The Best of ERIC

If you have conducted or are planning to conduct a research study that explores a topic related to the library media field, please email me at drruth@twcny.rr.com and tell me about it, briefly describing your methodology, where and with whom the study will be conducted, what you hope to learn from your study, and some preliminary results (if you have them). Best of ERIC will highlight, from time to time, researchers and practitioners in the field who are doing interesting research related (but not limited) to the types of topics covered in this column in the hope that it will help to stimulate an interest among preservice and in-service practitioners and others in conducting research in our field.

Computer-Aided Reading Promotion: Accelerated Reading—Silent Sustained Reading Camouflaged in a Computer Program?

Joette Stefl-Mabry, Assistant Professor, School of Information Science and Policy; Assistant Research Professor Department of Educational Theory and Practice, School of Education, University at Albany, State University of New York

According to Trelease (2001) there have been no significant change in students’ reading scores between 1971 and 2000 despite numerous reform efforts, higher standards, twelve years under a Democratic administration, and eighteen years under a Republican administration. Clearly, there is a strong need to “fix” this reading problem. Over the past two decades computer-aided reading programs have been looked at as ways in which to remedy the reading crisis—and it is indeed a calamity. This paper provides an overview of recent research findings and papers, the majority culled from ERIC, regarding Accelerated Reader (AR), a system of computerized testing and record-keeping and its implications for reading instruction and school libraries.

Accelerated Reader and the Reading Renaissance Program—The Basics

The AR program was developed by Judith Paul at her kitchen table in 1984. Paul’s own children provided the motivation to develop the program. She wanted them to read good books so she incorporated behaviorist motivational techniques coupled with technology—her husband was a technologist—and AR was born (Stevenson and Camarata 2000). The Learning Information System known as AR is a software program designed to facilitate curriculum-based assessment of reading comprehension of real books by students and analyze and summarize the results (Topping and Fisher 2001; Vollands et al. 1999). According to the AR Web site:

Accelerated Reader (AR) is the world’s most popular reading management software. Used in nearly 60,000 schools, Accelerated Reader provides teachers with an easy and effective way to monitor all forms of guided reading practice (http://www.renlearn.com/ar/overview/). Recently, Renaissance Learning Inc., (once known as Advantage Learning Systems, 1993) announced plans to merge with AlphaSmart Inc., a maker of portable word processors for students (eSchool News, 2005).

The main elements of AR are designed to:

empower the classroom teacher to motivate and manage extensive amounts of in-class reading practice time, to monitor student performance, and to intervene with individualized strategies for students. An hour of reading practice daily, in grade appropriate combinations of Read To, Read With, and Independent reading activities (Goodman 1999, 11).

Students using the program select a book of their own choosing (from the pre-selected AR list) and then take a multiple-choice comprehension quiz on the book at the computer. Students’ reading selections (books) are determined by the number of AR quizzes the school has purchased. An average “economy kit” that contains 1,000 quizzes is currently priced at $1,299.00, plus a .99¢ per student service support package. Schools can select from a list of book titles or create one from AR’s current listing of over 73,987 books on the AR list written in English and 5,274 written in Spanish (Mabie 2005). Books are not included in the package and each school must make book purchases independently from AR. The company offers training kits, in-service training sessions, and follow-up professional development for an additional price. Schools can also purchase such supplemental materials as a technical support contract and a selection of motivational materials for students, including T-shirts, book bags, backpacks, and bookmarks (Education Commission of the States 1999).

AR Selection Process

According to Heidi Mabie (2005), a spokesperson for Renaissance Learning (RL), RL quiz writers make book selections based up on whether there is enough content for them to create five good questions. Quiz writers also make their book decisions based upon the number of requests they receive for a particular book. RL quiz writers include people with educational backgrounds, teachers, and authors. When asked if librarians were also part of the team of quiz writers, Mabie said it was quite possible and likely.

According to an external memo sent to the author by Mabie, RL’s goal is to “offer quizzes for as many books as possible that are likely to be in school libraries.” In an effort to attain that goal they look for:

• Books that are frequently suggested by customers (through their quiz store on the Web)
• Books that are award winners
• Books receiving positive reviews (from such publications as School Library Journal, Horn Book, and Kirkus)
• Books that are recommended on reading lists (such as State Lists)
• Books written by popular authors
• Books in a continuing popular series (Renaissance Learning 2002).

Each book is assigned a point value based on the number of words it contains and its reading difficulty as determined from a formula based upon the Flesch-Kincaid readability index (Chall and Dale 1995; Flesch 1974 that considers the number of syllables in words and sentence complexity. Point values are calculated in the following fashion:

AR points = (10 + reading level) x (words in book ÷ 100,000)

Every book has a maximum point value according to its length and difficulty. Each student self-tests and the computer awards points up to this maximum, according to the number of correct test responses (Topping and Fisher 2001). The computer also provides the teacher with an automatically updated analysis of scores for individuals or whole classes, indicating average percent correct, difficulty of books read, points earned, and diagnostic information (Topping and Fisher 2001). Diagnostic reports identify reading problems and allow teachers to intervene as appropriate. A literacy skills chart assesses each student’s proficiency on twenty-four higher-level reading skills, while a student report record provides a list of books read by each student and the scores for each quiz. Reports can also monitor the progress of groups or classes of students (Education Commission of the States 1999). Students take end-of-book tests that “are composed of admittedly literal-recall questions” (Institute for Academic Excellence 1998). There is only one specific correct answer to each question (Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipielewski 2002/2003, 308).

Chronological Highlights of Accelerated Reader Research

Most studies of AR were initially conducted by the Institute for Academic Excellence, a subsidiary of Advantage Learning that provides research and professional development services. Several large developer-administered studies compared schools that purchased AR to schools that did not and found higher scores in multiple subject areas in a majority of schools using the program (Education Commission of the States 1999; Institute for Academic Excellence 1998; School Renaissance Institute 1999; Paul, VanderZee, Rue, and Swanson 1996; Paul, Swanson, Zhang, and Hehenberger 1997; Vollands, Topping, and Evans 1996; Peak and Dewalt 1994). A number of research studies have attempted to explore AR program’s effectiveness. The following section presents brief research highlights over the past six years. (For a more detailed presentation of AR research, see Krashen 2003).

