following two research articles:

Mallette, Marla H, et al. “The Influence of Accelerated Reader on the Affective Literacy Orientations of Intermediate Grade Students.” Journal of Literacy Research, vol. 36, no. 1, 2004, pp. 73–84., doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3601_4.

Pavonetti, Linda M., et al. “Accelerated Reader: What Are the Lasting Effects on the Reading Habits of Middle School Students Exposed to Accelerated Reader in Elementary Grades?” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 46, no. 4, 2002, pp. 300–311.

I compared the two papers using the Evaluation Checklist in the Resources section of INF447. I discovered part of the value of this course during this activity. The course content has given me the tools and confidence to more critically read the research and process it. When reading, “Accelerated Reader: What Are the Lasting Effects on the Reading Habits of Middle School Students Exposed to Accelerated Reader in Elementary Grades?” I was struck several times by the extreme bias of the authors and the agenda they wanted to push. There was a significant amount of anecdotal evidence included with the data to push the author’s view on the reader. Much was discussed in the article that had nothing to do with the question they wanted to research but could influence the readers understanding. The research they did conduct could have been done much better particularly in the selection of the sample group (the group had contact with the AR Program at some point in Primary school but unknown how much, how long, or how it was used).

Overall, I found “The Influence of Accelerated Reader on the Affective Literacy Orientations of Intermediate Grade Students” to be more coherent, consistent and comprehensive in describing the research procedure and finding. They were more careful and specific in selecting their sample group (broken down by how the program was used in the past by their teachers and by gender) and had several different types of quantitative data, unlike the other article. It also had a more constructive conclusion. It was interesting to see that the competitive nature of the AR Program did not seem to negatively impact girls and high achieving males but certainly appeared to hamper low-achieving males. This second article particularly provided me with a new insight about the topic, one that is practical to my situation working in my school’s library and personal as I have a low-achieving son (with special needs) that could be discouraged by a program like this and three high-achieving daughters who will likely love it!