Running Head: EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 1

Effectiveness of Running Records for Struggling Readers

Caroline Reel

Franciscan University of Steubenville

EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 2

Introduction

It is imperative that students of all ages continually foster development of literacy skills

to be successful readers. Personalized feedback and authentic assessment are powerful tools

educators can provide their students during this period of rapid growth and monumental learning.

Students’ experiences with reading are drastically different as gained reading strategies require

individual practice. There are many categories of and explanations for struggling readers. When

Running Records, created by Marie Clay, are correctly preformed they help educators direct

teaching instruction, grasp current student fluency, and score a student’s independent reading

level. Running Records give educators data that, when effectively interpreted, leads to

individualized instruction.

Purpose

It is evident that teaching reading is incredibly involved and highly specialized. One

could recount the past presidential initiatives to close the reading gap or perhaps the substantial

increase in standardized testing over the past decade. There is no comprehensive reading

assessment; nor is there a “one size fits all” student evaluation. While formative assessments

attempt to benefit the individual learner, they are often misinterpreted or incorrectly preformed.

With diverse reading needs, differentiated instruction can only be relevant after a teacher gains

thorough student understanding. Motivated by these educational themes, shortcomings, and

human error, I was compelled to analyze a strong assessment to weigh its advantages. As reading

demands much of both teacher and student, will Running Records prove specific and effective in

determining reading perplexity?

In my research, I hope to wholly analyze the effectiveness of a Running Records

assessment. This case study is a result of weekly one-on-one tutoring (over the course of 10
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 3

weeks) with a 9th grade student who is correctly labeled a struggling reader. For the sake of this

study, he will be referred to as “struggling Sam”. As a pre-service educator, I was asked to teach

Sam reading strategies so he might grow in vocabulary, comprehension, fluency and reading

confidence.

I propose that this accumulated data will glean that, both subjectively and objectively,

Running Records can be proven as an effective and factual form of reading assessment. I

hypothesize by both the nature of the assessment and extensive research extracted about Running

Records that this reading evaluation will be an additive for Sam’s intervention. Running Records

are appropriate at any age as any text may be used during testing. Ultimately, Running Records

are prone to evaluator error but still measures reader accuracy and fluency patterns.

Review of Literature

Running Records can be an authentic assessment of literacy when paired with considerate

educators and uniformity. Fawson, Ludlow, Reutzel, Sudweeks, Smith (2006) demonstrate,

through a research article, that although Running Records are a widely-embraced assessment

often bias, inconsistency in training and other variables can inhibit collection of information. Ten

teachers or raters agreed to participate in the study and each benefited from 2-6 hours of training

on running records assessment. Participation was voluntary which created a realistic survey of

rates. Twelve first grades were handpicked to be tested from a large suburban district because of

their vast array of reading levels and performance. The texts that were chosen referenced an

average reading goal for first graders typically appropriate for the end of the year. Reliability in

Running Records was proven inconsistent by this study as the logistics of implementing the

assessment can be compromised. The texts chosen, rater’s subconscious clues and aids, and

student mindset all produce reflective data. Video recording the students’ second read seemed to
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 4

aid some educators but hinder others in accurate grading. Ultimately, this study found that error

is inevitable just as human error is a factor. Researchers determined that variance components

are intrinsically related to each other. Running Record validity corresponds directly to the

strategy and observance to that which must be measured.

I appreciated the detail of variables and the rationale for this experiment. To take two

individuals, rater and student, who are both complex and different and evaluate their perception

of Running Records is a daunting feat. The intentionality behind this experiment is ultimately

what each educator should strive for in their classroom. The inconsistencies found demonstrates

worldwide teacher error and we should all be aware of this abuse of the assessment. I did not

find the graphs particularly useful in this text and I would have instead improved the data with an

image capturing the study. This study and my action research project share a similar rationale

and passion for authentic assessment. I would recommend this journal to all individuals who

implement Running Records as it is a great reminder of common but unnecessary inconsistency.

