Article Critique 2

Karmen Lowery
FRIT 7237
October 10, 2021
Paterson, W.A., Henry, J.J., O’Quin, K., Ceprano, M.A., & Blue, E.V. (2003). Investigating the

effectiveness of an integrated learning system on early emergent readers. Reading

Research Quarterly, 38(2), 172-207.

Summary

The purpose of this evaluation study was to determine the effectiveness of the Waterford

Early Reading Program, an integrated learning system (ILS), on early emergent readers. The

study was conducted in an urban school district in western New York where federal funds were

awarded to help improve early literacy skills for at-risk children. The Waterford Reading

Program was implemented in 25 kindergarten and 2 first grade classrooms, but only 7

kindergarten and 1 first grade class were chosen to participate. Another 7 kindergartens and 1

first grade classroom that were not using the Waterford Reading Program were chosen for

comparison purposes. All participants were chosen based on comparable factors such as

socioeconomic levels, teacher’s style of instruction and classroom environment, classroom size

and number of students with special needs.

The evaluation period took place from February to June of the same school year that the

reading program was implemented. The authors, a team of five university faculty members,

chose to use a mixed method approach for data collection allowing them to explore contextual

factors that might affect literacy growth. They recruited the help of 14 graduate assistants and

trained them on how to collect data through classroom observations, and also established

interrater reliability early on in the process. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected

through observations, surveys, interviews, Brigance scores and reading levels.

 According to the data analysis, students that used the Waterford Reading Program did not

show improvements or higher achievements over students who did not use the reading program.

Moreover, the study found that the teacher and their classroom environment can have a bigger

impact on student growth and learning. Notable differences in achievement were evident in

classrooms where the teacher facilitated instruction focusing on student input and contributions,

engaging students in literacy events, and spending more time on instructional activities rather

than on classroom management.

Critique

As I was reading this article, I was trying to determine if any of the tools we currently use

at my school could be considered an integrated learning system. My conclusion was that we use

a variety of computer-based resources to enhance instruction and provide additional practice but

nothing that has a full, complete curriculum delivered over a computer. This may primarily be

because we are a private school and are unable to afford a program, such as the Waterford Early

Reading Program. More importantly however, this evaluation study confirmed that technology

alone is not the answer to low-achievement and it is a long way away from replacing great

teachers.

With more schools becoming 1:1 with technology, evaluation studies like this one prove

to still be beneficial today. This evaluation was very thorough and went beyond a simple

justification of an expense. Not only were the authors evaluating the effectiveness of the reading

program, but they also were evaluating the qualities of student literacy development and other

forms of literacy instruction in the classrooms based on theoretical and instructional research.

They observed how teachers delivered instruction, how engaged students were in the activities,

and how teachers managed their instructional time. In alignment with the results of the study,
although it is from about twenty years ago, I believe that these three variables should be

evaluated consistently in all schools with or without implementation of innovative programs or

technology. Our students today learn differently than how we learned from when we were in

school which means the way we deliver instruction also must change. John Dewey, American

philosopher and educational reformer, sums this up best, “If we teach today’s students as we

taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.” In addition, the evaluation discussed the positive

gains in student centered learning environments. This has been a continued shift in education that

has brought about various approaches, like STEM/ STEAM and project-based learning, in which

the focus is for students to create, collaborate, communicate, and think critically while using

technology to enhance their abilities and reach their goals.

History shows how ILS programs have gained and lost popularity since its beginnings in

the 1970s and 1980s. I imagine that they have lost their momentum again due to evaluation

studies like this one and others that prove their ineffectiveness. The study concludes with a quote

from Mehlinger, “Before we spend billions of dollars to equip classrooms with technology, we

need to know whether such a colossal investment of funds makes sense.” This goes to show the

importance of investing time and monies in the evaluation process. I am further led to wonder

about how often and when evaluation studies are conducted. Is it voluntary or is it a requirement

to justify expenditures of federal funds? Are we still throwing money at “problems” or are we

really trying to get to the root and find solutions from there? If studies like this prove the positive

impact of quality teachers, then why are teachers' salaries so low? Why do budget cuts usually

involve education?

The more articles and studies about the evaluation process that I am exposed to, the more

prominent it becomes of how valuable, applicable, and necessary the evaluation process is. On a
smaller scale, as educators, we are taught to evaluate our classroom instruction to ensure we are

meeting curriculum standards and objections. We are even evaluated by our administrators to

discuss professional strengths, weaknesses, goals, and growth. Nevertheless, it is just as

important to evaluate decisions made around the choices of technology devices, textbooks, and

digital resources. Since the pandemic and the generous amounts of CARES dollars, new

technologies have been added to our classrooms. However, the problem we are facing is that

teachers have been left to figure out how, and even if, these “new and shiny” tools and resources

can be beneficial to their students and to them. Time is a huge factor and many teachers,

everywhere, are overwhelmed by it all.