Goodman (1999) evaluates AR as implemented at a middle school in Arizona for a one year period. The total population of 282 students (seventh and eighth graders) participated in the AR program. There was no experimental or control group to compare results. Goodman reports that students demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in vocabulary and a gain in comprehension in grade equivalent scores, but not statistically significant gains. There was no description of how the AR program was being instituted other than the grades themselves were divided to enable each half to meet in the library where they sat at tables and silent-read and had access to four computers to take AR quizzes.

Scott’s (1999) dissertation, involved students with learning disabilities to determine if the AR program had an effect on reading achievement and attitudes toward reading. A treatment group consisted of sixteen middle school students using AR. A control group of twelve middle school students did not use AR. The study took place over a four-month period and followed a pretest-posttest design. Students in both groups completed a STAR reading comprehension test at the beginning and the end of the study. Students were also administered the Estes Reading Attitude Scale at the beginning and end of the project.

Both groups in this study showed gains in attitude. However, the treatment group experienced a much higher percentage gain in attitude than the control group. Students in the treatment group (AR) spent varying amounts of time each day reading independently, however Scott admits, “It is unknown if the control group had regularly scheduled reading times” (45). This reflects a serious flaw in Scott’s methodology because it is impossible to compare students who are reading each day to students who may not have been reading at all.

Vollands, Topping, and Evans (1999) conducted a six month quasi-experimental action research evaluation of AR looking at two elementary schools in Scotland with at-risk readers. In each school there was an experimental and control group. Project A involved two sixth grade classes: the experimental AR class had twenty-seven students and the control non-AR class had twelve. The experimental class had access to AR for six months from pre- to post-test, access to AR books, public displays of AR points gained by individuals and the opportunity to use points for tangible rewards (Vollands et al. 1999). For five weeks the experimental group received only fifteen minutes of reading time per day, thereafter this was increased to thirty minutes reading time, plus thirty minutes of being read to by the teacher. The control group had regular classroom teaching of reading, including thirty minutes of reading time per day throughout the experimental period. Students also had to complete written feedback to the teacher on each book they completed. A few extra books were provided for students of lower reading ability (Vollands et al. 1999).

In Project B the experimental class was a sixth grade class, but the control group was a fifth grade class. The sixth grade AR class had twenty-four students and had access to AR for six months, including AR books and public display of AR points, but no opportunity to exchange points for rewards. According to Vollands et al., the “quality of implementation of AR was adequate only towards the end of the project” (205).

The control group of twenty-six younger students were more able readers relative to their age than the AR class. The control group experienced regular classroom teaching supplemented by fifteen minutes of individual silent reading time each day and group oral reading on a “restricted selection of novels” (206). During the group reading sessions the teacher quizzed the students on the content of their reading. Homework assignments were given at the end of each book chapter with written comprehension quizzes. The teacher also created reading comprehension puzzles, worksheets, secret messages, and so on for the class to complete either in class or at home (Vollands et al. 1999).

The outcome assessment reading quotients for both the experimental and control group “showed a statistically significant increase over the experimental period, and the control group showed a larger gain from a higher baseline” (Vollands et al. 1999, 206). However, the authors of the study acknowledge that the study was imperfectly controlled and the classes in the two groups were not comparable.

Facemire’s (2000) masters thesis explores the effects of AR on the reading comprehension scores of third graders. Her nine-week study looks at two third-grade classes within the same school. The experimental group of fifteen students used AR and the control group of twenty-one did not. The STAR Reading program was used to pre- and post-test both the experimental (AR) and control (non-AR) group. The experimental group demonstrated significant gains on the STAR Reading program. Although this study involved few children and the time span of nine weeks was short, it demonstrates impressive results in favor of AR. The small sample size does pose problems. Krashen (2003) explains “the AR group . . . contained one child who gained 2.3 years in nine weeks! If we remove this ‘outlier’ the AR mean gain drops to about four months. The comparison group had one child who got much worse, dropping more than one year (1.1) in nine weeks. If we remove this outlier, the comparison mean increases to three and a half months” (12). Still, Krashen (2003) agrees that this study is a step in the right direction as “there is a comparison group, and an attempt is made to note the amount of reading done” (12).

Persinger (2001) designed an in-depth qualitative case study to investigate the AR program within its natural context to identify the factors that contribute to a successful AR program. The sample involved fifteen students and seven faculty members chosen from the third, fourth, and fifth grade. Most of the students Persinger (2001) interviewed “seemed to read for the recognition their achievement would bring them through the extrinsic rewards both for themselves and their classes” (34). The majority of participants interviewed were happy with AR. The students enjoyed the competitive spirit surrounding AR.

Persinger reported that it was troublesome that some teachers “excluded their remedial reading students from class participation” (34). According to Persinger, teachers felt that including these students would hinder the motivation of their other students by limiting their group’s AR success and points. Persinger (2001) was bothered by the limited choice of reading materials. “Only the part of the collection for which the school could afford AR tests circulated among the students (34).

Teachers liked the ability to control the AR records of their students from their classroom computers. Although Persinger (2001) is not convinced that “AR is or should be the answer to creating a reading community within the school,” Persinger believes “it certainly can contribute to fostering that community in a beneficial way if used with due consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of creating a system of rewards and competition” (34). Persinger recommends the following:

• Teachers should decide on the degree of competitiveness they will encourage
• Teachers and students should be given the chance to opt out of the program without penalty
• Efforts should be made to encourage students to build more internal motivation for reading

Stevenson and Camarata (2000) provide a point-by-point comparison of AR program and the whole language process. They begin by stating that both approaches employ good children’s literature but that is where the similarities abruptly end. Stevenson and Camarata explain that AR is computer-centered and limited to specific books that restrict children’s reading of current recently published books. The whole language is child-centered to help teachers develop a learning environment suited for each child, whereas the child in AR learns that reading is an isolated and competitive activity unconnected to the curriculum. “Reading means correctly answering questions generated by a computer and earning points. . . .” (10). “The Accelerated Reader Program, which depends on technology for delivery, controls both the students and their teachers, while the whole language process allows students and teachers the flexibility to choose their focus” (8).

Biggers (2001) voices concern over the “apparent erosion of well-supported balanced literacy programs due to the adoption of technology such as Accelerated Reader (AR)” (72). She questions the validity of AR’s readability index which does not take any research into reading interest into account. Biggers questions AR’s focus on external motivation and control that she feels fosters competition, explaining that “students who are motivated by competition also show a high degree of reading avoidance” (73) especially for more challenging reading materials or reading outside of the school environment.

One of the most problematic aspect of AR for Biggers is the fact that AR is not an instructional program that provides for differentiation—“there is no literacy instruction to differentiate in AR” (73).

