Many of our school libraries are entrenched in the Accelerated Reader or
Reading Counts (etc.) computerized testing programs. We've had scores of
discussions on LM_NET on the merits and downsides of such programs, so that
is not the point of my post. Rather, that the posting of the Alpha-KidZ
initiative to become AR books (Subject: [LM_NET] Alpha-kidZ books and
Accelerated Reader -Red flag From: Ginny Koeppen Wed, 6 Feb 2008) has
coincided with an event at my own school which has given me pause to think.
One complaint we've had from teachers (we're using RC) is that on the
easiest books (like Rookie Readers) the tests are sometimes more difficult
(or more wordy) to read than the books. If you're familiar with these
books, there's really not much to read in many of them. In fact, I'm sure
the kids spend more time at the computer (taking the test) than reading the
book! At that point, are we really testing the student's ability to read the
book, or to read the test? It's very discouraging to have a student fail a
test and then realize he failed reading the test, not the book!
Secondly, the computer tech has offered to write tests for books we have
that don't have tests. She created a test for Dr. Seuss's ABC book. Needless
to say (if you've read the book) this was a great challenge. She read the
test to me and later in the library I found several copies of that title to
add the labels and color code dots to, but something wasn't "quite right"
when I read the book. This book tested out at the 3rd level (approx. third
grade reading). I thought about that for a moment. Kids who are truly at a
third grade level should be reading at least short chapter books. Now, this
book does have some challenging words, but seriously, when are students ever
going to come across those silly Dr. Seuss words in real life reading? The
more I thought about it, the more I realized this was not a book that should
have a test. Was there really any plot to this book? A solid story line?
What was the point of asking a child if the goofy "whatsit?" creature in the
rhyme was an alligator, an albatross, or an angry anteater (etc.)? Unless
the student had the book in hand, how would they remember? More importantly,
why would it matter? Are we just testing to see if they (1) read (and
remembered) silly details; or if they (2) recalled important facts,
characters, incidents or comprehended what was happening in the story?
Hopefully it is the second reason. I talked to the computer tech and
explained the situation, and she agreed with me - no testing for that book.
We'll evaluate each of the books that we don't have a test for before
creating a test.
Which brings me to the point about the Alpha-KidZ books Ginny mentioned: I
haven't seen these books, but most alphabet books feature the letters in
sequence and don't really have a "plot" per se, or much in the way of text.
It's still possible of course, to create a test, and some alphabet books may
be good (or at least adequate) candidates but many ABC books are geared to
children who are not yet readers and the book are meant to be read TO them
by an older reader. Ditto for many picture books - some of my picture books
in the "E" (for "Everybody" - they sure aren't all "Easy!") section have 3rd
grade level reading words or higher even though by third grade most students
are reading easy chapter books like Magic Tree House, etc.
Those of us who recall the early days of the computer testing also
recall the recognition that AR managed to produce tests for lots of books
(and of course, also supplied those books!) even if they weren't titles that
had good reviews. But that didn't matter because many libraries already had
some of those titles and wanted the tests; in fact, wanted tests for ALL
books on their shelves. Electronic Book Shelf (which was eventually bought
out by Scholastic and became RC) did NOT offer tests for every book - the
books were actually librarian-selected for quality. I can't say if that
policy continued after Scholastic's acquisition or not, but it is still not
possible to get RC tests for (nearly) all books while the opposite is true
for AR.
Personally, I don't buy a book based on whether the book has a test or not -
I buy based on reviews and collection development policy, and our site
library plan. However, when I see a "gap" in our RC coverage, I will compile
a list of titles by the needed reading level, then carefully check each
review (with a tool like Titlewave) to be sure the book is a quality
publication in its own right, regardless of RC. I realize of course, that
not all sites have this same policy, and often it is not the librarian's
policy to buy only AR or RC titles, but one enforced by an administrator or
site committee.
Anyway, I appreciate Ginny's original posting of the situation, and I hope
all of us will actually THINK about whether or not it is a good policy to
have tests for EVERY book, or to discard or avoid purchasing books when they
don't have a test. Maybe there's a good reason there's no test!
Joanne Ladewig (A.K.A. "Library Lady")
Library Media Tech
Lawrence Elementary, GGUSD
Garden Grove, California
shatz@verizon.net
Comments are my own and may not represent the views of GGUSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://lm-net.info/
* LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
* LM_NET Wiki: http://lmnet.wikispaces.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home