Do Running Records Have Any Value as an Informal Reading Assessment?
Can we set the record straight about running records? Depending on where you look on social media, people either truly understand them or totally misconstrue them. Some people believe they should still be used and some wholeheartedly believe they shouldn’t. There seems to be no in-between. So…should teachers use running records as an informal reading assessment or are they worthless?
Let’s talk about it.
For the answer, we have to address the prevalent misconceptions about running records. I’m going to name the misconceptions that I see on social media and hear on podcasts all the time and then explain why it’s just that: a misconception. We must understand the true purpose of a running record in order to decide if they’re worth it or not.
Here are the common misconceptions about this informal reading assessment:
They take way too long.
This misunderstanding stems from people erroneously thinking that running records are synonymous with the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System. Yes, that assessment does take a very long time to do, which is a problem. But the running record is only one part of it. One third of it, to be exact. This assessment–the part that takes so long–is also a deep comprehension assessment. Kids read a short whole book, not just a passage or word list, and then engage in a comprehension conversation with the teacher. The assessment also directs teachers to do this multiple times–to find the easy, hard, and frustration levels. It includes a running record, but it is not just a running record.
This assessment definitely has its drawbacks, but also has a lot going for it. I talk about that in detail in this post. The running record portion of it though, only takes a few minutes. It’s done while the child reads a portion of the text out loud for a specified number of words.
They teach 3-cueing.
Without getting into the weeds about what is or isn’t 3-cueing (I’ve done that here), the record of what a child does as a reader is not the teacher. YOU are the teacher. No data collection tool teaches anything. It is simply the paper on which teachers gather information about what they need to teach their readers next. So if any teaching of “3 cueing” is going on, that is on the teacher. It’s hardly because of a piece of paper on which the teacher has written notes about a child’s reading.
As the running record is analyzed, teachers examine every error made, looking for likely causes. Teachers want to know if kids are neglecting the print, or part of the print. They want to know if kids are paying attention to whether the word said makes sense or sounds grammatically correct. This is what a MAZE test aims to measure, too. But a running record also captures the level of monitoring and fixing that a child does. We most certainly want to know if kids are monitoring for themselves. If they are not, that is a problem. And that tells us more about what we need to teach next.
They don’t give you any information.
This is again dependent on the teacher. If the teacher takes the time to gather all the information they possibly can, it’s an incredibly valuable and informative tool. Reading behaviors such as what kids do (or don’t do) when they come to an unknown word, reactions to the text, and even attitude toward reading can all be noted.
Measures like DIBELS or easy CBMs only note that a child got a word wrong. Not why. In a running record, the teacher carefully notes exactly what the child did to attempt an unknown word. It also captures insertions, omissions, and transpositions–another important insight to have.
We absolutely want to know what decoding strategies students use (which is the V is MSV, for the record). We want to know if the error was caused by a syllable division issue. Or if an inflectional ending or morphology issue is the cause. Or whether it was due to a phonics issue. The only way to analyze this–and remember it– is to write it down.
This all helps the teacher calculate a percentage of accuracy. We always want the child to be reading with roughly 90-95% accuracy (see Acadience chart pg 5 here). That’s the percentage at which a child is likely to be able to comprehend a text they read. This is exactly what ORF measures do. Below that percentage, and a good deal of support will be needed. This percentage helps the teacher select texts for teaching and for independent reading. Teaching texts will be texts that are below that 90ish percentage mark, independent texts will be above it.
The truly observant teacher will also note fluency. Because it absolutely matters if kids are inserting or omitting punctuation, for example. Or if their phrasing is choppy. Or if the intonation, or lack of it, is off. This is all a part of comprehension.
They are used with leveled texts.
Running records, because they are simply a record of a child’s reading, can be done with literally any text a child reads. Any text the TEACHER would like to hand to a child. This could mean a grade level passage. It could mean a decodable book. Or it could be an ORF passage. And yes, it could mean (gasp!) reading from a leveled text.
For the record, there’s nothing wrong with leveled texts, when used properly. Remember, a leveled book is a bridge to completely authentic text. A leveled book is also a bridge to grade level text. A decodable text is only a very beginning bridge. A leveled text is the next bridge.
Please note I did not say predictable text–that’s an entirely different kind of book and an entirely different conversation. Equating predictable texts with leveled texts is just as erroneous as equating running records with the F & P assessment, or equating the science of reading with only phonics instruction.
The running record is an informal data piece that is super quick and easy to do, yet gives you so much valuable information. For early readers, if used with controlled text, it could also be part of your progress monitoring tools.
In sum, for an informal reading assessment, running records actually capture a lot of information.
Sitting down to listen to a child read is always a good idea. Matt Burns discusses this in his interview on the Literacy Talks podcast (listen here, starting at 9:49). If you listen, you will find that he is talking about the purpose of running records. He does not mention actually taking the step to write down what you hear the child do, but I would that hope that any teacher who wants to remember the most information about their readers in order to inform their teaching would take that small extra step.
As a very informal assessment, the running record is a pretty powerful little tool. It’s simple, quick, and effective in terms of informing next teaching steps.
So, what’s your take? Do you find running records to be useful or irrelevant? Let me know in the comments below!
Like this post? Sign up below to make sure you get each one delivered straight to your inbox!
Who is Coach from the Couch?? I’m Michelle, a 25 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 in cutting through the noise and confusion around literacy instruction. Because no one can do this work alone, I’m here to support you through virtual coaching calls. Simply email me at [email protected] or reach out here for a coaching call!
And, be sure to join my private FB group! It’s a safe, supportive environment (really–zero blaming or shaming allowed!) where you can ask questions, learn ideas, and share your thoughts among other literacy-loving educators!
Add A Comment