Re: elementary

[Donna S Cook <dsc@TENET.EDU>]

Bonnie, I was dismayed at the article in School Library Journal.  It
failed miserably because it was not carefully researched.  If the author
had carefully researched the piece, she would have never made several
misleading errors.  I was as much ashamed that SLJ had published the
poorly researched article (and gave it cover prominence) as I was that it
trashed a very useful tool.
     School Library Journal is one of my "must have" professional
resources.  When LM_NET questions come up about which journals we need, I
always fire off a response that I must have SLJ.  I am confused and
unhappy when colleagues tell me that don't get SLJ, or they haven't
figured out how to use it yet.  You can imagine my conflict when this
piece appears, and I can see within a couple of paragraphs that the author
is sorely lacking in her research.  Now, I'm standing there hoping that
those folks I've so wished would read SLJ don't read it after all.
    I can't understand how the editors could let such sloppy research get
past them.
    I use Electronic Bookshelf, and I have for 8 years.  I am very
familiar with Accelerated Reader because several colleagues use it.  I
have to admit I don't like AR in comparison with EBS, and I think EBS is
indispensable.
However, the article, while COMPLETELY in error about EBS (because the
author had no direct knowledge of EBS--very poor research), was also
unfair about using AR.
     There is enough truth in the article that it could get published by
SLJ, of course.  I am quick to look for some justification for SLJ
falling for the flawed piece.  AR does come down too heavy with extrinsic
rewards, and AR is sold by book jobbers eager to sell more books, so AR
obliges by cranking out 10-question tests on every book they can remotely
justify writing a test on.  That admitted, you don't have to use that
program in that simple way.
     What was so bad about the article, however, was that EBS was tarred
with the same brush used to tar AR.  EBS is a TEACHING tool as much as it
is a TESTING tool.  AR is simply a TESTING program.  If that is all you
want, you'll be happy with AR.  EBS--for the same price--will give you
wonderful 30-question tests that teach the students to read more
carefully, read with success, and read for the fun of it.  You won't have
to buy racks of new books: you already have most of the books on your
shelves.  Your students will read, learn the concept of reading a whole
book--not just holding it in their hands awhile, be successful, and you
will delight in the completely easy-to-use program.
   If you choose to use rewards with EBS, (some of my teachers do, and
some don't) it is very easy to make then reading AWARDS, not rewards.
The awards just add to the fun of reading.  They are just a simple excuse to
keep reading in the forefront.  You know, your readers sometimes get
slight attention.   Occasional awards help everyone remember how neat it
is to be a reader and to be reading.
     I've gone on much too long.  I hope you will reread the SLJ article,
looking for evidence of solid research.  It is totally lacking in respect
to EBS, and weak with AR.  Your volunteer has seen some good things first
hand that you will enjoy investigating.  If I can be of any help, let me
know.  I don't work for EBS; never have.  But I've always been glad I
read that review in SLJ (how ironic) many years ago that said that new
reading management program The Electronic Bookshelf had "no
weaknessess."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Donna Cook, library teacher
Raguet Elementary, Nacogdoches ISD, and Douglass ISD, and First Baptist
Nacogdoches, TX                         Douglass, TX      Nacogdoches, TX
<dsc@tenet.edu>         "The best education is caught--not taught"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



On 12 Nov 1996, Bonnie Keyser wrote:

> I would like to initiate a dialogue from users of Accelerated Reader-type
> programs concerning the article in this month's <School Library Journal.>
>  There is a parent in my school (a volunteer) who is really sold on the
> idea after moving from Texas.   I felt that the article made some
> excellent points: based on extrinsic rewards, selection skewed towards
> purchase of those materials, etc.   Any comments?
> --
> Bonnie Keyser
> East Bradford Elementary School
> West Chester, PA 19380
>
>