I woke up last night thinking about this topic, and decided I better write about it today, rather than put it off.
When I first started teaching, computerized comprehension testing was just taking off. You bought the tests on cd's and they were very expensive. It wasn't required that students read these books, but it was something we wanted them to try. We knew that students needed practice with comprehension, and these tests provided fairly good comprehension baselines. However, they offered very few books to test on, in comparison to what was available in the library and what kids were interested in reading. And although we have come quite far since then, not all books are included in these computerized comprehension programs still today.
You might wonder why I bring that up. But I've been wondering for MANY years about the effectiveness of requiring students to read books and take tests of items they aren't interested in. Now I'm not saying that kids should only read what interests them...We teach subjects all the time that kids aren't interested in. But I am saying that, in my experience, students do MUCH better taking these comprehension tests when reading books they are interested in.
For example, I know a second grader who consistently tests below grade level on all standardized tests. This child is advanced in spelling, can write at or just below grade-level, but struggles considerably with comprehension. Our school requires students to take a pre-determined amount of these comprehension tests each quarter. If this student is allowed to read books that are highly interesting to him, he has scored at 85% proficient on ALL tests. And what's more interesting to me, he reads books that are up to 4 grade levels higher than his current "reading level". This is just one example, I have seen it every year I have taught, with multiple students.
I guess I am wondering what to make of this data. Have other teachers seen this? Are you questioning some of your students' scores? I just wonder if we are putting to much emphasis on the amount of tests/points students are getting each quarter. When we should be focusing on the amount and types of books students are reading. I understand there is accountability in there. But don't we have reading blocks where we look at comprehension, fluency, inferences...Should we really be utilizing these computerized tests as part of their reading scores? If we are truly trying to raise lifelong readers, shouldn't we be encouraging young readers to read what interests them? Graphic novels (ie comic books), fantasy, sports, historical fiction, biographies, and science fiction, whether or not they are included in the computerized comprehension programs?
I'm sure I know the computerized comprehension you're talking about. Yes, they have improved over the years, but I completely agree with your point. Kids are too limited in what they can read when it comes to these tests. And what about teachers/schools requiring kids to read a specific number of books in a specific timeframe. As kids get older, typically they are reading longer and more involved books. Yet if they are required to read 8 books, for example, in a specified time frame, they often read simplistic, short books just so they can read enough books. These books often are either below their reading level, which does nothing to boost comprehension, or so short that they really can't be challenging them to their potential. It seems it would be better to require kids to earn a certain number of points, rather than read a certain number of books. That way they can read the books they love and are so into now, and not have to worry about not finishing so many books. Quality, not quantity. Book choices should be made based on students' reading level and interests, not forcing them to read books simply to pass a test. If we truly want to ignite a passion for reading, kids need to be free read what they love, not what we force them to read.
ReplyDelete