1. No category

May 2015
Special Report:
Trends in Student Outcome Measures:
The Role of Individualized Reading Practice
ACCELERATED READER™
STUDY BY THE NUMBERS
Over 2.8
million students
50 states
plus D.C.
Over 27,000 schools
and 12,000 districts
Study overview
This study examined patterns of growth and expected college and career
AR 360™, the latest version of
readiness according to the extent of individualized reading practice
accomplished by students. Accelerated Reader 360 (AR 360), the latest
AR™, provides a balance of
version of Accelerated Reader (AR), provides a balance of independent
independent reading practice
reading practice with nonfiction reading and close-reading skills practice.
For the purpose of this study, we focused on the independent reading
with nonfiction reading and
practice component of the program. We drew upon large databases
close-reading skills practice.
comprising over 2.8 million students to compare independent reading
practice as tracked by AR with the typical performance of students who
do not use the program. Whether examined by grade or by populations of interest (struggling readers, English learners,
and students in free or reduced lunch programs), independent reading practice with AR was associated with better student
performance and higher levels of annual growth. And notably, the better the program was implemented, the better the
outcomes were for students.
Outcome measures examined were student growth percentiles (SGPs), which conveyed how each student grew relative
to their academic peers,1 and percentile ranks (PRs) aligned to college- and career-readiness achievement levels (using the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium assessment), which revealed end-of-year performance.
Results: Overall, students using AR™ experienced better than expected growth
The median student growth percentile (SGP) was higher for students using Accelerated Reader, meaning AR students realized
more annual growth than students not using the program. The better AR was implemented, the more students grew. (See
page 5 for more information on the outcome measures and implementation categories.)
Students using AR were also more likely to meet the college- and career-readiness benchmark. Nationwide, about 40% of
students in each grade are expected to meet new college- and career-readiness (CCR) benchmarks—consistent with these
expectations, 39% of students not using AR met end-of-year benchmark PRs. The better AR was implemented—Moderate to
Best Practice use—the more students were likely to be proficient.
College and career readiness
60
70%
55
50
51
54
56
Percent proficient
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentiles
45
40
35
30
60%
57%
50%
40%
30%
66%
39%
20%
10%
0%
Total sample
Total sample
Students using AR™ grow
significantly more than students
who do not use AR. The better AR is
implemented, the more students grow.
Students completing the
recommended amount of reading
with AR™ are nearly twice as likely
to be college and career ready as
students not using AR. This means a
much higher likelihood of success on
the new summative tests.
1 SGPs range from 1 to 99, with higher values indicating more progress and 50 being typical annual growth. Academic peers are students in the same grade with
similar pretest scores.
2
High-interest populations
The same trends were observed for struggling readers (defined as students with a pretest PR of 25 or less), English learners,
and students in free or reduced lunch programs.
Student growth percentile
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
Student growth percentiles
64
62
52
55
52
50
45
53
45
40
35
30
Struggling readers (grades 1–12)
English learners (grades 1–12)
Student growth percentiles
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentiles
60
55
50
45
55
57
49
40
35
30
Free and reduced lunch (grades 1–12)
Non-AR student
Moderate AR use
Best Practice AR use
College and career readiness: Struggling readers, grades 1–12
Compared to students who did not use AR™,
• Moderate AR users were 2.4 times more likely to be college and career ready
• AR Best Practices users were 2.8 times more likely to be college and career ready
College and career readiness: English learners, grades 1–12
Compared to students who did not use AR™,
• Moderate AR users were 4.1 times more likely to be college and career ready
• AR Best Practices users were 4.8 times more likely to be college and career ready
College and career readiness: Free and reduced lunch, grades 1–12
Compared to students who did not use AR™,
• Moderate AR users were 2.2 times more likely to be college and career ready
• AR Best Practices users were 2.5 times more likely to be college and career ready
3
Results by grade: Elementary school
In elementary school grades, quality of AR implementation was associated with more growth. AR students had higher SGPs,
and the better AR was implemented, the more likely students were to achieve accelerated rates of growth. For grades 3
through 5, where college- and career-readiness benchmarks begin, AR users were more likely to be proficient, which rose
with better use of the program.