Biggers (as Krashen does in 2003) provides a summary and brief critique of research that Advantage Learning Systems Web site (now Renaissance Reading) lists as “scientific research” in support of AR. In brief she states that of the sixty-four “scientific research” reports in support of AR, twenty-nine are district or school evaluations of AR, sixteen are the company’s own evaluations leaving only nineteen independent studies. Of those nineteen, “five were authored or coauthored by K. J. Topping, who coauthored one of the listed articles with T. D. Paul, the spouse of AR’s creator and the company’s chief executive officer, and who has another article cross-referenced with a company report” (74). Of the remaining fourteen, Biggers explains that ten are campus or district implementation reports, with only one reporting a control group. Two other independent reports cite AR as only one of many components in a comprehensive reading program. She goes on to explain that the one university study appears linked with Advantage Learning Systems. The only study remaining is an independent graduate thesis with questionable results.

Biggers concludes by stating that it is interesting that “the use of a ‘computerized reading tool’ is never cited as a determining factor in the performance of high-achieving students or schools (74).

Kambarian (2001) in his dissertation, examined the effect of AR on the scores of selected at-risk students who were in the second through the sixth grade. The study included 141 students over a three year period at two Title I suburban schools.

Students from one elementary school (experimental group) who were exposed to AR in addition to a district basal reading series were compared to students (the control group) who only used the district basal reading series (albeit a new one). The study was conducted over a three-year period. An extrinsic reward system (AR store) was created to motivate the students in the experimental group to accumulate AR points earned from reading and passing AR tests. Kambarian (2001) acknowledges that “perhaps the most important component [for the experimental group] was incorporating silent sustained reading (SSR) for thirty minutes a day throughout the school using the books from the AR library as a supplement to basal reading instruction” (76). Another component created specifically for the teachers involved with the experimental group involved staff development and training designed to demonstrate to teachers how to provide periodic praise for students, and “intervention and remediation strategies” (76). The control group did not use AR, their teachers did not learn any curriculum strategies or remediation techniques, they did not implement SSR and they did not create an AR library. It goes without saying that to compare these two groups requires quite a leap of faith. One must pause to ponder the ethical issues of withholding reading materials, curriculum intervention, SSR, a library of books, and remediation from at-risk students for three years. As expected the at-risk group from the experimental school demonstrated the greatest rate of improvement with the youngest cohort of second through fourth grade students showing the greatest improvement or gain (Kambarian 2001).

Toro (2001), in her masters thesis explores AR with two second-grade classes (twenty and sixteen students) over a six-week time frame. She reports that the class of twenty students read books selected from the AR list and then took computer-generated quizzes on the readings. The other second grade class of sixteen students read independently at least thirty minutes each night over the same time period. This class did not take any quizzes on their reading. At the end of six weeks each student took a standardized reading comprehension test. Her findings suggest that no significant difference in the reading comprehension level of those who experienced independent reading and those who experienced AR. There are serious limitations in this study including the limited time frame and the fact that the students received the reading assignments from the principal of the school and not the researcher.

Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipielewsi (2002/2003), interested in exploring the claim that AR builds lifelong readers, investigated whether seventh-grade students who were exposed to AR during elementary school tend to do more reading of books than those who were not exposed to AR and thus more likely to continue higher levels of recreational reading in middle school. There were 1,536 students distributed in ten different middle schools who were used in the final analysis. The overall results of their study did not support the claim that AR creates lifelong readers. In fact, when the AR program was used in elementary school:

it does not result in middle school students who read more relative to those who did not use it. In fact, students who did not have AR in elementary school in these two districts are reading more relative to their AR-exposed peers. (Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipielewsi, 2002/2003, 308)

Brown (2003) states that although reading-management programs have contributed to an increase in voluntary reading, there are “few reports . . . suggesting that AR programs enhance comprehension or are useful as a tool for reading instruction” (10). In fact, Brown continues “most of the AR quizzes appear to measure recall of factual information only” (10). It is important to note that since AR is a supplemental program used in conjunction with other reading programs “it is impossible to determine from the research how much academic gain is due to the program and how much is the result of other strategies” (Education Commission of the States 1999, 6).

Implementation Inconsistency

In 2001 Topping and Fisher (2001) released a summary report which highlights a problem persistent in most AR studies—implementation inconsistency. In the majority of the AR studies this inconsistency centers upon insufficient time allocated for SSR (Toro 2001; Scott 1999; Vollands, Topping, and Evans 1999; Topping and Paul 1999; Kambarian 2001). Study after study reveals the importance of schools providing students longer periods for SSR. According to AR goal setting changes put into effect in June 2003 propose the following daily reading practice recommendations for independent readings:

• Elementary school—sixty minutes

• Middle school (sixth–eighth grade)—forty-five minutes*

• High school (ninth–twelfth)—thirty minutes*

*Students reading below grade level need at least sixty minutes of daily reading practice (Renaissance Learning, www.renlearn.com/goalsetting.htm [Accessed Mar. 19, 2005])

Where sustained SSR maximums are implemented and where teachers monitor students and provide feedback and guidance in the selection of appropriate reading material students show significant rates of improvement on achievement in reading (Topping and Fisher 2001, 29). SSR is the crucial variable that determines the success of AR and quite frankly any reading program. This has been documented by research for the past forty years—long before computer assisted programs came into being.

The Importance of SSR

SSR first was proposed over forty years ago by Lyman C. Hunt, Jr. of the University of Vermont in the 1960s (Trelease 2001). Robert and Marlene McCracken, reading experts, formulated the following recommendations to structure SSR programs:

1. Children should read aloud to themselves for a limited amount of time.
2. Each student should select his own book magazine or newspaper.
3. The teacher or parent must read also in order to lead by example. This cannot be stressed too strongly.
4. No reports are required of the student. No records are kept (Trelease 2001; McCracken, 1971).

In 1985, Anderson et al. released a national report, Becoming a Nation of Readers recommending that SSR be implemented into all American classrooms. The report explained that priority needed to be given to independent reading, for the more time students spent reading the greater their reading proficiency (Kirby 2003). Anderson et al. (1985) states “independent reading is more effective in developing reading ability than the skill and drill workbooks and practice sheets normally associated with a basal reading program” (75–76). Originally SSR called for a school-wide daily reading time for teachers and students in which reading material was not monitored nor were students evaluated on their reading. Manning-Dowd (1985) reviewed research on SSR and concluded that SSR has a positive effect on reading comprehension and reading attitudes at all grade levels.

