TEACHING TIP
Running Records Revisited:
A Tool for Efficiency and Focus
Jennifer Barone, Pamela Khairallah, Rachael Gabriel
Taking and analyzing running records reveals taught and applied strategic
actions and points toward next targeted steps for individual readers and
small groups to support reading, writing, and language growth.
W
ith time at a premium for primary-­g rade
classroom teachers, it is essential to revisit
the purpose and process of using running
records. Because elementary teachers plan for every
subject while balancing many other demands, run-
ning records are often used only during assessment
windows or completed for compliance and account-
ability. In some cases, running records may not be
used at all because of misconceptions about the pur-
pose, process, and possibilities they provide. When
taken and analyzed consistently, running records
can provide teachers with an efficient way to plan
meaningful literacy instruction.
The running record was developed as part of the
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement
(Clay, 2013), which is a norm-­referenced, validated
assessment system that includes six subtests related
to different areas of early literacy development. The
running record focuses on oral reading and provides
a systematic way to record and compare the sources
of information that students use and ignore when
reading aloud.
Teachers document a reader’s use and integration
of meaning, language structure, and visual infor-
mation as well as self-­corrections, repetitions, and
omissions as the student reads continuous text (Clay,
1966, 1993). Running records are therefore a method
both for representing oral reading accuracy and for
identifying strategic reading behaviors, such as self-­
correcting, rereading, and monitoring for meaning.
Today, running records are included as a sub-
test in many different assessment systems and are
used as a routine within instructional practices
such as guided reading and reading conferences.
There are many forms, directions, styles, and ver-
sions of symbols and coding for running records in
print within various assessment systems. Although
there are many possible ways to record oral reading,
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   pp. 525–530
it is important that teachers use a common method
within a school or district so records can be shared
between professionals and compared over time.
Often, the running record is included as a mea-
sure of accuracy and/or a way of finding an instruc-
tional level, without necessarily engaging with the
analytic process that is most useful for informing
instruction. Because running records are also a
reflection of teacher instruction, analyzing across a
small group or a whole class can confirm strengths
within the group and identify instructional needs.
It is the analytic diagnostic purpose, rather than
the accuracy and leveling purpose, that we sug-
gest is surprisingly fruitful given its relative speed
to administer and simplicity of use when planning
next steps for instruction.
Using examples from two first-­ g rade teachers,
we will take a close look at the potential of running
records to work as an efficient, powerful way to plan
meaningful reading instruction.
Using Running Records to Identify
Teaching Points
Although the strateg ic actions w ill shift w ith
increased text complexity, the process of recording
and analyzing running records and planning instruc-
tion after providing a praise point and teaching point
Jennifer Barone is an elementary reading teacher in the
Glastonbury Public Schools, CT, USA; email jlbarone22@
gmail.com.
Pamela Khairallah is an independent consultant, Rye, NH,
USA; email pkhairallah@deligent.com.
Rachael Gabriel is an associate professor in the Neag
School of Education at the University of Connecticut,
Storrs, USA; email rachael.gabriel@uconn.edu.
525 doi:10.1002/trtr.1861   © 2019 International Literacy Association
 Teaching Tip