Self-correction and monitoring have monumental impacts on students practicing reading.

McGee, Kim, Nelson, and Fried (2015) demonstrate both hindrances and successes associated

with student correction during Running Records by comparing previous research. For example,

this research journal references a study involving 5 year olds in New Zealand. The authors found

that students who self-corrected during assessment were less likely to need corrections in the

future. Their improved accuracy correlated with their early practice with recognizing error. On

the other hand, when teachers instead corrected students during Running Records their scores

decreased and they were less likely to revisit mistakes during reading. One variable that might

complicate this realization is difficulty of text. If a student is reading above their appropriate

level they may be overwhelmed or unable to self-correct. This metacognitive view of Running
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 5

Records is essential in understanding the data produced by the assessment. Results indicate that

students must self-correct and monitor themselves to increase reading fluency and

comprehension.

I was particularly impressed by this article as it generously considered metacognition in

relation to Running Records. Proper reading material is crucial during assessment as it leaves

room for healthy student self-correction. Young readers need to explore their answers and think

while relying on context clues. I wished this article had collected consecutive annual data on

individuals and their demonstrations of self-correction. I was additionally surprised to read that

teacher intervention regarding Running Record errors could be a hindrance during testing. I

believe this study could be improved with a graph showing student tendency to self-correct

depending on teacher intervention. This article is recent and compiled by professionals at The

Ohio State University making it particularly relevant to me. These findings benefit my action

research project as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, cannot be avoided during Running

Record assessment.

Reading behaviors share common traits and processes depending on a student’s age.

Kaye (2006) created a journal article that explores variables of change, variety and difficulty in

relation to second graders. The reading process is vast, personal and individual. This qualitative

study examines previous data and highlights the effects of a study involving first grades for a 7-

month duration. Ultimately, this study presented insight on time of optimal student performance.

It also addressed the contrast and characteristics of weak and strong readers. The purpose, as

stated throughout the article, was to differentiate reading characteristics based on development

and age. This strictly observational and data based research aids educators in understanding vast
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 6

reading differences between students. The results clearly state that appropriate text levels are

essential for understanding student needs and observing reading patterns.

This article was impressive as it was well organized. I appreciated the bold headings and

clear differentiations between the studies and their implications. I found the tables incredibly

useful and was blown away by the student examples. At times, I found the vocabulary difficult.

Text could be broken down and simplified. This article was useful as I will specifically reference

second grade responses to Running Records in my action research project. This age will become

the baseline for my research and this article shared observational characteristic of the age. To

improve on this study, it would have been beneficial for the research to be conducted over a

longer period; following the students past second grade! I found this definition particularly

concise as it states the complexity of reading: “Rumelhart’s (1994) interactive model describes

reading as both a perceptual and cognitive process. He conceptualized a “message center” which

receives, sorts and processes hypotheses from various knowledge sources. The knowledge

sources are vehicles for scanning, generating hypotheses, and testing hypotheses while reading”

(Kaye, 2006, p. 53).

Methodology

As a pre-service teacher, it was imperative that I prepared and practiced Running Records

before participating as an evaluator. The goal was to eventually impart correct data and dedicate

all attention to my student during a Running Records assessment. First, I thoroughly researched

the assessment. I found the information regarding notating miscues in our class textbook helpful

and direct. These explicit marks make Running Records universally understood and once

memorized, allowed for teacher freedom during marking. Review articles warned me of the fast-

paced and precise strokes required to effectively incur data. Part of the process of teaching
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 7

myself Running Records involved ample time for mistakes. Teacher preparation must involve

initial trial and error. Previous articles expounded on the lack of teacher familiarity and practice.

I met with Sam weekly which helped me to build rapport and understand his reading

skills. Sam was a perfect candidate for a Running Records assessment as he could not remember

the last time he had read a good book. I knew he would not be at a 9th grade reading level and

chose the book Holes by Louis Sachar partly because it intrigued him but also because the Lexile

score was like that of the articles he was comprehending through the website resource

newsela.com. While there are ample versions and formats for Running Record forms, I modified

a teacher resource and familiarized myself with the content. Sam had read aloud to me in the

past. His voice would shake, his pitch was lifeless and at times there seemed to be no order to his

chunking or phrasing. After extensive work with Sam, I realized one page of the book Holes was

an appropriate moderation for the assessment. I was performing my first Running Record and he

has little experience reading aloud. Sam mentioned that his teachers always required “popcorn”

reading in the classroom among other negative reading experiences. I wanted to gently address

these trials but it was evident that a teacher had not invested in Sam in a long time. I selected

Sam for this case study as I knew he would work for me.

Findings

In preforming this Running Record I was amazing by the information gained. Below one

can clearly see that Sam was challenged during this assessment. At several points during the

evaluation Sam went back and corrected his reading mistakes. Two of the three self-corrections

were considered syntax miscues. Before the assessment began Sam was encouraged to fix his

mistakes, read clearly, focus on fluency and change his tone. In the second line of text the

markups show that Sam exchanged the word “just” for “dust.” This may seem like a visual
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 8

miscue at first but upon further inspection I deciphered this mistake as a meaning or semantic

miscue. The word “dry” followed “just” and context clues may have triggered Sam to read

incorrectly. He did not go back to fix this misread as shown below.

The words “hammock” and “Warden” were difficult for Sam. If this text were being read

with an entire class a graphic organizer or whole group discussion would help eliminate

undefined terms. This Running Record also asked the educator to evaluate Sam’s phrasing and

fluency based on reading aloud. It was clear that Sam struggles with pitch, intonation, juncture

and stress. These would all be forms of expression that enhance captivating reading. Granted,

this assigned book excerpt was a straightforward narration. I hypothesize that Sam’s struggle

with fluency preoccupies his mind as he reads which currently inhibits him from exploring other

literacy skills.

The language cueing system and calculation of oral reading fluency rate greatly enhance

this assessment. Although Running Records often include teacher error these two data generators

make for implicit student comprehension. The ability to calculate a student’s words per minute

(WPM) often places students in a reading level that is appropriate to their learning. After looking

at Sam’s results he is reading at about the same rate as a 4th grader. Running Records

additionally address accuracy. Sam falls in the below frustration category as his miscues are a

manifestation of reading difficulty.

EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 9
EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 10

Recommendations

The effectiveness of Running Records has been both explored and proven during this

case study. Schools that do not train their educators or embrace Running Record assessments are

doing a disservice to their students. Investment in this collection of data can help pinpoint reader

frustrations, determine appropriate books choice, and direct intervention. This study was limited

as I only tested one student. If I were to perform this case study again I would have saved all my

practice work as the completed assessment shown below required study. Again, human error is

inescapable so professional development and lifelong learning is necessary for efficient teachers.

The data gained from a Running Record is clear, concise and detailed. As reading demands much

of both teacher and student, Running Records prove specific and effective in determining reading

perplexity for struggling readers.

EFFECTIVENESS OF RUNNING RECORDS FOR STRUGGLING READERS 11

References

Fawson, P. C., Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Examining

the reliability of running records: Attaining generalizable results. The Journal of

Educational Research, 100(2), 113-126.

Gilmore, L., Miller, R., & Ward, H. (2015). Making sense of inconsistencies in psycho-

educational assessment: A case report. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in

Schools, 25(1), 77-86.

Goldstein, H. (2011). Knowing what to teach provides a roadmap for early literacy intervention.

Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 268-280.

Kaye, E. L. (2006). Second graders' reading behaviors: A study of variety, complexity, and

change. Reading Recovery Council of North America, 10(2), 51-75.

Mcgee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., & Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders’

strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research

Quarterly, 50(3), 263-291.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2012). Teaching children to read: the teacher makes the

difference (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Utchell, L. A., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., McGoey, K. E., & Piselli, K. (2016). Ability of

early literacy measures to predict future state assessment performance. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(6), 511-523.