Pilgreen (2000) explains the importance of SSR, and explains eight crucial features needed to set up and properly maintain a sustained silent reading program in an educational setting. They include:

1. Access. Students need access to traditional and nontraditional reading materials—books, magazines, newspapers, and other reading materials—in the classroom and at home.
2. Appeal. Students need to be surrounded with appealing and provocative reading material that they want to read.
3. Conducive environment. Students should have a comfortable place in which to read.
4. Encouragement. Teachers and students need a variety of ways to share and discuss what they are reading.
5. Staff training. SSR is not a passive process; teachers must be motivated “to learn strategies for linking students with books, highlighting the importance of having all of the participating adults ‘buy into’ the concept of free reading” (14).
6. Non-accountability. SSR involves no required tasks or follow-up language work. Learners read without the concern of having to write a book report or make a presentation.
7. Follow-up activities. Are carefully designed to keep students excited and engaged readers.
8. Distributed time to read. Students need time to read. Setting up independent reading on a daily basis is most effective so that reading becomes a habit and not just an academic exercise.

Trelease (2001) explains that the benefits of SSR are many and vary:

but in its simplest form SSR allows a person to read long enough and far enough so the act of reading becomes automatic . . . Because it is supposed to be informal and free of grades, SSR also can provide students with a new perspective on reading—as a form of recreation (chapter 5, 2).

Although there is no magic cure for students in high school, “it can result in positive attitudinal changes toward the library, voluntary reading, assigned reading, and the importance of reading. This affects the amount students read and thus their facility with the process” (chapter 5, 2). Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) studied 155 fifth graders who kept activity logs of their out-of-school activities. They found that among all the ways children spend their time outside of school, reading books is the best predictor of several measures of reading achievement, including gains in reading achievement between second and fifth grade.

The Importance of Recreational Reading

Research has demonstrated time and time again, that consistent exposure to high-quality literature will expand a child’s world and be reflected in their vocabulary (Kambarian 2001; Robbins and Ehri 1994). Students who engage in reading on a daily basis may demonstrate a carry over effect and increase their knowledge across the board in all academic areas (Kambarian 2001). Trelease (2001) explains that when the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) compared the reading skills of 210,000 students from thirty-two countries it found the highest scores (regardless of income level) among children who were read to by their teachers and children who read the most pages for daily pleasure (chapter 5, 1).

Krashen (2003; 1993) argues that there is consistent evidence that those who have more access to books read more and students who have more time for recreational reading demonstrate more academic gains in reading than “comparison students” (2003, 16) and that a lack of reading practice results in a decline in reading ability (1993). Free voluntary reading improves vocabulary, reading comprehension, grammar, and writing among first-language acquirers as well as among second-language acquirers (Cho and Krashen 2001). Cho and Krashen explain that:

reading itself appears to be the most powerful motivator for encouraging additional reading: those who participate in sustained silent reading (SSR) programs show clear increases in the amount of free reading they do outside of school (Pilgreen and Krashen, 1993) and the effect appears to last years after the SSR program ends (Greaney and Clarke 1975). (2001, 170).

This underscores the pedagogical importance of allowing students to have the following:

• the ability to choose from a wide variety of reading material,
• time to read in-class on a daily basis (sixty minutes maximum),
• timely, supportive, and interactive feedback from teachers,
• teachers who will employ motivational strategies that excite students about books, and
• teachers who will ensure that students are provided with reading material appropriately challenging for their reading level.

Notice that all of the above is quite independent of AR. AR offers a quick and easy instantaneous record keeping component for teachers which make their lives easier. In fact, “many districts have corrupted what was designed as essentially a bookkeeping system, converted it to part of the reading program, and encouraged students to read for points tied to report card grades” (Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipielewski 2002/2003, 309).

Perhaps the most important advice in considering the use of AR in a school or district is the following from the Education Commission of the States (1999, 6):

Accelerated Reading is designed to be used as supplemental instruction and does not take the place of a main reading program. The multiple-choice format of quizzes is useful in gauging literal comprehension of the texts and assessing students’ reading level, but has no mechanism for helping students explore story ideas or apply the story’s lessons to their personal experiences.

AR CANNOT Replace School Library Media Professionals or School Libraries

The AR program cannot be used as a stand alone program. If educators choose to use AR they must accept its limitations “as a supplemental tool” (Toro 2001, 28). AR cannot be a substitution for school libraries, or school library media professionals. Although Renaissance Learning’s efforts to match quizzes to the books found in a typical school library is laudable, school libraries are distinct learning communities, each of which has unique information and learning needs that extend far beyond just books. School library media specialists, as information professionals, are experts in identifying the information resources their learners (teachers, students, and families) need. Such knowledge includes all traditional text-based media (books, magazines, newspapers) as well as electronic, multimedia, cultural, and community resources as well.

AR’s primary goal is to increase literature-based reading practice (Education Commission of the States 1999). This goal represents an important but substantially smaller portion of the focus of high quality school library media programs which have “moved far beyond a room with books to become an active, technology-rich learning environment with an array of information resources” (ALA 1998, 1). Although AR stresses the importance of enabling children to have access to literature via books, school library media specialists know that to survive in the twenty-first century students need to be familiar with a wide variety of reading and informational material in an extensive array of formats: books, magazines, newspapers, radio, television, movies, electronic sources, databases, Web pages, blogs, and so on. Innovations in traditional printing techniques along with advances in electronic technologies have transformed the ways in which we live, learn, play, and are governed.

AR provides teachers with a more up-to-date record keeping system: a way to use technology tools to assess students’ reading levels, keep track of student progress, and determine whether or not the student has read the AR books” (Institute for Academic Excellence 1999). Although AR operates under the belief that “practice makes perfect” (School Renaissance Institute 1999, 7) AR does not enable students to:

• analyze complex and conflicting presentations of information
• appreciate the variety of perspectives offered by individual viewpoints, scholarly disciplines, and cultural understandings
• use information competently in critical thinking, decision making, and problem solving
• produce new information and create products and presentations that communicate ideas efficiently and effectively
• act responsibly in regard to information, particularly with respect to the difficult issues of intellectual freedom, equitable access to information, intellectual property rights (ALA 1998)

It is the school library media specialist in each school, and the librarian in each library, who, as information professionals, possesses the skill and knowledge to perform all of the above. The school library media specialist, as the informational hub of a school, is the essential link, connecting students, teachers, and community members with the information resources they need. The school library media specialist then “both contributes to and draws from the expertise of the entire learning community” (ALA 1998, 3).

