I began by having each student read a 600 word passage from The Outsiders. This did violate the protocal I found in my research because they have both read this book in class and they did not choose this book themselves. Both students did exceptionally well. Saul seemed very relaxed and consciously not trying to read too fast. His reading was fluent and not overly rapid. Saul made one mistake in 600 words of The Outsiders. The protagonist says “but I usually lone it anyway.” Saul read “but I usually if anyway. This does qualify as a miscue; I interpret this as being a miscue resulting from graphic similarity. But, as in Gunther’s model, this is a miscue that did not result in a loss of meaning. Saul had an error ration of 1:600 for The Outsiders. From both a running record perspective and a miscue analysis perspective, this book is too easy for Saul. He only made one miscue, and it did not result in any loss of meaning. As a measure of fluency, this book is too easy for Saul. But I do think this book still provides Saul with numerous opportunities to further develop his reading skills. This book would offer a rich field for Saul to explore thematic and character development, just to name a few.
Andrea had an experience very similar to Saul in reading from the The Outsiders. Andrea read 600 words from The Outsiders and only made two miscues, for an error ration of 1:300. She substituted “moving” for “movie” and “getting” for “being.” Her substitution of “moving” for “movie” seems to have been due to graphic similarity. I suspect her substitution of “getting” for “being” was just one of those miscues we all make when reading orally for someone else. I do not think either of these mistakes resulted in a loss of meaning. While a running record assessment would say this book is too easy for Andrea, I do think, as in the case with Saul, this book still offers many learning opportunities, such as in terms of literary devices like thematic and character development.
Saul next read 600 words from Into Thin Air, (written at an 8th grade level) which tells of a disaster that occurred on Mount Everest in 1996. Saul had 5 miscues and one self-correction with this passage. Saul had a miscue ration of 1:120. One miscue seems to have resulted from graphic similarity. Saul read “invisibility” instead “visibility.” A couple of the miscues seem to have been nothing more that the occasional miscue we all make when reading orally for someone else. For example, Saul read “was" instead of “had” and he read “and” instead of “or.” I do not think any of these miscues resulted in much loss of meaning. One miscue he made did, I believe, resulted in a loss of meaning. The main character tells how he was leaning over and “retching.” Saul read this a leaning over and “reaching.” I think this was a new word for Saul. He did not self-correct and read the word wrong. By substituting “reaching” for “retching,” I do not think Saul grasped that the character was violently ill. Again, based on a running record analysis, this book is too easy for Saul. A miscue analysis would be more helpful. Although Saul’s oral reading resulted in very few miscues, there were places in the text that I could tell Saul was not following the action. Miscue analysis’ category of intonation could come be helpful in considering how to help a student like Saul reading this book. From my observation of Saul’s reading this text, he could benefit from work on separating dependent clauses from sentences. Saul could also benefit from activities that ask him to monitor his comprehension and strategies that help him repair meaning when it breaks down.
Andrea also read 600 pages from the 8th grade text Into Thin Air. Even though the reading level increased from 7th grade to eighth grade, Andrea’s number of miscues was still very low. Andrea had three miscues and one self-correction for an error ratio of 1:200. One miscue seems related to graphic similarity; she read “us” instead of “up.” But this did not seem to cause any loss of meaning. The other two miscues were words Andrea did not seem to know and could not sound-out. She could not pronounce the word “methodical” and did not seem to know what it meant. She also could not pronounce the rather technical word “crampon,” which are metal spikes climbers fasten onto their boots to help them navigate the ice. Andrea did seem to lose meaning because of these two miscues. As was the case with Saul, I think a miscue analysis would be an effective tool to diagnose Andrea’s instructional needs. While her error ratio was very low—well beyond the dependent level—she clearly had portions of the text where she lost meaning. There were a number of words she was able to sound-out, but she did not seem to know them. She seemed to struggle maintaining understanding throughout as she had to sound-out words she did not know and also work through longer sentences with frequent dependent clauses. Much like with Saul, I think Andrea could benefit from activities geared to becoming more comfortable with dependent clauses, self-monitoring practice, and strategies for when meaning breaks down.
Saul next read 600 pages from His Excellence, a biography on George Washington. This text is written for an adult audience. Saul made 16 miscues. Saul had an error ration of 1:37.5 A couple of his miscues were again those miscues that anyone could make while reading orally for someone else. For example, he read “of” instead of “at.” But 13 of his miscues came from words he did not know and had trouble sounding-out. For example, Saul had miscues around words like “canonization,” “idolatry,” “cadences,” and “providential.” From a running record perspective, I would determine this text was too difficult for Saul and would guide him a lower reading level. Miscue analysis would also help me further understand Saul’s difficulty with this text. First, many of his miscues were based on his unfamiliarity with these words and an inability to even sound-them-out. Also, I could tell by his pacing and intonation that he was not understanding much of what he was reading, even if he was pronouncing the words correctly. I believe a “retell,” in which Saul retold what he just read would have confirmed my suspicion that he did not grasp much of this text. But even though this text was so difficult for Saul, a miscue analysis could provide me with the strategies to help Saul better grasp this text. I would begin with building the vocabulary necessary for Saul to understand this passage and then I would build background knowledge.
Andrea also had a much more difficult time with the George Washington biography His Excellency. She had 12 errors for an error ration of 1:60. She had a few simple mistakes that did not seem to have arisen from graphic similarity but rather from feeling the stress of reading this difficult material out loud to another person. For example, she substituted “couple” for “few.” The majority of her miscues were on difficult words she did not seem to know and was trying to sound-out, such as “posterity,” “designation,” and “chroniclers.” From a running record perspective, this book is too hard for Andrea and should be abandoned for a lower leveled text. From a miscue analysis perspective, I might gear instruction (if we decided to continue with this book) toward vocabulary, background information, continued work with dependent clauses and longer sentences. I could also create instructional activities for Andrea to monitor syntax—does her reading sound right; and activities for Andrea to monitor semantics—does her reading make sense. This could also provide a opportunity to design instruction around using context clues to determine meaning of unknown words.
No comments:
Post a Comment