Considering Running Records, or No, I Don't Beat My Wife Anymore

Tim Shanahan

Teacher question:

I’m confused. I've understood your message that we should stop obsessing about deriving an independent or instructional reading level. But I’ve also read that you feel that there is a place for F&P style running records (many schools still use them!). If a running record is producing a reading level, isn't this going against the idea that we should do away with the instructional level? Aren't there other problems with these tests, too (design problems, large standard errors, etc.)?

Shanahan responds:

You have it right, sort of. I thought my position on this was adroit and artful and you seem to find it to be abstruse and confusing. Hmmm… let’s take it step by step.

First, you are correct that I believe it is a big mistake to try to teach most kids reading at their supposed instructional level. The instructional level is meant to identify a text that will be maximally effective in teaching. You know the routine. The teacher is supposed to test students to identify this level by listening to their oral reading and asking questions. Different schemes have different criteria (90, 93, 95 percent word accuracy, 75 percent comprehension). No matter the criteria, placing kids in texts in this way does not boost their learning. There is, in fact, a growing body of evidence suggesting that it lessens learning.

Second, you are also correct that I claim it can be useful to collect this kind of information, and I admit that sounds at least a bit contradictory. Why measure the instructional level if you aren’t going to use that to choose the books you are going to teach?

My reasoning here has to do with what it means to NOT teach at the instructional level. I’ve come to believe that the instructional level is a device that results in both minimized learning and teaching. If kids are placed in texts that they can comprehend reasonably well, there isn’t much about reading that can be learned from those texts. The differences between their performance levels and the text demands are likely so small that the kids should be able to figure out what is unknown without much teacher help.

But what if the books are hard for the kids? That means they may not be able to accomplish high comprehension without some instruction and other teacher support. I think it can be helpful to a teacher to have some idea as to how much difficulty a text may pose for their students. The greater the gap between texts that can already be read reasonably well by the kids and the texts to be used for teaching, the greater the scaffolding and support that will be needed.  

Administering oral reading fluency tests and informal reading inventories can provide a rough estimate of that gap. The further behind a student is in their reading performance, the more assistance that will be provided. This information might encourage a teacher to place certain kids closer at hand. Or it may be used to help decide which kids should have the opportunity to try reading the text aloud before taking it on for comprehension’s sake. The teacher might want to offer more word instruction before or after to these students or may direct more questions to them. Perhaps, teachers will go out of their way to select instructional texts that would be an especially good match to the background knowledge of the kids likely to be far behind.

Let’s be careful here. I’m not claiming that those tests will specifically identify missing or underdeveloped skills, except in the most general sense. The tests will give me a gross estimation of how fluently students can read this book and whether there will be a small or large overall gap between an easy text and the instructional text.

READ MORE...