group
of
high
school
students
who
participated
in
computer-‐assisted
reading
programs,
researchers
found
that
participation
in
Accelerated
Reader®
actually
decreased
the
students’
desires
to
read
and
impacted
them
negatively
rather
than
positively
(Thompson,
2008).
Unfortunately,
as
many
school
districts
make
the
decision
for
implementation
of
computer-‐assisted
reading
programs
to
increase
comprehension
skills
and
critical
thinking
skills,
they
neglect
to
address
a
student’s
self-‐efficacy
as
a
reader
and
his
or
her
desire
to
read.
Computer-‐assisted
reading
programs
have
good
intentions
but
may
have
detrimental
effects
on
students
and
their
attitudes
toward
reading.
Instead
of
spending
money
on
programs
such
as
Accelerated
Reader,
school
districts
should
instruct
their
teachers
in
reading
strategies
and
building
independence
in
their
students
as
readers.
Re-‐envisioning
the
Ingredients
for
a
Literacy
Feast
To
attain
the
goal
of
transforming
reading
instruction,
it
is
critical
to
identify
skills
and
thinking
patterns
that
we
are
assessing
in
our
practices.
Most
educators
function
like
I
did
during
our
study
of
Huckleberry
Finn
by
utilizing
a
before-‐during–after
reading
approach,
analyzing
the
symbolism
and
Twain’s
purposes
in
the
novel
and
stopping
to
complete
study
guide
discussion
questions
as
well
as
learning
activities.
As
the
teacher,
I
was
generating
the
thinking
and
not
my
students.
Thus,
I
was
essentially
assessing
what
the
students
remembered
of
my
understanding
of
the
text,
but
was
not
assessing
what
meanings
the
students
were
able
to
construct
independently.
Educational
philosopher
and
psychologist
Robert
J.
Sternberg
(2008)
believes
that
the
current
skill-‐driven
mode
of
assessment
meant
to
reward
good
memorizers
needs
to
evolve
to
an
assessment
of
thinking
so
that
all
students
of
every
ethnic
background
may
find
success
in
thinking
and
processing
rather
than
filling
in
bubbles
on
a
Scantron®
answer
sheet
(p.
21).
Sternberg
(2008)
asserts
that
students
should
be
assessed
based
on
their
responses
to
thinking
activities
rather
than
rote,
memory
tests
that
have
driven
education
for
decades
insisting
that
his
process
and
structure
ensures
a
culturally
responsive
mode
of
assessment
in
a
society
that
has
changed
and
progressed
in
depth
and
diversity.
Sternberg
(2008)
suggests
that
memorization
or
‘fact-‐check’
tests
and
quizzes
don’t
measure
true
understanding
and
abilities
of
a
student’s
knowledge,
propensity
to
learn
and
to
think
critically.
He
shares
that
when
he
was
an
undergraduate
student,
he
earned
grades
of
C
in
an
introductory
psychology
course
because
the
facts
drove
the
assessment
of
the
class’
expectations
not
true
thinking.
Thirty-‐five
years
later,
Sternberg
became
the
president
of
the
American
Psychologist’s
Association.
The
point
in
his
story
is
that
drill-‐and-‐skill
assessment
doesn’t
really
assess
anything
valuable
in
a
student’s
thinking
or
intellectual
abilities.
In
education,
too
often,
we
focus
on
the
minutia,
the
small,
insignificant
details
of
a
study.
What
did
Huck
say
to
Jim
on
page
250
and
what
does
it
mean?
Nothing.
We
ignore
the
real
concepts
of
a
study
or
a
social
movement
and
fall
back
on
teaching
methods
that
are
outdated,
outmoded
and
don’t
allow
our
students
to
think
independently.
When
we
teach
facts
only,
we
teach
students