2
College and career readiness
60
55
50
45
54
56
Percent proficient
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentiles
50
40
35
30
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Elementary (grades 1–5)
60%
68%
46%
Elementary (grades 3–5)
2
Results by grade: Middle school
In middle school grades, quality of AR implementation was associated with more growth. AR students had higher SGPs,
and the better AR was implemented, the more students grew. AR quality was also associated with more students achieving
college- and career-readiness benchmarks.
College and career readiness
60
70%
55
50
51
54
56
Percent proficient
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentiles
45
40
35
30
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
33%
10%
0%
Middle school (grades 6–8)
Middle school (grades 6–8)
2 College- and career-readiness benchmarks are available for grades 3–8.
4
Results by grade: High school
In high school grades, quality of AR implementation was associated with more growth. AR students had higher SGPs, and the
better AR was implemented, the more students grew.
Student growth percentile
Student growth percentiles
65
60
55
50
59
54
62
45
40
35
30
High school (grades 9–12)
About the analysis
To explore how AR use relates to growth in general reading ability, we explored Accelerated Reader and STAR Reading data
from the 2013–2014 school year. The sample consisted of students who both participated in the AR program3 and completed
STAR Reading pre- and posttests.4 The final data set included information for over 2.8 million students5 in grades 1–12.
The sample was divided into three groups:
• Typical students: did not use AR
• Students with Moderate AR use: had 85% or higher average percent correct on AR Quizzes (the target comprehension
range) and 15–29 minutes of engaged reading time
• Students with Best Practice AR use: utilized AR according to research-based recommendations—85% or higher average
percent correct on quizzes and at least 30 minutes of engaged reading time
We measured student growth using student growth percentiles. Interpreted much like percentile ranks, SGPs range
from 1 to 99, with higher values indicating more progress and 50 being typical annual growth. Scores above 50 indicate
accelerated growth, a particularly important outcome for students working below grade level who need to grow faster in
order to catch up.
SGPs are a widely accepted indicator of student progress used by many states for a variety of purposes including instructional
decisions and accountability reports. Though easily interpreted, SGP calculations are based on a sophisticated normativegrowth analysis technique that both accounts for initial performance levels and provides appropriate context to evaluate
whether students are growing at a typical rate.
In addition to measuring growth, we used percentile ranks (PRs) aligned to achievement levels on the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC) college- and career-readiness assessment to evaluate end-of-year performance (see Gewertz,
2014).6 Based on their posttest PRs, students in grades 3–8 were classified as likely to be either Proficient (Levels 3 and 4) or
Not Proficient (Levels 1 or 2) on the SBAC.
3
4
5
6
Participating in program meant taking five or more AR Reading Practice Quizzes during the school year
Pretest was first assessment taken from August–November; posttest was last assessment taken from April–July.
N = 2,851,404
Gewertz, C. (2014, November 17). Cutoff scores set for common-core tests. Education Weekly. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/17/13sbac.h34.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1
5
Note: Program use was voluntary (students were not recruited nor randomly assigned to a particular comparison group) and
results should be considered correlational, not causal. While trends presented are helpful to understand patterns of growth
at a high level, educators should rely most heavily on causal evidence, which generally requires an experimental or quasiexperimental design. Such evidence is currently available for Accelerated Reader (see Research base, below).
Individualized practice with Accelerated Reader™
Accelerated Reader software provides teachers with a comprehensive
program to motivate, monitor, and manage student reading practice.
Research-based guidelines, goal-setting features, and tools for matching
students with appropriate texts promote individualized reading practice
that is shown to optimize academic growth. AR Quizzes are available
for nearly 170,000 books, about half of which are nonfiction titles.
Available books can be found by parents using AR BookFinder
(http://www.arbookfind.com) or by students within the program using the
Discovery Bookshelf, which displays titles that may be a good fit for each
student based on previous reading history, reading level, and popularity.
Research base: AR™ stands out
Currently, the research base supporting AR as a highly cost-effective
program comprises 176 studies, of which there are:
AR 360™—the newest version of AR™—
also supports instructional reading
practice. Using a collection of highinterest digital articles, educators can
easily identify, level, and distribute
relevant informational text on a platform
that addresses three common elements
in standards reform: (1) more nonfiction
reading, (2) reading practice with
increased text complexity, and (3) the
ability to cite text evidence.
• 31 experimental or quasi-experimental studies (generally considered
the strongest designs)
• 27 studies published in peer-reviewed journals
• 150 studies led independently
The following are examples of independently conducted, peer-reviewed experimental studies of AR:
• Shannon, Styers, Wilkerson, and Peery (2015) found that urban students
in classes assigned to use Accelerated Reader experienced significantly
higher gains compared to non-AR students.7
• Nunnery and Ross (2007) found higher test scores for students in Texas
could be attributed to Accelerated Reader, and better AR implementation
led to larger gains.8
AR™ is one of the most heavily
researched educational programs
in the world. Causal studies, peerreviewed articles, and independent
evaluations support AR’s effectiveness.
• Topping and Sanders (2000) found that for Tennessee teachers using
Accelerated Reader, a higher volume of reading practice yielded higher test
scores for students.9
Independent technical reviews
In addition to its large body of research support, AR has received favorable reviews from notable independent organizations:
• Promising Practices Network: AR is a “proven program” that boosts student reading achievement
(http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=292).
• National Dropout Prevention Center/Network: AR has “strong evidence of effectiveness”
(http://www.dropoutprevention.org/modelprograms/show_program.php?pid=316).
• National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: AR meets the technical standards of a progress monitoring tool
(http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004100821GG6E03.pdf).
7 Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., Wilkerson, S. B., & Peery, E. (2015). Computer-assisted learning in elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Computers in the
Schools, 32(1), 20–34.
8 Nunnery, J. A., & Ross, S. M. (2007). The effects of the School Renaissance program on student achievement in reading and mathematics.
Research in the Schools, 14(1), 40–59.
9 Topping, K. J., & Sanders, W. L. (2000). Teacher effectiveness and computer assessment of reading: Relating value-added and learning information systems data.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 305–337.
6
Conclusion
As this study of over 2.8 million students in grades 1–12
demonstrates, students using AR grew significantly more
than students not using the program and were nearly
twice as likely to be college and career ready. These results
held true for all grades and populations of interest (struggling
readers, English learners, and students in free or reduced
lunch programs) and rose with the level of program use.
Along with important outcomes for
independent reading, AR 360™—the
latest version of AR™—offers students
high-interest nonfiction articles,
practice with close-reading skills, and
experience with technology found on
the new summative assessments.
Along with important outcomes for independent reading,
AR 360—the latest version of AR—offers students high-interest
nonfiction articles, practice with close-reading skills, and
experience with technology found on the new summative
assessments. In addition to providing teachers an easy way to expose students to more informational text, each article
includes built-in practice with the transferable skills necessary for success on summative assessments such as the Smarter
Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), as well
as exposure to technology they will experience while being assessed.
Educators who use AR 360 and use it well can rest assured they are taking important steps towards readying their students for
what is ahead, both in the classroom and beyond.
7
© 2015 Renaissance Learning, Inc. All logos, designs, and brand names for Renaissance Learning’s products and services, including but not limited to Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Reader 360,
AR, AR 360, AR BookFinder, Renaissance Learning, and STAR Reading, are trademarks of Renaissance Learning, Inc., and its subsidiaries, registered, common law, or pending registration in the
United States and other countries. All other product and company names should be considered the property of their respective companies and organizations.
Renaissance Learning™
PO Box 8036 Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8036
(800) 338-4204 www.renaissance.com
R58148.0515