On the whole, I thought the method
of reading assessment suggested by Marie M. Clay through the use of “Running
Records” seemed an entirely viable manner of monitoring student’s reading
capabilities and comprehension, as well as a good way in which to inform
teacher instruction (Clay, 1972, p. 4). However, while at first the system
appeared relatively straightforward and easily manageable, the number of rules
and the actual documentation of behaviors and choices make the system slightly
overwhelming, and, consequently, I can understand why it might take some time
for an instructor new to this type of measurement to become fully comfortable
with it.
Personally,
although the actual recordings of errors and self-corrections were nearly
effortlessly readable, I found myself getting faintly confused when arrows,
especially when there was more than one, were put into use with repetitions. It
was moderately difficult to figure out where and when the arrows were leading
somewhere else within the line, though I expect it might not be so challenging
for the person that did the documenting.
Moreover, it is not hard to envision how demanding this method would be
when dealing with either an exceedingly talented reader or a rather poor reader,
particularly if one is also forced to jot down the conduct, attitude, and
vocalizations of the student. Therefore, while the benefits of the “Running
Records” are certainly evident, copious amounts of practice might well be
necessary to perfect its utilization (Clay, 1972, p. 3). On the other hand,
despite its dictates it clearly has the potential to expand an instructor’s
comprehension of the student’s thought process and understanding of the text
being read.
Notwithstanding
the perplexing features of the aforementioned method, I liked the structure
that it provided, as opposed to the more seemingly open format depicted in the
textbook. Nevertheless, even though there were not as many strict guidelines, I
appreciated the emphasis on questioning the student in the aftermath of
listening to his or her passage reading. Thus, not only can the teacher gain
insight into the student’s reading abilities and thinking activity during their
read aloud, but afterwards, he or she has the opportunity to truly examine the
student’s overall comprehension.
Additionally,
I thought the concept of the checklist to monitor individual’s skill and
interest levels in regard to certain reading aspects could be a relatively
useful tool. If one is to do as the book recommends and assess a couple of
students per day, there would be consistent checkups on each persons progress
and their areas of strength and weakness. However, this should not be the only
manner of evaluation, as I think it does not supply enough detail unless the
teacher specifically makes an effort to write down notes after determining the
basic standing of the student in relation to the components being studied. Furthermore,
the checklist process is probably highly subjective; therefore, it is likely
that this system is not as precise as one might prefer.
Lastly,
from the textbook reading for this week I felt that it was a brilliant idea to
have students create writing samples at the beginning, middle, and end of each
year to judge their improvement or lack thereof. Not only would this highlight
their strengths and weaknesses, but it could also serve to encourage students
if they see that their efforts are not for naught.
In reference to the Edwards article, I thought it key that the question answerer pointed out the possible ineffectiveness of assessments due to teachers instructing their students with the goal of the test in mind. As Patricia A. Edwards stated, “Testing compels teachers to spend precious time preparing children to take tests, which undermines the value of assessments as a means to inform instruction” (Edwards, 2010, p. 285).
Finally,
as I feel I have mentioned in near every post this semester, though regarding
different portions of reading education, it is entirely necessary to have a
balance when assessing students reading abilities. As stated in Jim Rubin’s “Organizing
and Evaluating Results From Multiple Reading Assessments”, “The mandated tests
tend to give a snapshot of a child’s ability whereas use of a variety of
assessments gives teachers a more comprehensive portrait” (Rubin, 2011, p.
606). Educators should employ a range of appraisal methods in order truly
discover student needs and then use the knowledge garnered to inform their
future instruction.