TRT Podcast #78: Rethinking running records … should we be using something else instead?
Should we use running records? In today’s episode we’ll talk about why the running record isn’t the useful tool I once thought it was. We’ll also share resources you can use instead … and what to do if your school still requires that you use running records.
Full episode transcript
Related blog posts
- Rethinking Running Records (my blog post about this topic)
- Jocelyn Seamer Education – Time to Break up with Running Records
- Breaking the Code – Why Running Records and Leveled Readers Don’t Mix with Phonics
- Spelfabet – Running Records are an Uninformative Waste of Teacher Time
Better assessment tools
- Free phonological awareness assessment
- The PAST Test (free phonemic awareness assessment from David Kilpatrick)
- Free phonics assessment
- Nell Duke’s alternative to running records: The LTR-WWWP
- Free DIBELS assessments (scroll down to find them)
- List of assessments via Spelfabet
YOU’LL LOVE THIS PRACTICAL BOOK!
Looking for an easy-to-read guide to help you reach all readers? If you teach kindergarten through third grade, this is the book for you. Get practical ideas and lesson plan templates that you can implement tomorrow!
Love Freebies?
Subscribing to our email newsletter is completely free. And when you do, you'll get access to our library of subscriber freebies! Sign up below to get access to a wonderful variety of math and literacy resources.
karen
I like using running records for the decodable books. I mark if the child is successfully decoding words as they read and what they said if they didn’t decode correctly. I use the information to work on what the student needs.
Anna Geiger
It sounds like you’re choosing the right things to measure!
Meghan Albano
HI Anna,
I have used your materials for years. I am a classroom teacher of 20 years, Nationally Board Certified and have also used your materials to teach my own children. I’m going to respectfully disagree with your understanding of reading. The Science of Reading (SOR), is not the end all, be all. It is one more perspective to consider as we read with children. Even when I did balanced literacy with out a specific curriculum, I used a sequential phonics book that I still use today – I’ve been using it for 13 years. So the idea of sequential phonics, graphemes and understanding that one simply must understands the sounds of English, in order to read English, is actually a rather old idea. I just did running records on 4 1st graders today, and the information was hugely useful, especially when I had documentation of what they did at the point of difficulty. My coworker came to me with a running record of a child who read beautifully, and read his word list admirably well, only to complete miss the big idea of the book. Children are too different to focus on just one aspect (phonics, in this case) as your whole game plan. You as the teacher must be nuanced to each child’s needs. It is an immense task entrusted to us. Using Running Records helps me with those nuances.
Anna Geiger
I absolutely agree that the idea of understanding the sounds of English is an old idea! The science of reading is simply a body of research, which has been around for decades. The phrase “science of reading,” is being tossed around new as this new thing, but it’s only that many people haven’t been aware of research-based best practices, not that the information itself is new.
I think it’s fabulous that as a balanced literacy teacher you have been using sequential, systematic phonics. And I won’t disagree with you that having a record of a child’s reading is valuable. My problem comes with the marking the mistakes as M, S, or V. What would be the point of that exactly? How would that information change your instruction?
Kate
I do find that educators who like to discount Marie Clay methods (which are backed by research) are usually trying to sell yet another phonics programme. It’s strange that we need so many?
Anna Geiger
Kate, could you share with me the research that supports Marie Clay’s methods? I hear a lot that her work is backed by research, but the peer-reviewed articles are never shared with me.
Stephanie
The fact that Reading Recovery helps THE LOWEST PERFORMING first grade students learn how to read should be evidence enough. Every child is different. That means they need a differentiated approach. A phonics-only based approach is limited. Running records show where students are in their ability to decode and tells us about what the child is using at a difficult spot. I am not arguing that we should not use PAST, Dibels, phonics approaches, but I am saying there is a place for all of it. We should be working together and bringing out the best in everyone, not discounting assessments proven to give valuable information to help guide next steps.
Anna Geiger
My biggest concern is the idea of using cues beyond the word itself to help children read. This bypasses orthographic mapping and encourages reading to happen in the right side of the brain, which is inefficient. I would check out the work of Stanislas Dehaene. Yes, our students need differentiated instruction, but our brains learn to read the same way.
Sue
I totally agree with my 18 years in teaching reading. When properly trained on how to use a running record in a diagnostic approach, it’s not just, “M, S, and V.” You are looking at the whole child from a literacy stand point. Where are their eyes. Which phonics patterns are they missing, struggling with, and using well? When they reread is it for comprehension or phrasing? Are they using punctuation? And on and on… A simple running record is already “on steroids” if you do it well. I looked at the LTR-WWWP and that is what I do DAILY through my training in Reading Recovery (and other trainings). I love phonics! Students need it. But it is NOT the end all be all. EVERY child is different and need the reading approach to fit their strengths and weaknesses. I just had a successful Reading Recovery student read worse at the end of the year… since we switched her intervention to a phonics based program for two and a half months from Reading Recovery. She has forgotten that reading has a message to understand. She now thinks that reading is for decoding words.
Check the research… There is tons of research, old and current, with Reading Recovery. Don’t JUST believe the SOR approach. Students need literacy learning from all directions… and deserve it. They deserve to understand and enjoy reading.
Anna Geiger
Thank you for your comment, Sue! Could you share with me the old and current research that supports the philosophy behind, and the practice of Reading Recovery? Names of peer-reviewed articles would be very helpful. Thank you!
Stephanie
What Works Clearinghouse would be a great start.
Anna Geiger
Thank you, I’ve read What Works Clearinghouse’s report. I’ve also looked at this study which found that initial gains made with Reading Recovery did not last for all students. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R4eZlidReG-1zFA4LKL9nX9sPbkM-t0q. However, my initial question was about research that informed the design of the program itself.