AR has four components: (1) access to books, (2) provide time to read books, (3) take tests, (4) get rewards and the complete program is consistently compared to “traditional” instruction and is often (but not always) better. It is no surprise to see a program with all four components do better than one with none of them, but is this just because of the access and time dedicated to reading? Did the tests and prizes add anything?
Contents contributed and discussions participated by Leslie Holwerda
Oxford Literacy Newsletter - 1 views
Five-Minute Film Festival: TED Talks for Teachers | Edutopia - 0 views
Learn It In 5 - YouTube interactive videos - 0 views
-
Choose your own adventure videos
Learn It In 5 - Do you use Today's Meet? - 0 views
Intentional Strategy Instruction | Differentiated Literacy Learning - 0 views
digitalkidsdigitalreaders [licensed for non-commercial use only] / 1 Home - 1 views
Growing A Reading Culture - 0 views
100 Best YouTube Videos for Teachers | Smart Teaching - 0 views
Books and Articles by Stephen D Krashen - 0 views
Krashen On Bribing Students To Read | Larry Ferlazzo's Websites of the Day… - 0 views
-
-
Five out of six results were statistically insignificant.
‹ Previous
21 - 40 of 78
Next ›
Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page
Leslie Holwerda
I am a teacher librarian in a middle school in Ontario Canada. I am a grad student in the teacher librarianship distance learning program (TLDL) at the University of Alberta. I am also on the editorial board of the Teaching Librarian (the official magazine of the Ontario School Library Association.