stays constant. Here, strategic actions refers to the In this case, despite noticing the same error(s)
in-­t he-­head processing that happens as a reader these readers made in the same leveled text, these
integrates meaning, language structure, and visual teachers gathered different data about their students
information to monitor, search for further informa- and made different teaching decisions. We argue that
tion, problem solve, and self-­correct. the written record of oral reading facilitates com-
Ms. Smith (all names are pseudonyms), a class- parison and analysis that quickly and accurately
room teacher, is instructing a group at level G and allows t­eachers to identify strategic actions and spe-
recording informal running records cific teaching points (Fawson,
to monitor and plan instruction. In PAUSE AND PONDER Ludlow, Reutzel, Sudweeks, &
this sample first-­g rade group, stu- Smith, 2006). Providing students
dents read The Fishing Adventure by with this immediate, action-
■ Do your students leave a running
Michèle Dufresne (2007), a level G able, and targeted feedback is
record experience with feedback and
text. Here, we examine one line for a teaching point to practice on their a highly effective strategy for
strategic activity for three students: own? students working within their
zone of proximal development
Text: “Then he fished and fish­ ■ Are you recording your praise and (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016;
­ed” (p. 4). teaching points for follow-up and to
Vygotsky, 1978).
look for grouping patterns?
Reader A: Then he found and found. Similarly, reading confer-
■ How will readers reflect on the ences anchored with a running
Reader B: Then he fished a fish. teaching and praise points? record are the same as writ-
Reader C: Then he fish and fish. ing conferences anchored by
student writing. This combination of specific, indi-
With a written running record of each reader’s
vidualized reinforcement, immediate corrective feed-
attempt, Ms. Smith noticed that all three students
back, and supervised practice is the very definition of
are using initial visual information (first-­ letter
explicit instruction (Fisher et al., 2016).
sounds) and are ready for instruction in cross-­
Examining the following page of text and the
checking visual (letters) and syntactic (grammati-
corresponding running records for these three stu-
cal) information. Follow-­up instruction focused on
dents (see Table  1) allows teachers to identify pat-
scanning through words to check the middle and
terns and make instructional decisions:
end parts while reading and writing and the syntax
of story language through shared reading and writ- Little Penguin put a worm
ing. In a gradual release model, shared reading and on a hook. Then he fished
writing gave students the opportunity for support- and fished.
ive practice and feedback with oral language, com- A fish came along
prehension, and cross-­checking sound and syntax and bit the worm.
“Look! I have a fish!
(visual and syntactic) information.
I have a great, big fish!”
The teacher next door, Ms. Clarke, teaches
Little Penguin shouted. (Dufresne, 2007, p. 4)
small groups without recording running records.
She might remember that fished was difficult, and As students move from kindergarten to first
she might teach inflectional endings as follow- grade, shifts in text complexity and the reading
­up word work and reteach the whole class a vowel behaviors necessary to read successfully become
teams minilesson. The follow-­up instruction at the apparent. For example, students who have not been
word level would therefore be undifferentiated and visually scanning through words, only noticing the
unsystematic. beginning and/or ending, or overrelying on language
Without a record of each student’s oral reading, patterns and high picture support have a difficult
Ms. Clarke may or may not notice that syntax pro- time transitioning to first-­g rade text.
vides information that helps readers solve the end- This is the beginning of the sophisticated pho-
ing suffix in this case, and therefore she may not nics work students must develop to match growing
teach students how to use predictable story syntax text complexity for reading and writing. To be suc-
to cross-­check endings. Her prompting of individu- cessful, students must still monitor, reread, check,
als will be less explicit and offer less support for self-­correct, and employ other strategic actions to
transfer to other texts. problem solve words. The following analysis of the

526
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   January/February 2020literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip

Table 1
Running Records for Readers A–C
Reader Student’s oral reading Teacher’s running record
A Little Penguin pulled a worm
on a hook. Then he found
and found
a fish came along
and b-­b -­bit the worm.
“Look! I have a fish!
I have a g-­gr-­eat [appeal: “What’s that word?”
  teacher-­told], big fish!”
Little Penguin shouted.

B Little Penguin put a warm—worm

on a hook. Then he fished
a fish.
A fish came along
and bit the worm.
“Look! I have a fish!
I have a gr-­at—great, big fish!”
Little Penguin shout.

C Little Penguin put a worm

on a hook. Then he fish
and fish.
A fish come along
and bit the worm.
“Look! I have a fish!
I have a great, big fish!”
Little Penguin said.

