Running records are a vital tool for teachers to assess reading fluency and identify areas for improvement. Two popular methods are the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project running records and the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System. This article explores the similarities and differences between these approaches to determine if they are comparable.
Key Differences and Similarities Between Running Record Systems
Both Teachers College and Fountas and Pinnell running records involve observing students reading aloud and documenting their errors, self-corrections, and strategies. The analysis of these records informs instructional decisions. However, there are some key distinctions.
Text Selection
Fountas and Pinnell utilizes leveled texts specifically designed for their assessment system, while the Teachers College approach allows for using a wider range of texts, including student-selected books. This difference in text selection can impact the comparability of results. Using leveled texts provides a standardized measure of reading level, while using student-selected texts offers insights into a student’s reading performance in authentic contexts.
Scoring and Analysis
While both systems analyze errors, self-corrections, and reading behaviors, the specific categories and scoring criteria may differ. Fountas and Pinnell emphasizes accuracy, fluency, and comprehension, calculated to determine a reading level. Teachers College running records often focus on a more detailed analysis of reading strategies and behaviors, providing qualitative data alongside quantitative measures. This difference in scoring and analysis means that direct comparison of reading levels between the two systems may not be accurate.
Purpose of Assessment
While both systems inform instruction, Fountas and Pinnell is often used for benchmark assessments to determine reading levels and guide placement in leveled reading groups. The Teachers College approach is frequently used for ongoing formative assessment to monitor progress and inform individualized instruction. This difference in purpose can influence the frequency and interpretation of running records.
Using Running Records to Inform Instruction
Regardless of the specific system used, running records provide valuable information about students’ reading development. By analyzing errors, teachers can identify patterns and target specific skills for instruction. Self-corrections reveal a student’s ability to monitor their own reading and apply strategies. Observing reading behaviors such as phrasing, intonation, and expression offers insights into a student’s understanding and engagement with the text.
Conclusion: Comparable, But Not Interchangeable
Teachers College and Fountas and Pinnell running records offer valuable insights into student reading. While both methods share core principles, their differences in text selection, scoring, and purpose make them distinct. They are comparable in that they both provide valuable data on student reading, but they are not interchangeable. Educators should be mindful of these differences when interpreting and using the results to inform instruction. Choosing the appropriate method depends on the specific assessment goals and the instructional context.