Krashen (1993) states that there is a negative relationship between poverty and the amount of reading at home. Krashen explains that 30 to 97 percent of students obtain their books from some kind of a library. A substantial body of literature of over seventy-five studies dating back over six decades documents the impact of school library media programs on academic achievement (Lance 2002).

No educational software program to date can compete with that performance.

A Research Challenge

Reading Requires Time

We must accept that fact that there will never be a silver bullet to quickly resolve the reading crisis. We need to acknowledge that in order to develop good reading habits students and teachers need to be provided with regularly scheduled times to read, without the typical pressure to demonstrate or prove what they have read. Unfortunately, teachers feel uncomfortable when students are allowed to just read, a perception Kamarian (2001) attributes to their traditional reliance on basals, direct instruction, and skill development (43). Learners of every age need an environment that encourages them to read recreationally, think creatively, explore with curiosity, and revel in new knowledge (Pavonetti, Brimmer, and Cipilewski 2002/2003). This does not involve a simple decision to allocate funds for a technological book-keeping solution, but rather a philosophical commitment to provide learners (students and teachers alike) with an appropriate collection of reading materials (traditional and nontraditional), time to select, time to read, time to reflect, and time to share. If we want students who are readers we must provide them with the opportunity to read.

Perhaps it is the simplicity of the solution that has us baffled.

Works Cited

Anderson, R. C., P. T. Wilson, and L. G. Fielding. 1988. Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly 23, no. 3: 285–303.

Anderson, R. C., et al. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Reading.

Biggers, D. 2001. The argument against Accelerated Reader. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 45, no. 1: 72–75. ERIC, EJ630745.

Brown, C. 2003. Guiding elementary students to generate reading comprehension tests. TechTrends 47, no. 3: 10–15. ERIC, EJ673452.

Chall, J. S., and Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books.

Cho, K. and S. Krashen. 2001. Sustained silent reading experiences among Korean teachers of English as a foreign language: The effect of a single exposure to interesting, comprehensible reading. Reading Improvement 38, no. 4: 170–74. ERIC, EJ642836.

Education Commission of the States. 1999. Accelerated Reader. ERIC, ED447420.

eSchool News. 2005. Renaissance Learning, AlphaSmart to merge. eSchool News (Mar. 2005): 34.

Facemire, N. E. 2000. The effect of the Accelerated Reader on the reading comprehension of third graders. Master's Thesis, Salem-Teikyo University, Salem, West Virginia. ERIC, ED442097.

Flesch, R. (1974). The art of readable writing with the Flesch readability formula. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodman, G. 1999. The Reading Renaissance/Accelerated Reader Program. Pinal county school-to-work evaluation report. Tucson, Arizona: Creative Research Associates, Inc. ERIC, ED427299.

Howard, C. A. 1999. An evaluation of the Accelerated Reader Program in grades 3–5 on reading vocabulary, comprehension, and attitude in an urban southeastern school district in Virginia. Ph.D. diss., Old Dominion University. ERIC, ED465987.

Institute for Academic Excellence. 1998. How Accelerated Reader quizzes are designed. Madison. Wisc.: Institute for Academic Excellence. ERIC, ED421690.

Kambarian, V. N. 2001. The role of reading instruction and the effect of a reading management system on at-risk students. Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University. ERIC, ED461835.

Kirby, M. C. 2003. The effects of weekly, sustained silent reading time on recreational reading habits and attitudes in a ninth grade English class. Master's Thesis Research, School of Business, Education, and Leadership, Dominican University of California. ERIC, ED479485.

Krashen, S. 1993. The power of reading. Inglewood, Colo..: Libraries Unlimited.

Krashen, S. 2003. The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of Accelerated Reader. Journal of Children's Literature 29, no. 2: 16–30.

Lance, K. C. 2002. How school librarians leave no child behind: The impact of school library media programs on academic achievement of U.S. public school students. School Libraries in Canada 22, no. 2: 3–6.

Mabie, H. 2005. Telephone conversation with the author, Mar. 10, 2005.

Manning-Dowd, A. 1985. The effectiveness of SSR: A review of the research ERIC, ED276970.

McCracken, R. A. 1971. Instituting Sustained Silent Reading. Journal of Reading (May): 521–24, 582–83.

Paul, T., D. VanderZee., T. Rue, and S. Swanson. 1996. Impact of the Accelerated Reader on overall academic achievement and school attendance. Madison, Wisc.: The Institute for Academic Excellence.

Paul, T., S. Swanson, W. Zhang, and L. Hehenberger. 1997. Learning information system effects on reading, language arts, math, science and social studies. Madison, Wisc.: The Institute for Academic Excellence. ERIC, ED421686.

Pavonetti, L. M., K. M. Brimmer, and J. F. Cipielewski. 2002/2003. 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 and Adult Literacy 46, no. 4: 300–311. ERIC, EJ659014.

Persinger, J. M. 2001. What are the characteristics of a successful implementation of Accelerated Reader? Knowledge Quest 29, no. 5: 30–35. ERIC, EJ629869.

Pilgreen, J. and S. Krashen. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly 22, 21-23.

Renaissance Learning, Inc. 2002. Reference 11298. Explaining the Renaissance learning quiz selection process. A memo sent via e-mail from Heidi Mabie (Renaissance Learning) to the author, Mar. 10, 2005.

Robbins, C. and L. Ehri. 1994. Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology 86, no. 1: 54–64. ERIC, EJ484331.

School Renaissance Institute. 1999. Idaho statewide implementation of Reading Renaissance: Summary of first year's results. Madison, Wisc.: The Institute for Academic Excellence. ERIC, ED449472.

Scott, L. S. 1999. The Accelerated Reader Program, reading achievement, and attitudes of students with learning disabilities. College of Education and Instructional Technology in the College of Education, Georgia State University. ERIC, ED434431.

Stevenson, J. M. and J. W. Camarata. 2000. Imposters in whole language clothing: Undressing the Accelerated Reader Program. Talking Points 11, no. 2: 8–11. ERIC, EJ640706.

Topping, K. and T. D. Paul. 1999. Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale survey using Accelerated Reader data. Reading and Writing Quarterly 15, no. 3: 213–31. ERIC, EJ598903.

