The Crane And The Snake: Miscue Analysis

This study followed three procedures: (1) the Burke Reading Interview (BRI) (Burke, 1987), (2) a Reading Miscue Inventory (RMI) (Goodman, 1973b), and (3) a Retrospective Miscue Analysis (RMA) (Goodman, Y. & Marek, 1996). In the forthcoming sections, I will explain in detail the protocols required for each of these procedures.

The essential literacy strategy goes along with the standards and learning objectives by using context clues to help the student figure out unknown or unfamiliar words. Students will build reading comprehension skills by using context clues for figuring out unknown or unfamiliar words while they are reading. Then the students will perform the strategies individually. The related skills address the use of prior knowledge of synonyms and antonyms during the hook and transition portion of the lesson. The reading and writing connections go along with the learning objectives, because the students will read their assigned book and picking out words they do not understand. The students will have to write the sentence with the unknown word in it, and use context clues to figure out the definition of the unknown word. The central focus for this unit of study is for the students to use context clues to better their comprehension of what they have read in their assigned books. The students will be able to use context clues within sentences to determine the meaning of unknown or unfamiliar words. These lessons deal with comprehending text by using context clues to help figure out unknown words. The lessons build off each other by adding more detail to learning about context clues. As the lessons progress the students will be more independent when using context clues. The first lesson is learning about what context clues are. The second lesson will focus on using context clues to figure

Addison read a narrative and an expository passage at Level P, “Plenty of Pets” a narrative passage and then an expository passage, “Animal Instincts”. Addison read both passages with 96% and 99% accuracy respectively. She scored satisfactory on both passages. When reading Level Q, she read a nonfiction passage, “Not Too Cold for a Polar Bear” with 97% accuracy and excellent comprehension. At Level R, she read with 95% accuracy and satisfactory for comprehension, although it is deliberate and arduous. However, when Addison read a narrative and expository text Level S, “Could Be Worse” and “Amazing Animal Adaptations”, reading both passages below 95% accuracy. When considering a fluency score, Addison primarily reads in three and four word groups, however it is not smooth and lacks expression with a slow rate most of the time. Aimweb progress monitoring data were considered to determine Addison’s correct word per minutes. According to the data, Addison’s word recognition skills significantly impacts her ability to read fluently, thus causing frustration. She is currently being progressed monitored at a third grade level, indicating she falls near the thirty third percentile when compared to third grade students nationally, reading a median of 109 correct words per minute.

1. This document teaches students how to read the word by introducing lots of vocabulary and

In my clinical field experience I had the opportunity to administer a miscue analysis assessment to a first grade student. The miscue selection came from Form A Level 1 of the Analytical Reading Inventory book. The student was given a passage to read on their grade level. Prior to reading the passage, I conducted a prior knowledge/prediction assessment of the passage. The first grade student provided me with some prior knowledge/ prediction of the selection. Next, the student was asked to read the passage. As the student started to read, I noted on the miscues and cueing systems record sheet, any miscues made by the student. The data collected from this evaluation displayed three miscues that consisted of substitution of words, no graphophonic

Levy, B. A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(3), 173-188.

Katie has made considerable improvement from the first session. She has admitted she does not like to read, but continues to do so with enthusiasm. She is putting forth effort in using guiding questions to look for key details, and has a purpose for reading. She has a good grasp on vocabulary and high frequency words. When reading “Island of the Blue Dolphins” there are many unfamiliar words and Katie sounds them out and uses surrounding words to help her pronounce an understand the meaning. Katie also transactions well between nonfiction text articles and fictional stories. She can recall details, and does so now with more information and can cite text evidence with close reading strategies.

On Friday, February 16, 2018, Dr. Shari Robertson CCC-SLP, a professor of Speech-Language Pathology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania spoke at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Centers National Student Speech-Language and Hearing Associations spring conference. Dr. Robertson's lecture was about strategies to build a better reader. In her session, Dr. Robertson discussed interactive reading strategies, as well as ways to engage a child in his or her reading with the teacher, speech-language pathologist (SLP) or parent.

The sociopsycholinguistic, transative analysis of reading miscues has been based mostly on the Kenneth Goodman 's work on miscue analysis. Goodman (1996) sees reading as an psycholinguistic puzzle, which is solved by the reader in a particular sociocultural context where he/she transact with the text to comprehend it. The methodology of reading miscues has evolved since Goodman 's first works. For the purpose of this study, it is considered appropriately to apply the In-Depth Miscue Analysis procedure (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005) for data collection; which more than the psycholinguistic analysis of the reading miscues, it provides an analysis of each reading miscue in relation to other miscues within sentences and within the entire text taking in to consideration the reader

In order to perform a retrospective miscue analysis, it will be necessary to use the Burke Interview for Modified for Older Readers (BIMOR) (Burke, 1979). BIMOR has been used in the field as the instrument of choice (e.g., Almazroui, 2015; Dean, 2010; Goodman, & Marek, 1996; Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005; Moore, & Aspegren, 2001; Moore, & Brantingham, 2003; Theurer, 2002). BIMOR provides information about the participant's metalinguistic knowledge, which is described by the participants' beliefs on the following constructs: reading strategies, characteristics of good readers, good and errorless reader's performance, reading instruction, and reading processes. The data collected through BIMOR will be correlated with the produced miscues, and the participant's eye movement pattern. BIMOR has 14 open-ended items (see Annex A). Items 1, 2, 3 , 12, and 13 measure participant's beliefs about reading strategies, items 4 to 6 measure beliefs about good and errorless reader's performance, items 7 to 9 measure reading instruction, and items 11 and 10 measure reading process. The responses to each item will be numerically coded. BIMOR

When conducting a miscue analysis, the student is actively forming meaning that the author is conveying in the text. When teachers are able to understand miscue analysis they also build an understanding as the listener when they can help build upon student’s reading skills. Since miscue analysis is focused on “cueing system” that the reader is using it typically has 3 cueing systems used (same as running record):

I agree with Wilde that miscue analysis is the best single tool teachers can use to understand readers and support their further learning because instead of focusing on what the students got wrong and the number or errors they made the teacher focus on what the child did right. This can help teachers plan what students read next in group settings or individually. Miscue analysis reveals students reading abilities and then gives the teacher the ability to focus on their weaknesses and strengths which can help teachers find strategies for each student to use.

fore these lessons, I observed student A read and saw how much he struggles and how long it takes him to read a sentence. He is never able re-call what he reads. While student B has some difficulty, his fluency is better then student A’s and he is able to recall more. The two lessons that I implemented confirmed my understanding that if students have difficulty with decoding words they will have problems with fluency, which will impact their comprehension.

Reading comprehension strategies. Throughout the history of reading education, there has been extensive research on phonological awareness and phonics. More recently, educational theorists have also recognized and researched the need for instructing students in the use of comprehension strategies in reading (Muspratt, Luke, & Freebody, 1997). Block, Gambrell, and Pressley (2002) state “The message is clear – the most important thing about reading is comprehension” (p. 3)

This chapter has been designed to delineate the viewpoints of various researchers and linguists to form a conceptual framework for this study and its research questions. There have been several studies on the students who have English as their first language. The researchers found the differences in the readers which help them to make distinguish between the poor readers and good readers. Moreover, there were also studies on second language learners which prove that chunking words into meaningful phrases can increase the skill of reading comprehension. A review of these studies follows.