Are Running Records Aligned with SOR?

Last week, I saw a very concerning Facebook post. It was something to the effect of “since running records aren’t aligned with the science of reading (SOR), how do I measure what kids can comprehend?” 

So much to unpack here.  There is clearly much misunderstanding of what a running record is–and so much misinterpretation of the science of reading.  I’ve seen similar posts to this Facebook question, saying things like “running records promote guessing.”  

What??? 

Ok. First, let’s address the issue that statements like these show that these people have no idea what a running record is.

Then we’ll look at why running records are in fact aligned with SOR.

A running record (or reading record) is simply a record of the child’s reading. When the words are written on a teacher copy, it’s a reading record.  When the teacher marks up a blank page where no words are written, it’s a running record. They’re the same thing.  I’ve written much more about effective running record note-taking here, but in a nutshell, the teacher records what the child does (or does not do) when they come to a word they don’t know, notes phrasing and fluency, and jots reading behaviors.  This record is then analyzed to inform the teacher about what the child is and isn’t doing as a reader. Comprehension is not a part of it.  Pieces of paper that hold what you’ve recorded a child do as a reader are simply note catchers.  That’s it.  Full stop.

I have a feeling the person who asked that Facebook question about comprehension erroneously believes that the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment  is synonymous with running records.  That assessment does measure comprehension, but it’s as an added section in addition to the reading record portion.  

Based on what I’ve seen so prevalently on social media the past three years, I think this person believes that running records “teach” MSV.  Again, much to unpack here.

First, pieces of paper that are used for capturing notes on what a child does or does not do upon encountering an unknown word do not teach a thing.  Pieces of paper on which a teacher records what a child does are simply note catchers. 

Note catchers don’t teach. Teachers teach.

If a child is guessing at words based on picture clues, then there is a teacher (or parent) to blame, not a reading record.

Second, it is important to know what a child knows how to do when they do come to an unknown word–and what they don’t know how to do. It is not enough to simply mark the word wrong.  A running record is meant to show the teacher whether a child is over or underusing one of the three cues. We absolutely want to be sure that kids are in fact looking at the print first and foremost. (I talk a lot more about MSV here.) If they’re not, we have big teaching to do.  Knowing whether or not a child is attending to phonics patterns as they read–and what phonics patterns are within the child’s control–is a core piece of SOR.

So, yeah. Running records are aligned with this core facet of SOR.

As well, if a child mispronounces a word or says a wrong word, their immediate employment of other cues should kick in, meaning and structure. Every reader should constantly be asking themselves does that make sense and does that sound right in addition to does that look right?  If students don’t do this, they are going to make errors left and right. Meaning and structure need to kick in immediately so that meaning can be maintained. 

Without that instantaneous cross checking, we risk developing word callers, not comprehenders.  Anyone versed in the science of reading knows that comprehension is always the goal.  And no one interested in any of the sciences that inform us about reading instruction would say that it’s a bad idea to capture data on what kids do as readers.  They are champions of data collection.  

Recording a child’s reading shows us what tools they have in their toolbelt and what tools we need to equip them with. Simply recording what words kids missed and ending it there will tell you nothing about what the child can actually do.  This makes it very hard to remember and understand what your next teaching steps are…leading to the high potential for missing the mark on next teaching steps.   

In other words, because it captures what a child does in the actual act of reading a real text, a running record shows you what the child has been taught.

So as a teacher of new students, it is very important to take a record of what your children are capable of doing. If a child is leading with meaning (thereby guessing), that’s a huge red flag for the teacher and must be rectified.  Further assessment would absolutely be needed here to find out what the child knows about decoding and phonics.  A great assessment to use for this is the CORE Phonics Survey.  As well, if a child is leading with decoding but not cross checking and fixing up for meaning, then making errors like “winding” as in air movement for “winding” as in curvy will also need to be rectified.  

M, S, and V were always meant to work together. They’re a team.  Text always needs to look right, sound right, and make sense–VSM.  In that order.  Burkins and Yates explain this beautifully in Shifting the Balance K-2.  I highly recommend the MSV chapter!  And for a simple breakdown about why this is so important, check out this episode of The Measured Mom.  

Running records are just one small data piece. Teachers should for sure also gather much more information. All of these pieces work in tandem to help guide teachers forward in next steps instruction.

What about online assessments?

In today’s schools, students often take assessments online.  One of the inherent problems with computer-based assessments and quick diagnostics like Easy CBMs is that they work only from a deficit standpoint.  Words that are missed are simply marked as missed.

This gives the teacher absolutely no direction for what the child already can do to build from. And because the teacher most likely took no notes on reading behaviors during the assessment, they won’t know what the child did–they only get the report about what the child didn’t do.   I’m not saying these assessments are unhelpful. They are. But they are just a screener. In order for a teacher to really be responsive, we have to be able to capture what the child is already capable of doing.  Then we can teach them what they need next.  

Another crazy wrong claim I sometimes see about running records is that they have anything to do with leveled texts.  

Leveled texts are a hot debate when it comes to alignment with SOR.

Again, as running records are nothing more than note catchers, a teacher holds the power to use literally any type of text. The teacher is the decision-maker about what type of text to use. Running records work just as beautifully with decodable books as they do with a leveled text.  We should be using both. Research supports using both.  In a recently updated blog post, expert Tim Shanahan sums up the research, saying “is most prudent to use both decodables and non-decodables.”

“The text regime that significantly outdistanced the others in terms of how well they nurtured decoding ability was the diet that included decodables along with other texts.”

Tim Shanahan

Although running records are typically used with beginning readers, they really can be useful for any age. Again, these are just note catchers for a teacher to capture all that they can about a reader. We are also watching for phrasing, intonation, and reading behaviors in addition to  noting what kids try when they come to an unknown word–especially multisyllabic words. When we want to set goals with kids or simply find the next step that they are ready for, we have to know where to begin. A big part of goal setting is to reinforce what the child is already doing well so that they keep doing it. Then we can give them steps for what’s next. Running records are a simple, effective, and efficient tool for doing that.

No part of any of the science of reading would shun the practice of gathering data.  That’s just part of good, responsive teaching. This is where running records are absolutely aligned with SOR.

I know what I’m about to say will cause many to roll their eyes, but the idea of capturing insight into what your students can already do to then build from is a core tenet of the Reading Recovery philosophy. Starting with strengths to then teach in a very scaffolded and personalized way. 

And that should not only be applauded, it should be the way every teacher operates.  And I don’t think even the staunchest of SOR advocates would disagree with that.

So as you get to know your readers the school year, don’t be afraid to take a quick running record. And don’t be afraid to continue this practice all year long to show progress.  Running records are valuable pieces of data that show you what your kids can do as readers.  They also serve as a mirror to the teacher that reflects whether or not your teaching is taking hold.   

---

Who is Coach from the Couch??  I’m Michelle, a 24-year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach.  I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can.  Because no one can do this work alone.

For another layer of support, consider joining my Facebook community–a safe environment (really–no blaming or shaming allowed!)  where you can ask questions, learn ideas, and share your thoughts among other literacy-loving educators!