Topping, K. J. and A. M. Fisher. 2001. Accelerated Reader: U.K. Pilot, 1999–2000 summary report. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the International Reading Association World Congress on Reading, July 29–Aug. 1, 2002, at Edinburgh, Scotland. ERIC, ED468244.

Toro, A. 2001. A comparison of reading achievement in second grade students using the Accelerated Reading program and independent reading. Master of Arts Action Research Project, Johnson Bible College. ERIC, ED455510.

Trelease, J. 2001. The Read-Aloud Handbook 5th Edition. Penguin Books adapted for the Web. Accessed Mar. 18, 2005,  www.trelease-on-reading.com/rah_chpt5_p1.html.

Vollands, S. R., K. J. Topping, and R. M. Evans. 1996. Experimental evaluation of computer-assisted self-assessment of reading comprehension: Effects on reading achievement and attitude, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland. ERIC, ED408567.

Collaboration implies mutual interdependence as well as mutual respect. Each of the participants must bring something of value to the collaborative table. Muronaga and Harada (1999) assert that successful collaboration is based on a shared vision, common goals, and a climate of trust and mutual respect. Small (in press) states, "To be motivated to collaborate, all participants must first see some personal value in collaboration and believe that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful collaborative partners." These are prerequisites to establishing a collaborative culture.

Collaborative instructional and curriculum planning is one of the most important roles of the twenty-first century school library media specialist. Effective collaborations between library media specialists and teachers, according to Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning, "helps to create a vibrant and engaged community of learners, strengthens the whole school program as well as the library media program, and develops support for the school library media program throughout the whole school" (AASL and AECT 1998, 51). Yet, there is evidence that these types of librarian-teacher partnerships are not as common as we might like (Haycock, 1999). Haycock asserts that the amount of actual involvement of library media specialists in collaboration with classroom teachers does not match expectations.

Let's step back for a moment and consider the following questions that, when answered, may help us to understand how to remedy this mismatch of actions and expectations.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology houses a wealth of excellent resources on librarian-teacher collaboration. This article draws from that literature to describe some of the recent research on collaboration and some of the suggested guiding principles for fostering successful collaboration. It also presents several ideas for effective collaboration solicited directly from practitioners. Since this article does not provide an exhaustive review of the resources and ideas available, I encourage you, the reader, to seek out additional information within and outside the ERIC Clearinghouse and to share your ideas and successful collaborative experiences with your colleagues. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (ERIC/IT) at Syracuse University launched the first full-text database in the national ERIC system. Users can now search ERIC/IT (www.ericit.org) for more than one thousand of the latest research reports, conference papers, opinion papers, selected articles and other documents in the fields of library science and educational technology, and, with a simple click of the mouse, download the complete document into their computers.

Russell (2000) states that collaboration, in addition to leadership and technology, supports authentic student learning which, he contends, is the "goal of the successful, student-centered library media program." Manzo (2000) cites the research of Lance which found that test scores increase as library media specialists spend more time collaborating with and providing training to teachers, contributing input into curricula, and managing the school's information technology.

Getz (1996) contends that school size and teachers' awareness of librarians and knowledge about what they do, among other factors, affected the likelihood of cooperative work. DeGroff (1997), through a 161-item survey to elementary educators across the U.S., finds that collaboration often manifests itself in more casual rather than systematic ways, which may, itself, also be related to school size. That is, smaller schools may provide more opportunities for less departmentalization and more interactions among educators.

Haycock (1998) notes that flexible scheduling and administrator expectations affected collaboration. Kearney (2000) also stresses the importance of flexible scheduling to facilitate collaboration and recommends the creation of advisory groups and library advocates as one successful strategy for accomplishing this. Callison (1999) finds that library media specialists who have flexible schedules have more time for collaboration.

Hartzell (1997) asserts that one of the major reasons that collaboration with library media specialists is not typically practiced by teachers is that during their teacher training programs they were not exposed to the value-added benefits of cooperative curriculum and instructional planning. Logan (2000) suggests that library media specialists should find ways to teach future classroom teachers about the collaborative possibilities during their student teaching experiences.

A number of informative articles that use a case study approach to describe successful collaboration efforts in a specific school or school district may also be found in ERIC. For example, Abilock and Lusignan (1998) describe the collaborative development of a science-based computer simulation on global warming for a group of sixth graders, Bishop and Larimer (1999) describe how one school district used a collaborative approach to literacy development for students at all levels. Farwell (1998) profiles collaborative projects developed at Miami-Dade elementary schools.

Various authors offer principles for effective collaboration. Callison (1999) suggests the importance of carefully defined roles for each collaborative partner, a comprehensive planning process; shared resources, risks, and control; and continuity over time. Following a two-year, field-based study examining how collaborative partnership roles are defined in an educational community, Jones (2000) formulates three principles for effective collaboration: (1) all partners must support and maintain the collaborative relationship, (2) an integrated curriculum must be developed, and (3) resource-based instruction is enhanced by technology-driven learning.

Awareness of the roles and expertise of library media specialists is also cited as an important factor in creating collaborative partnerships. Hartzell (1997) advocates a proactive approach by library media specialists in their relationships with teachers and suggests one strategy for accomplishing heightened awareness and visibility through greater participation in non-library educational professional organizations and conferences.

• Some practitioners were asked to share their strategies for establishing a collaborative culture in their schools. Their ideas are presented below.
• Begin by establishing a relationship with just one teacher and developing effective collaborative projects. Successful examples of librarian-teacher collaboration can become contagious, creating a demand for other such experiences throughout the school. Success breeds success.
• Be open and friendly with your teachers. Go seek them out because they aren't going to come looking for you. A proactive library media specialist is a critical prerequisite to successful collaboration.
• Volunteer to do staff development workshops on technology. This helps to establish your credibility as an instructor and your expertise in a valuable area for potential collaboration.
• Develop administrator support for flexible scheduling and collaborative planning. Administrator support can make a big difference in how hard or easy it is to create cooperative relationships with teachers.
• Sit in on team or grade-level meetings or other days when planning occurs.
• Study classroom and hallway bulletin boards; find out what is happening and think of ways you might collaborate.
• Get assigned to committees as an initial introduction to working with teachers.
• Submit articles to your district newsletter highlighting student activities related to collaboration projects. Offer to be in class the day the teacher assigns a research project to give a research pep talk.

All of these strategies help to develop a collaborative mentality (Small, in press) in which all collaborative partners understand the importance and benefits of collaboration to themselves, each other, and their students.

