December 13, 2011
The focus of this miscue analysis was to choose a reader and a text. In this miscue analysis, I will conduct a read-aloud miscue analysis. After the reader has completed the miscue analysis, I will ask the reader to retell the story he/she has read and record the accuracy of the retelling. Also, my analysis on the student’s miscue transcript must address numerous questions. Lastly, I will make recommendations, which are based on the evidence I have collected from the miscue analysis and my own analysis. These recommendations will be solely based on what the student needs to work on to continue to grow and develop as a reader.
While I was growing up I did not like to read. When it came to reading that would have been the last thing on my mind. I had a teacher who always pushed me to read. That was when I realized reading is a wonderful thing. I feel as a future educator, I believe I should encourage my students to read. Contrary to that statement, “some readers may read nearly word-perfect, yet understand little of what they have read” (Weaver, pg. 223). This is when “miscue analysis” or also known as “running record” is introduced. According to Weaver, “a miscue is an unexpected oral response that occurs while someone is reading aloud … a miscue is an oral response that differs from what the text would leads us to expect” (pg. 223). There is clear indication that miscue analysis is a valuable key in how one seeks a reader’s reading strategies. The importance of miscue analysis can be to understand readers’ strategies, and support them in becoming more self-confident and expert readers as soon as possible.
Goodman explains that “miscue is a good term because it reveals that miscues are unexpected responses cued by the readers’ knowledge of their language and concepts of the World” (Weaver, pg, 226). Having a student read aloud to you will benefit both the student and the teacher administering the miscue. The student and teacher will hear the students’ mistakes. As a future educator, I know that I must keep in mind that all readers make miscues. Readers use different strategies as they do their best to compose a meaningful and grammatical interpretation of the story. While these students are deciphering their strategies to help them read; the miscue analysis represents that readers are learning to read by reading. However, this does not mean the teacher’s role is not needed.
On the other hand, before a teacher can conduct a valid miscue analysis, the teacher should pick a reader who is able to read independently and choose a story/text that is suitable for the reader. The teacher should inform the reader the purpose of the miscue analysis and let he/she knows they will have to retell the story to you. Once the running record is complete, ask your reader to summarize the story she has just read, and also document accuracy of the summary. As well, you would want to let your reader be aware that you will not help them in any sort. Goodman reminds the reader that as you:
“read as if you are by yourself and do what you would do if you were reading silently. If you come to something you don’t know guess at it or skip it but keep reading. After you finish reading, I’ll ask you to tell me what you have read” (Weaver, pg. 228).
Additionally, when the teacher is administering the running record, the teacher notes should of consist of different miscues, regressions as well as any self-corrections, oral asides and any other behavior that will aid in understanding the reading. A factor a teacher should also remember if a reader hesitates for 30 seconds or more should be told to guess. With a miscue analysis it is the quality of the miscues that is important not the number of miscues that the reader makes.
There are numerous notations to record children’s oral reading, Taberski label some as accurate reading, substitutions and attempts at words, self-corrections, insertions and omissions, repetitions and “skip and return”, asks for help, told the word, try again and teacher prompts” (pg 46-49). When a reader has accurately read the sentence putting a check mark or tick mark means the reader has read it correctly. As for substitutions and attempts at words, when the reader comes across a word he/she may not know they often stop to guess the word out. Now if the reader gets the word correct, a check mark or tick mark will be placed. However, an attempt can be considered a substation due to the reader’s purpose; the reader represents it as their reading of the text. Self-corrections is important for a reader because the reader is attentive in his/her reading, the reader is cross-checking his/her reading sources, (which are the cueing system; graphophonic, semantic, and syntactic) and they use additional cues of information to make the necessary corrections. A reader makes their own insertions or even omits words from the passage due to them not knowing the word. If a reader omits a word, Taberski uses the symbol (^) to represent that the reader has added their own word, also the teacher should write the word the child added on top as well. For instance, when a child omits a word, a dash is simply placed through the word showing the reader left the word out.
A reader may even repeat words while he is reading. When the reader repeats words a “R” is placed a little below and to the right of the check or tick mark that indicates the word is being repeating. If a child repeats the word more than once a “R” is placed with a number in the bottom right corner of the “R” (R2 and so on). Also the reader may skip the word and later return to it. In some miscue analysis, the reader is told the word. This only happens if the reader is unable to get the word on their own. A “T” is placed to show that the reader was told the word. Even a reader can be prompted to try again, if the reader reads sentence and makes miscues that are linked to compound themselves as the reader continues to read; the teacher cuts in and ask him/her to try again. A teacher can provide prompts for the reader, when the reader attempts a word and is unable to self-correct, the teacher can help prompt the reader to get the word.
Taberski has three different guidelines for teaching based on text accuracy. She labels 95-100% as just right for independent reading, 92-97% just right for guided reading, and below 92% as too difficult for the reader to read themselves, but may be just right for read aloud and shared reading (pg. 50).
For my field experience, that is attached this course, I was required to conduct my own miscue analysis in the classroom I was placed in. Now the table was turned, here I was learning about running records, but it was my turn to conduct my own. At first I was apprehensive on conducting my very own miscue analysis. However, I felt pretty confident that I can administer my own miscue analysis. After I read Taberski’s chapter on “Taking Records of Children’s Oral Reading” and “Practicing What We Know: Informed Reading Instruction,” these two pieces of information made it better for me to understanding how to conduct a running record and look for miscues. The classroom I was placed in was a fourth grade all boys’ class. Within the class there was numerous books laid around the room ranging from different reading levels. Ms. Wright recommended that I work with Elijah to complete my miscue analysis on. His current reading level is a P. For only conducting a miscue analysis for the first time I was amazed with all things I read about were actually being played out in front of me. Elijah made minor errors, he made some self-corrections, he made an omission for a word, and he attempted at a word but he did not return to self-correct himself.
As I conclude we must remember that a miscue analysis or running record “is a graphic account of a child’s oral reading (Taberski, pg. 45). Furthermore, reading is a tool that processes in the brain without concrete and stable evidence of a reader’s activities. Miscue analysis’s helps a teacher decide what book is appropriate for a reader; analyzes which cueing systems and strategies a reader uses and can track a reader’s performance over a period of time. Now it becomes apparent that readers learn to read by reading and making understanding of print. This however, does not erase the role of a teacher; it instead highlights the need of readers to be in control of and taking the responsibility of their own reading progression.
Taberski, S. (2000). On solid ground: strategies for teaching reading K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1998). Practicing what we know: informed reading instruction. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.