Reflection 10

            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.