Note. The examples show an excerpt from three running records to examine student behaviors across the same page of text. Each student read more
than 100 words and with 92–96% accuracy overall. The color figure can be viewed in the online version of this article at http://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com.

reading recorded in Table  1 reveals the range of Although it is tempting to use planning time to
strengths and goals that students reading the same collect preplanned lessons to address an area iden-
text level bring to the text (see Table 2). tified by a brief skills assessment, this often leads

527
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   January/February 2020literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip

Table 2
Running Records With Conclusions

Running records: MSV and beyond

Analysis Analysis of
Reader Miscue of error self-­correction Conclusions
A pulled/put M, S, V Pulled makes sense (M), sounds grammatically
correct (S), and has some visual letter
similarities in the beginning of the word (V).
found/fished S, V We can say “Then he found,” so it sounds right
(S) and also looks similar to the initial and final
letters (V).
g-gr-eat (appeal)/great V Attempted initial letter (g), initial blend (gr), and
a recognized part (eat); however, the student
did not cross-­check with meaning and/or
structure to self-­correct.
B warm (self-­correction)/worm V M Student used visual features of the word. The
error includes a syllable pattern (r-­controlled)
and initial/final consonants. Student then self-­
corrected for a response that made sense.
a/and S, V Up to the point of error, a sounds right (S) and
has the same initial letter (V).
fish/fished M, S, V Because of the error a/and, saying fish/fished
makes sense (M), sounds right (S), and is
visually similar except the end part/suffix (V).
gr-at (self-­correction)/great V M, S The word was broken visually (V) into a
consonant blend (gr-­) and then a familiar part
(-­at) and was self-­corrected to sound right (S)
and make sense (M).
shout/shouted M, V Shout makes sense (M) and also looks similar
(V); however, it is not grammatically correct in
standard English.
C fish/fished M, V Fish makes sense (M) and is visually similar (V);
however, we would not say “Then he fish” in
standard English.
come/came M, V Meaning (M) and visual (V) cues are used;
however, the word does not sound right (S).
said/shouted M, S, V It makes sense (M), sounds right (S), and is
visually similar (V).
Note. A note about self-­correction: This allows us to see how often a student notices and corrects errors. A self-­correction rate of 1:1 through 1:4
indicates adequate monitoring. If the goal of reading is understanding, then readers must independently monitor and adjust for meaning, structure, and
visual information to ensure comprehension.

to isolated and disjointed lessons that fail to sup-
port the development of strategic reading behaviors
that transfer across texts. This does not mean that
skill work is not useful. On the contrary, analysis of
running records can point to the need for specific
instruction and practice in certain skill areas and can
demonstrate whether students have later mastered
such skills. They also provide the opportunity to
monitor for the transfer of skill-­based instruction to
real reading and writing.
As diagnostic teaching tools, running records
allow teachers to think like coaches who prepare
their players for games rather than for excellence
in isolated drills. For example, soccer coaches know

