Accelrated Reader Program: What do Teachers Really Think
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What do teachers really think about the Accelerated Reader program, a widely used supplemental, independent reading program in which their students read fiction and non-fiction books of their choice and take brief online comprehension quizzes about the books? The Accelerated Reader (AR) program was designed by Renaissance Learning Company to increase students’ motivation to read and students’ achievement in reading; however, a review of the literature reveals inconsistent findings about its outcomes. Very few studies have been conducted seeking teacher input as to whether the program to achieves its intended outcomes. The goal of this study is to survey teachers (Grades 3 – 8) who use AR as a curricular component of their literacy program. We sought to learn about how teachers use the program and perceive its effectiveness as well as how it impacts their students’ interest and achievement in reading. We gathered data using an online questionnaire from teachers in urban, rural, exurban and suburban school settings in both elementary and middle schools. Teachers were asked to respond to items based on a 4 –point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree including an open-ended response section.The respondents were primarily from suburban and exurban districts and they have been using the program between 1-15 years. Most of the teachers indicated their students enjoy the program and most teachers require their students to take the AR quizzes.Results indicate most teachers believe that Accelerated Reader program motivates their students to read; however, they also recognize that AR is largely an accountability measure ensuring that their students read independently. Additionally, teachers recognize that AR measures comprehension at knowledge-recall level and is not an overall strong indicator of reading comprehension. Therefore, some teachers have made their own modifications to the program.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle