|
|
Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J., & Goldfeder, E. (2004). A randomized experiment on the effects of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance in an urban school district: Preliminary evaluation report. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Additional source:
Nunnery J., Ross, S., & McDonald, A. (2006). A randomized experimental evaluation of the impact of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance implementation on reading achievement in grades 3 to 6. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 1–18.
Bullock, J. C. (2005). Effects of the Accelerated Reader on reading performance of third, fourth, and fifth-grade students in one western Oregon elementary school. University of Oregon; 0171 Advisor: Gerald Tindal. DAI, 66 (07A), 56-2529.
None.
Algozzine, B. (2006). Promoting academic success for all students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(3), 142. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Allington, R. L. (2006). Critical factors in designing an effective reading intervention for struggling readers. In C. Cummins (Ed.), Understanding and implementing reading first initiatives: The changing role of administrators. International Reading Association. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Bailey, C. (2007). Winning the Accelerated Reader game: The effects of student choice and peer sharing on attitudes toward independent reading in an Accelerated Reader program. In D. A. McAllister, & S. C. Fritch (Eds.), Culminating experience action research projects, volume 8, part 1, spring 2006. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Balajthy, E. (2007). Technology and current reading/literacy assessment strategies. Reading Teacher, 61(3), 240–247. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Bielby, L. (2005). Accelerated Reader student reading program: An investigative study of student reading level growth as affected by the Accelerated Reader reading program. Unpublished (61356680). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Blair, H. B. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to choose and implement effective methods for teaching emergent readers. East Tennessee State University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Brem, S., Husman, J., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Findings from a three-year study of Reading Renaissance in a title I urban elementary school. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Calhoun, V. L. (2007). The effects of a supplemental program on the reading achievement of learning-disabled students. Capella University; 1351 Advisor: Ted Ray. DAI, 68 (04A), 131-1238. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Callard-Szulgit, R. (2005). Teaching the gifted in an inclusion classroom: activities that work. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200, Lanham, MD. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Christianson, P. (2005). Is Accelerated Reader a viable reading enhancement program for an elementary school. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Cunningham, P. (2005). “If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good?”. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 88–90. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
DiLuzio, M. (1999). California students achieve 28 percent higher Stanford reading scores after only one semester of Accelerated Reader implementation. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Elmore, O. C. (2005). Analysis of the principal’s perceptions of the implementation and impact of the Accelerated Reader and other selected reading strategies used by Texas gold performance elementary schools. Texas A&M University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Everhart, N., Dresang, E. T., & Kotrla, B. (2005). Accelerated Reader and information policy, information literacy, and knowledge management: US and international implications. Information Leadership in a Culture of Change: Conference Proceedings 2005, July 8–12, 2005, Hong Kong. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Facemire, N. E. (2000). The effect of the Accelerated Reader on the reading comprehension of third graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, Salem-Teikyo University, Salem, WV. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442097) The study did not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Focarile, D. A. (2006). The Accelerated Reader program and students’ attitude towards reading. Unpublished. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Franklin, P., & Stephens, C. G. (2006). Manage your computerized reading program—before it manages you! School Library Media Activities Monthly, 23(4), 47–49. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Franks, J. (2007). Using Accelerated Reading as a motivator in the classroom. In D. A. McAllister, & S. C. Fritch (Eds.), Culminating experience action research projects, volume 7, fall 2005. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Friesen, C. (2001). Improving reading in grade three students. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. The study did not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Ganter, J. (2000). Capture the power of reading. Illinois Libraries, 82(3), 176–180. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Goodman, G. (1999). The Reading Renaissance/Accelerated Reader Program. Pinal county school-to-work evaluation report. Tucson, AZ: Creative Research, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427299) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Groce, R. D., & Groce, E. C. (2005). Deconstructing the Accelerated Reader program. Reading Horizons, 46(1), 17–30. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Hagerman, T. E. (2003). A quasi-experimental study on the effects of Accelerated Reader at middle school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 2027A. (UMI No. 3095250) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Hart, S. S. (2007). Accelerated Reader in a primary school: An evaluation of time spent on classroom implementation and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(4-A), 1384. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Holman, G. G. (1998). Correlational study to determine the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading comprehension of fourth and fifth grade students in Early County, Georgia (Fourth-Grade, Blakely, Reading Practice). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(03), 0771A. (UMI No. 9826801) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Holmes, C. T., & Brown C. L. (2002). A controlled evaluation of a total school improvement process, School Renaissance. Athens: University of Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474261) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Student goal orientation and formative assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 355–359. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Johnson, R. A. (2003). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading comprehension of pupils in grades three, four, and five. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 87–96. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Kambarian, V. N., Jr. (2001). The role of reading instruction and the effect of a reading management system on at-risk students. Doctoral digest, Saint Louis University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461835) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Kerns, G. M. (2005). Moving from good to great: The evolution of learning information systems in Milford school district (Delaware). Unpublished. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Knox, M. L. (1996). An experimental study of the effects of ‘the Accelerated Reader Program’ and a teacher directed program on reading comprehension and vocabulary of fourth and fifth grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10), 4208A. (UMI No. 9710798) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Kohel, P. R. (2003). Using Accelerated Reader: Its impact on the reading levels and Delaware state testing scores of 10th grade students in Delaware’s Milford High School. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10), 3507A. (UMI No. 3067785) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Krashen, S. (2005). Accelerated Reader: Evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest, 33(3), 48–49. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Kyllo, A. (2004). Does Accelerated Reader have positive and motivational effects on student reading levels and student attitude toward reading? In T. F. Sherman, & M. Lundquist (Eds.), Winona state university anthology of K-12 language arts action research. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lawson, S. (2000). Accelerated Reader boosts student achievement. California School Library Association Journal, 23(2), 11–12. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Lenko, S. L., Rowan University, & College of Education. (2005). The effects of a teacher’s active role in Accelerated Reader with elementary students. Unpublished. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Mallette, M. H., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (2004). The influence of Accelerated Reader on the affective learning orientations of intermediate grade students. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 72–75. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Mansell, W. (2005). Literacy quizzes hold the answer. Times Educational Supplement, (4642), p. 3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Martinez, S. (2007). A survey research of reading methods used by New Mexico middle school teachers. Kansas State University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
McDurmon, A. (2001). The effects of guided and repeated reading on English language learners. Unpublished master’s WWC Topic Report Beginning Reading August 13, 2007 thesis, Berry College, Mount Berry, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Melton, C. M., Smothers, B. C., & Anderson, E. (2004). A study of the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on fifth grade students’ reading achievement growth. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 18–23. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S. M., & Goldfeder, E. (2003). The effect of School Renaissance on TAAS scores in the McKinney ISD. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Nunnery, J. A., & Ross, S. M. (2003). The effect of School Renaissance on student achievement in two Mississippi school districts. Center for Research in Education Policy and Education Innovations, 42. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the timeframe specified in the protocol.
Ostrom, J. (2007). A study of reading achievement of students participating in the Accelerated Reader program. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Pappas, D. N. (2006). Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components applied to class-wide performance in the Accelerated Reader program. The University of Tennessee; 0226 Advisor: Christopher Skinner. DAI, 67 (10A), 79-3713. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Paul, T. D. (2003). Guided independent reading: An examination of the reading practice database and the scientific research supporting guided independent reading as implemented in Reading Renaissance. Retrieved from Renaissance Learning website: http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/165.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Peak, J., & Dewalt, M. W. (1994). Reading achievement: Effects of computerized reading management and enrichment. ERS Spectrum, 12(1), 31–34. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Poppe, R. L. (2005). Reading motivation in upper elementary students: how children explain reading for pleasure. University of Central Florida. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Pugh, T. (2005). Accelerated Reader: The effects on California standards test scores. Unpublished thesis. Turlock, California: California State University - Stanislaus. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Putman, S. M. (2004). Effects of Accelerated Reader on reading motivation and achievement of fourth-grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(02), 415A. (UMI No. 3123939) The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Putman, S. M. (2005). Computer-based reading technology in the classroom: The affective influence of performance contingent point accumulation of 4th grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(1), 19–38. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2001). Arkansas school sees schoolwide improvements in reading achievement. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/114.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2002). Results from a three-year statewide implementation of Reading Renaissance in Idaho: Including a review of the first two years of Reading Renaissance implementation. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/106.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2005). Washington school dramatically improves reading and math state test scores. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/194.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2005). Florida school improves from a "C" to an "A" on the Florida A+ accountability plan. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/193.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2005). Iowa school boosts ITBS reading and math scores. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/204.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). Accelerated Reader: Understanding reliability and validity. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/212.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). An increase in Delaware student testing program (DSTP) reading scores and improved student attitudes about reading accredited to Reading Renaissance. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/
207.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). Reading and math state test scores climb at rural Texas school. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/210.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). Kentucky school district makes great strides in reading with AR. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/214.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). Iowa elementary school pairs best practices with student motivation and sees significant gains in ITBS scores. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/245.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2007). Reading more and monitoring progress spell success for Texas elementary school. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/251.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Renaissance Learning. (2007). Test scores on the rise and library growth skyrocketing at Indiana elementary school. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/249.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Richmond, R. F. (2005). The effectiveness of the mentoring program, Men of Ross Elementary program (MORE), on improving the reading achievement of African-American males (Tennessee). Union University; 1485 Advisor: Chair Jennifer Grove. DAI, 66 (11A), 109-3917. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Roberts, L. (2006). A handbook for the successful implementation of Accelerated Reader in the classroom. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Rodriguez, S. (2007). The Accelerated Reader program’s relationship to student achievement on the English-language arts California standards test. Reading Matrix, 7(3). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Rodriguez-Blanco, O. (2006). The impact of the Accelerated Reader program on third grade/fourth grade bilingual students’ TAKS reading scores in a south Texas border town. Texas A&M University–Kingsville; 1187 Advisor: Emma A. Garza. DAI, 68 (01A), 95-58. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Ross, S. M., & Nunnery, J. A. (2005). The effect of School Renaissance on student achievement in two Mississippi school districts. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Additional source:
Ross, S., Nunnery, J., Avis, A., & Borek, T. (2005). The effects of School Renaissance on student achievement in two Mississippi school districts: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Rudd, P., & Wade, P. (2006). Evaluation of Renaissance Learning mathematics and reading programs in UK specialist and feeder schools. The study did not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Sadusky, L. A., & Brem, S. K. (2002). The integration of Renaissance programs into an urban Title I elementary school, and its effect on school-wide improvement. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Samuels, S. J., & Wu, Y. C. (2003). The effects of immediate feedback on reading achievement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Samuels, S. J., Lewis, M., Wu, Y. C., Reininger, J., & Murphy, A. (2004). Accelerated Reader vs. non-Accelerated Reader: How students using the Accelerated Reader outperformed the control condition in a tightly controlled experimental study. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Schmidt, R. (2008). Really reading: What does Accelerated Reader teach adults and children? Language Arts, (3), 202–211. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
School Renaissance Institute. (2000). South Bay Union School District, Imperial Beach California: Informational report on Accelerated Reader. Retrieved from http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/73.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
School Renaissance Institute. (2001). Early literacy survey: How Renaissance supports Reading Excellence Act (REA) goals. Madison, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454496) The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Schreiber, M. J. (2005). Factors affecting the efficacy of an Accelerated Reader program: A case study. Widener University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Scott, L. S. (1999). The Accelerated Reader program, reading achievement, and attitudes of students with learning disabilities. Atlanta: Georgia State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434431) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Smith-Rogers, M. (2006). The Accelerated Reader program: A review of student attitudes toward reading. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Stanfield, G. M. (2006). Incentives: The effects on reading attitude and reading behaviors of third-grade students. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Steele, C. T. (2003). The effectiveness of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading level of second-grade students as measured by the student test for assessment of reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03), 845A. (UMI No. 3080207) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
The Carmel Hill Fund Education Program. (2007). Evaluation of 2005–2006 school results: The Carmel Hill Fund Education Program. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Topping, K. J., & Paul, T. (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale survey using Accelerated Reader data. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(3), 213–231. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Topping, K. J., & Sanders, W. L. (2000). Teacher effectiveness and computer assessment of reading: Relating value added and learning information system data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 305–337. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Additional source:
Renaissance Learning. (2000). Accelerated Reader and Reading Renaissance lead to increased teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from Renaissance Learning website: http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/19.pdf
Topping, K. J. (2006). Accelerated Reader in specialist schools. Dundee, Scotland: Centre for Peer Learning, University of Dundee. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Topping, K. J., Samuels, J., & Paul, T. (2007). Computerized assessment of independent reading: Effects of implementation quality on achievement gain. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 18(2), 191–208. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Topping, K. J., Samuels, J., & Paul, T. (2007). Does practice make perfect? Independent reading quantity, quality and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 253–264. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. What research has to say about fluency instruction. International Reading Association. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Townsend, K. (2007). Accelerated Reader: Optimal conditions for reading achievement using a computer information system. University of Illinois at Chicago. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(6-A), 2327. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, R. M. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action research. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 197–211. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Walasek, M. (2005). A study of the Accelerated Reader program on third grade students’ motivation to read. Carthage College. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Walberg, H. J. (2001). Final evaluation of the reading initiative. Retrieved from Waterford Institute website: http://www.waterford.org/corporate_pages/IdahoStudy.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Watts, B. D. (2004). Accelerated Reader: Its motivational effects on advanced adolescent readers. Masters Abstracts International, 43(02), 386. (UMI No. 1423331) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
White, R., & Reisner, E. (2007). Model literacy programs: Save the children: Evaluation findings from the 2005–06 school year. Policy Studies Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
White, W. Q. (2005). An investigation of the Accelerated Reader program in one small school district: students’, teachers’, and administrators’ perceptions. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc%5Fnum=osu1133211638. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Yee, V. N. (2007). An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners. University of Southern California; 0208 Advisor: Dennis Hocevar. DAI, 68 (04A), 108-1317. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
For more information about specific studies and WWC calculations, please see the WWC Accelerated Reader Technical Appendices.
|Institute of Education Sciences