528
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   January/February 2020literacyworldwide.org
 Teaching Tip
that skill drills are needed to build soccer play-
ers. They also know that players need scrimmages
and game situations to try out and get feedback
on using the isolated skills they practiced in real
games. Similarly, we cannot teach reading skills
in isolation and never provide opportunities to try
them out in the game: the reading of rich, engaging
texts.
When we think of teachers as coaches, the anal-
ogy continues. Coaches give on-­the-­spot feedback
and tips, in their players’ zone of proximal develop-
ment (Vygotsky, 1978), just as teachers do with stu-
dents. Even or especially when it feels as if doing
one more thing will be overwhelming, taking a run-
ning record can make the planning and prompt-
ing you already do more focused, purposeful, and
powerful.
Using Running Records
to Plan Instruction
After analysis of the running records for the small
group, Ms. Smith planned instruction while deciding
to hold this group of readers at level G. She did an
inquiry reading of The Fishing Adventure, prompting
students to notice language that helps readers rec-
ognize how the author makes an event sound like it
happened in the past.
Students noticed that the author made the char-
acters talk and used quotation marks to show this
to readers. They also noticed that fished and shouted
had -­ed endings, which means these things hap-
pened in the past. Reader A noted that the word fish
can be a thing (noun) and something you do (verb).
Students reread the text, looking for places where
the author used dialogue and past-­tense verbs. This
inquiry approach gives students a purpose for dig-
ging into the complexity of language and vocabulary
that a transition from level G to level H requires and
gives the teacher the opportunity to name written
story language for students.
Now Ms. Smith has specific information to analyze
for each reader to provide prompting, feedback, and
practice both in small group and larger group settings.
Running records provide insight that goes beyond a
reader’s instructional level. As text grows more com-
plex, readers bring varied instruction, language expe-
riences, and skills to tackle new challenges.
By recording and analyzing the running record,
Ms. Smith can compare reading behaviors with
writing samples and oral language. Meanwhile, Ms.
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   January/February 2020literacyworldwide.org
Clarke reaches the last level G book in her class-
room, moves to level H, and sticks to the district
pacing guide for word work. She uses the planning
card of her level H books for instruction. There is
no opportunity for specific feedback or practice in
the strategic actions the students need to work on
next.
Revisiting Existing Running
Record Routines
Because running records are taken during oral read-
ing routines that are likely already built into instruc-
tion, embedding running records should not add
time to lessons. They can generate useful data dur-
ing the course of regular instruction rather than
stopping instructional routines or student practice
for assessment.
However, preparing to embed running records
for some or all students across a week of instruction
can be time-­ consuming and challenging to orga-
nize. Some programs and assessment systems come
with printed running record forms. Therefore, some
educators may believe extra or specific resources
are needed for running records. On the contrary, if
a school uses the consistent system for recording
miscues, blank running record forms or plain paper
can be used for any text.
No extra downloading, photocopying, or form-­
filling is required to generate specific, immediate
feedback—reinforcing, prompting, and teaching at
the cusp of the student’s zone of proximal develop-
ment (Vygotsky, 1978). When done on blank paper,
alongside a previous running record, a new record
allows quick side-­ by-­
side analyses of strategic
actions over time and gives teachers an opportunity
to check on independent text selection (see Table 3
for time-­saving suggestions).
It is hard to argue that individual instruction
is the best way to reach students. It is also hard to
argue that the number of instructional minutes in
a day makes that nearly impossible. In the era of
one-­ size-­
f its-­
all curriculum, regularly taking and
analyzing running records ensures that teachers are
able to see individual differences and plan instruc-
tion for small groups with similar needs. It is time
to revive the purpose, remember the practice, and
reinvigorate the analysis of running records for
ongoing instructional planning. In doing so, teach-
ers will make the most of every instructional and
planning minute to target instruction.
529
 Teaching Tip

Table 3
Time Crunch Suggestions
■ Use blank running record forms or a blank piece of
paper.
■ Create a class set of running record forms. Include
multiple sheets for struggling readers to check in
more often.
■ Write what the student says or miscues, and add the
text later.
■ Record only part of a page, up to 200 words (this
does not have to be the full book!).
■ After coding and analyzing, synthesize strategic
activity briefly and include a praise point and
teaching point.
■ Include fluency observations with slashes between
phrases or circle omitted punctuation.
■ For students in grades 3 and up, ask students to
self-select an important moment to read aloud. Use
the running record as a quick check for text-level
selection, fluency, and to inform your conference
conversation.
REFERENCES
Clay, M.M. (1966). Emergent reading behavior (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy
achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (2013). An observation survey of early literacy
achievement (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fawson, P.C., Ludlow, B.C., Reutzel, D.R., Sudweeks, R., &
Smith, J.A. (2006). Examining the reliability of running
records: Attaining generalizable results. The Journal of
Educational Research, 100(2), 113–126. https​://doi.org/10.3200/
JOER.100.2.113-126
Fisher, P., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy.
New York, NY: Corwin.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,
& E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
LI T E R AT U R E C I T E D
Dufresne, M. (2007). The fishing adventure. Northampton, MA:
Pioneer Valley.
MORE TO EXPLORE
For information on how to do a running record:
■■ Clay, M.M. (2000). Running records: For classroom
teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
■■ Online tutorials on Clemson University’s Reading
Recovery website: https​://readi​ngrec​overy.clems​
on.edu
For more information on interpreting running records
and identifying next steps for instruction:
■■ Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2017). When readers
struggle: Teaching that works. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
For more information on the connections between oral
reading and oral language:
■■ Cappellini, M. (2004). Balancing reading and language
learning: A resource for teaching English language
learners K–5. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse.

530
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 73   No. 4   January/February 2020literacyworldwide.org
Copyright of Reading Teacher is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.