If you have proven strategies for fostering a collaborative culture in your school and would like to add them to this list, please email them to me at drruth@syr.edu.

Abilock, D. and M. Lusignan 1998. Teacher-librarian collaboration in practice: Global warming. Book Report 17, no.1: 42–45.

American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communication and Technology. 1998. Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association.

Bishop, K. and N. Larimer.1999. Literacy through collaboration. Teacher-Librarian 27, no.1: 15–20.

Callison, D. 1999. Keywords in instruction: Collaboration. School Library Media Activities Monthly 15, no.5: 38–40.

Commeyras, M. and L. DeGroff. 1998. Literacy professional' perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly 33, no. 4: 434–72

Farwell, S. 1998. Successful Models for Collaborative Planning. Knowledge Quest 26, no. 2: 24–30.

Getz, I. 1996. Attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers toward working with school librarians. School Libraries 2, no.1: 59–70.

Hartzell, G. N. 1997. The invisible school librarian: Why other educators are blind to your value. School Library Journal 43, no. 11: 24–29.

Haycock, K. 1999. What works: Collaborative program planning and teaching. Teacher-Librarian 27, no. 1. Accessed Feb. 20, 2002, www.teacherlibrarian.com/whatworks27,1.html.

———. 1998. What works: Collaborative cultures, team planning and flexible scheduling. Teacher-Librarian 25, no. 5: 28.

Jones, J. R. 2000. Developing a teacher-librarian partnership in a literature-based approach. Paper presented at the 18th International Reading Association World Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand, July 11–14, 2000. ERIC, ED 447488.

Kearney, C. A. 2000. Curriculum partner: Redefining the role of the library media specialist. Greenwood Professional Guides in School Librarianship. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ERIC, ED 44877.

Logan, D. K. 2000. Dear student teacher, you are invited . . . educating the future educators, Book Report 19, no.1: 15–17.

Manzo, K. K. 2000. Study shows rise in test scores tied to school library resources. Education Week on the Web. Accessed Feb. 20, 2002, www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28libe.h19.

Muronaga, K. and K. Harada. 1999. The art of collaboration. Teacher-Librarian 27, no. 1: 9–14.

Russell, S. 2000. Teachers and librarians: Collaborative relationships. ERIC Digest. (ED 444605). http://ericit.org/digests/EDO-IR-2000-06.shtml.

Small. R. V. (in press). Collaboration: Where does it begin? Teacher-Librarian. (This article will be published by Teacher-Librarian, projected date June 2002.)

[Back to Top]

Through the 1990s an innovative approach to structuring the school day, called block scheduling, enjoyed widespread adoption in American secondary schools. Block scheduling allows schools to break from the traditional fixed-time class periods in order to implement a schedule that is flexible enough to allow extended sessions for courses that would benefit from more time. Theoretically, block scheduling is intended to provide classroom teachers and students with more time to (1) thoroughly cover a particular subject area, (2) integrate different perspectives on a single unit (e.g., history, English, and science approach to studying the impact of technology on American life), and (3) devote to research projects, class discussions, lab experiments, etc. A primary goal of block scheduling is to structure time in a way that maximizes student learning within each course while providing teachers with enough time for planning and collaboration (Durkin 1997).

As with most educational innovations, the case for block scheduling sparked debate. Many schools that have implemented block scheduling have reported their good and bad experiences in a wide variety of publications.

There is no lack of information on this topic. The Web alone has more than one million sites addressing this topic. A search of the ERIC database reveals three full-text ERIC Digests and abstracts of more than 500 ERIC (ED) documents, journal articles, and monographs devoted to the topic of block scheduling. However, only ten of those documents focus on block scheduling in the context of the school library media center, and none reports findings based on designed research studies.

This article briefly describes the topic, lists some of the pros and cons, and addresses the implications of block scheduling for library media services and resources drawn from various sources found through the ERIC database. It concludes with some ideas for researchers and practitioners on conducting research in this area.

Block scheduling has been described as a reorganization of school time around longer class periods (Scheduling Foreign Languages 1998; Zepeda 1999). While there are many alternative methods for structuring the school day, block scheduling appears to be the most frequently implemented in American schools. The most well-known and widely used model of block scheduling is the Copernican model as advocated by Joseph Carroll. With the Copernican model, students attend longer classes in a shorter period of time (e.g., a 2.5-hour class for two subjects within a ten-week semester) (Wronkovich 1998; Durkin 1997). By 1999 close to one half of all U.S. high schools had implemented some form of block scheduling (Zepeda 1999).

A number of advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling have been described in the literature found in ERIC. Some of the potential positive effects of block scheduling are:

• It enables teachers to use strategies that promote active learning and student motivation (Teger 1996).
• It provides more time for students to study material in depth and use computers (Marshak 1998; Teger 1996)
• It allows more time for individualized attention and student evaluation. (Black 1998; Marshak 1998; Skrobarcek et al. 1997)
• It allows more time for mentoring, action research, and professional development (Zepeda 1999).
• It requires less time for management tasks, such as attendance and equipment set-up (Eineder and Bishop 1997)
• There is less interruption, more student accountability for their own learning, better planning and implemention of lessons (Marshak 1998; Teger 1996).
• There is more time for principals to observe educators and give feedback (Zepeda 1999).
• Fewer physical transitions from class to class often results in a decrease of disciplinary problems (Cobb et al. 1999; Santos and Rettig 1999; Irmscher 1996, ED393156).
• Alternative scheduling may have a positive impact on drop-out rates. (Sharman 1990).

• It may negatively affect students with short attention spans, particularly those with some types of learning disabilities (Santos and Rettig 1999)
• Different blocks in different semesters may affect end-of-year school and national tests (Wronkovich 1998).
• It may present difficulties for transfer students (both in and out) and for students who miss several days or weeks due to illness, death in family, etc. (Hamdy 1998).
• Research on the impact of block scheduling on student learning is mixed (Black 1998)
• Spaced learning may be superior to concentrated learning particularly for some subject areas (Scheduling Foreign Languages 1998; Hamdy 1998)
• Students may experience significant gaps of time between linked subjects or topics. (Wronkovich, 1998)

I'm still surprised when teachers and administrators underestimate the amount, level, and importance of the library media specialist's (LMS) teaching role. I'm even more surprised when this role is questioned by some of my students and even some practitioners (as in a recent discussion on LM_NET). You have probably found, as I have, that teaching activities often consume a significant portion of the LMS's day, ranging from one-on-one individualized instruction to group training offered to a variety of learning audiences including students, teachers, administrators, library staff, parents, community groups, and school boards.

A search of the ERIC database revealed some early support for the LMS as teacher. Using a wide variety of publications appearing in the library science literature (e.g., opinion papers, guidelines, research studies) between 1951 and 1984, Craver (1986) traced the teaching role of the high school LMS. Her study revealed a progression of support for more of a teaching orientation for LMSs. According to Craver, "(l)ibrarians evolved from providing occasional library instruction to teaching course-integrated units" (p. 37). However, she warns that this evolution may have been more the result of the general sweeping changes in education during that time period than a widespread adoption of the teaching role by practitioners.

With the publication of Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs in 1988, the integral role of the LMS in providing curriculum-integrated information and technology skills instruction was recognized. Information Power cited teaching as one of three major roles for the LMS. In that same year, Ormondroyd (1988), advocating a greater teaching role for her academic library colleagues, found research support for involvement in course-integrated library instruction. She discovered a number of positive student outcomes resulting from such instruction, including improvement in the quality of coursework, higher grades, fewer complaints about grading, eradication of plagarism, and greater retention of research skills, as well as two important outcomes for librarians—greater prestige and improved relations with both faculty and students.

With the publication of Information Power, several research studies examining the instructional role of the LMS began appearing in ERIC. For example, Haycock (1989) published a summary of research findings on a number of topics related to professional practice at the K–12 level. Similar to what Ormondroyd reported at the college level, he found that cooperative planning and teaching by the classroom teacher and LMS resulted in greater student competence in research and study skills than when either professional taught alone. Moreover, students rated schools higher when this type of integrated instruction occurred.

Carr (1990) called attention to the urgent need to teach curriculum-integrated, thinking process skills, including critical reading and problem solving, at all levels of education. Around the same time, Millbrook Press commissioned a study examining the changing role of the school library. Using the results of interviews and surveys with elementary, middle, and high school librarians as well as principals and superintendents, The Millbrook Report indicated that more than one-quarter (27 percent) of a LMS's time is spent in class instruction and teacher training. This amounted to more than 13 hours per week in which the LMS is involved in teaching activities.

In a study the following year, Ceperley (1991) surveyed more than 2,000 school library media specialists in four states using a 42-item questionnaire to determine their perceived training needs. With a 38 percent response rate, she found that perceptions of the importance of the teaching role differed among LMSs, depending on their differing levels of educational preparation. This finding was consistent with the Millbrook data, which indicated that certified librarians spent an average of over five hours more in the teaching role than those without professional certification.

Tallman and van Deusen (1994) investigated the impact of several factors on the perception and implementation of both the instructional consultation and teaching roles of the elementary LMS. Among the factors they found most enhanced the likelihood of LMSs performing these roles were principal expectations, flexible or mixed scheduling, and more time spent in collaborative planning with teachers.

In a discussion of the school librarian's role in the "electronic age," Simpson reiterates the importance of the LMS's instructional role in teaching both information literacy skills and the ethical use of retrieved materials to both students and teachers. For this latter group, she cites staff development as constituting a significant portion of a LMS's time.

Unfortunately, there have been few studies on the teaching role of the LMS in the past few years. The need to continue to examine this role offers a wonderful opportunity for both researchers and practitioners in the field. The growing importance of technology for teaching and learning has expanded that opportunity. For example, what are the best methods for teaching teachers and students how to effectively use technology for teaching and learning? What is the impact of information and technology literacy instruction on the way teachers teach and the way students learn? Has the need for technology training increased the amount of time the LMS spends in the role of instructor? Is LMS-teacher cooperative planning and team teaching of information technology skills more effective than the same instruction conducted by only one or the other? What kinds of experiences (e.g., courses, internships) must pre-service library and information science graduate programs provide to school library media students to best prepare them for their teaching role? Investigating and reporting the answers to such questions through quality research studies will help to increase our importance within our schools and districts and continue to heighten the stature of our profession.

Works Cited

Carr, Kathryn S. 1990. How Can We Teach Critical Thinking? ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ED326304)

Ceperley, Patricia E. 1991. Information Needs 2000: Results of a Survey of Library Media Specialists. (ED340393)

Craver, Kathleen W. 1986. The Changing Instructional Role of the High School Librarian. Occasional Papers Number 173. (ED272219)

Haycock, Ken, Comp. (1989). Summary of EL Research Findings to Date. What Works. Research: The Implications for Professional Practice. (ED327181)

Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs. 1988. American Library Association and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ED315028)

The Millbrook Report: The Changing Role of the School Library. 1990. Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press, Inc. (ED340392)

Ormondroyd, Joan. 1988. Course Integrated Library Instruction. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ED306960)

Simpson, Carol. 1996. The School Librarian's Role in the Electronic Age. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ED402928)

Tallman, Julie I., and Jean Donham van Deusen. 1994. Collaborative Unit Planning—Schedule, Time, and Participants. Part Three: The 1993-94 AASL/Highsmith Research Award Study. School Library Media Quarterly 23, no.1: 33–37. (EJ493343)

[Back to Top]

Often we rely on our own personal experiences to make policy decisions or as a basis for creating new programs or services. But if your own experiences aren't enough to convince your teacher or LMS colleagues, administrators or school boards, you can find empirical support in a widely accessible resource—the ERIC database. Many outstanding research studies "got their start" in ERIC before being published as a book or journal article. A little Boolean logic and a simple keystroke will put you in touch with some interesting and valuable research conducted by researchers and practitioners.

The purpose of this SLMR special feature is to highlight some of the best research and research-based publications found in ERIC on a number of timely and important topics. Within each review we'll include links to full-text ERIC digests and complete citations for locating ERIC documents and journal articles found in the ERIC collection.

We hope to encourage both researchers and practitioners to contribute to our professional knowledge by initiating new or building upon existing research of interest to the school library media community. If you feel motivated to conduct such research, you might want to consider submitting your completed article or report for acceptance into the ERIC database. You'll be helping to build and improve this extraordinary information resource. Remember, you can submit your work to ERIC and still publish it elsewhere. (For author guidelines, visit the ERIC Web site at http://ericir.syr.edu/ithome/bnauthor.htm.)

Topics:

• the teaching role
• block scheduling
• distance education
• storytelling
• multiple intelligences
• information literacy
• learning styles
• cooperative/collaborative learning
• classroom management
• authentic assessment
• active learning
• student motivation

[Back to Top]