Ken Blaiklock of the UNITEC Institute of Technology in
Auckland, New Zealand wrote an enlightening paper examining a few of these
critiques. Throughout the paper, Mr. Blaiklock questions the value of running
records as a assessment technique. I would like to take the time with this blog
post to highlight some of the not-so-positive aspects of running records.
1)
The appropriateness of using running records for
beginning and fluent readers
·
Blaiklock questions what age group running
records are intended for and claims Marie Clay does not “elaborate on what such
a special reason might be” to be giving a running record an older student (Pg.
5). Not having a set guideline of what ages are most appropriate for running
records may result in missuse of the program by schools and educators. Blaiklock also claims that “running records rely on the assumption that
the processes underlying oral reading are the same as those underlying silent
reading”. He points out that that oral reading maybe more representative of
reading for beginning readers than for older, more fluent readers (Pg. 5). This discrepancy between ability to read
aloud and ability to read silently across age demographics could be cause for
error in the accuracy of the running record assessment.
2)
The use of running records to assess accuracy
rate
·
Clay stresses the importance of consistency of assessment
for running records for use in comparing one performance to another. Blaiklock
argues that "this consistency is challenged by the questionable assumption that
the texts used for running records have been accurately graded into difficulty
levels... because imprecise procedures are often used to assign books to particular
difficulty levels(Pg. 6).” When
different and inaccurate procedures are used to evaluate book’s reading
records, the accuracy of your running assessment is often challenged as well. In addition, factors such as if a child is
familiar with a passage or not also has an impact on the accuracy rate (Pg.7). Factors such as these are often not noted on running records, but do effect a student's accuracy rate.
3)
The value of self-corrections
·
Blaiklock continues on to question the importance
of self-corrections. He claims that “self-corrections may not be a sign that a
reader is monitoring his or her reading but an indication that a reader may be
responding prematurely to a word, before adequately processing information
about the word’s identity (Pg.11).”
Should this be seen as a positive or negative? In addition, further
research has found that “no differences in self-correction rates between high and low progress readers when they read text at equivalent error
rates (Pg. 11).” While it is important to note if a child is implementing imporivement in self-monitering, with no difference in self-correcting rates between high and low level readers, how important is it to track this rate?
4)
The analysis of oral reading errors.
·
Blaiklock states that “an erroneous
interpretation of a running record can lead to ineffective ideas about what
instruction is required (Pg. 15).” When an
educator falsely identifies which type of error is made (meaning, syntax, and
visual), they are giving a false representation of the cues a child uses. Without this accurate knowledge, creating a
truly effective intervention strategy is nearly impossible.
While I tend to agree with the usefulness of running records
in the classroom, I always think it is healthy to look critically at educational practices to make sure we are making the most of our time with
children in the classroom. Blaiklock
makes some interesting points that I will be sure to keep in mind when using
Running Records in my future classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment