Tag Archive | Miscue Analysis

Fieldwork Reflection #3

DatesWednesday, April 17 and Friday, April 19, 2013

SiteSt. Paul Lutheran School, All day kindergarten

Cooperating TeacherMrs. Novak

Total hours together3 hours 5 mins      Total for EDU344: 9 hrs 40 mins out of 20 hours

On Wednesday, I practiced a Miscue Analysis/IRI on Luc. I used copies from the Qualitative Reading Analysis (5th ed.)  book from Pearson. First I asked him to read the words from the Pre-Primer 1 list, which included a bunch of sight words that the kindergarteners had previously learned. Luc did really well on reading this list automatically, missing just two words (can and was) and being able to self-correct the word can on his own. This put him at Independent level for this list. Then we moved on to Pre-Primer 2/3, which also include a lot of sight words but more complicated ones. Luc did not do so well on this list. He missed nine out of twenty words and was only able to self-correct one of those: the word some. I noticed that he struggled with words that had a final silent on them, as well as words that featured the letter r either before or after a vowel.

Next we moved on to Pre-Primer 1 level stories, the first called “I Can.” First I asked the concept questions to get a look at his background knowledge. The questions were basic, like “what does it mean to jump, hop, sleep, and dream? Luc couldn’t offer precise definition for any of the questions, and for the jump question he used the word in his definition. His comprehension was about 50%. He predicted that the story would be about hopping and skipping, even though skipping wasn’t one of the words.

For some reason, I had not copied the first page of the story, which said, “I can jump. See me jump.” So we started with the second page. Luc did well on the story. He misread can again, but he self-corrected. He also misread lunch and self-corrected and inverted two words, but also corrected them. This meant that the story was at his instructional level, which is good. For the retelling portion, he remembered 5 out of 10 points, so his comprehension/memory was at 50%. Despite not remembering key points, he did make some inferences based on the pictures. For the comprehension questions, he missed the last one. I asked him what the boy can do while he is sleeping, and Luc said the exact opposite of what a person does when he is asleep. He said the boy was awake and reading books, which was very puzzling to me. Did he not understand the English I was speaking?

I also would have been surprised by the lack of comprehension, except that Mrs. Novak had told me in a previous week that the majority of the students are still working on developing their comprehension skills.

Because he was at instructional level, I decided to have Luc read another story at the Pre-Primer 1 level. This story was called, “I See.” The concept questions were “what is a frog, what is a bug, and what is a pig? Luc was able to give 2-point answers, listing characteristics of each of the animals. He was also able to predict that the story would be about a frog and a pig. His prior knowledge was higher for this story, at 67%.

During the reading, he misread ant as nut, but he corrected himself. He also switched the order of two words, though he self-corrected. And he misread doing as logging. Doing was one of the words he had gotten wrong on the word list as well. Because there were fewer words in this story and he had one more miscue than the previous story, his level was at frustrational this time.

Interestingly enough, his memory for this story was way more accurate. He got 10 out of 10 ideas right in the retelling. He got all of the questions correct, too, including understanding some implicit ideas. He also figured out that the story rhymed even though this was not part of the assessment and I didn’t prompt him at all. He pointed out each of the rhyming words for me, and I praised him for figuring that out.

The only explanation I can think of for why his decoding and comprehension skills did not match up is his lack of understanding of the English language. Maybe both his reading and his listening skills can be affected by his language barrier.

After I analyzed his reading, we returned to the classroom where Luc was able to participate in a letter game with the other children before lunch time. The children had to pull items out of a box and figure out whether the figure started with a or or neither. If the items didn’t start with the feature letters, they started and/or ended with or x, which were the next letters the students were going to learn about; so it was a pre-assessment to see if the children already knew these letters. I thought it was a really clever idea, and I would totally implement that exercise if I ended up in a kindergarten classroom.

After reviewing the miscue analysis at home, I noticed Luc especially struggles with his vowels. While he can read words with the CVC pattern—that is, consonant, vowel, consonant—he gets confused when we add a finale marker to a word, when the vowel is preceded or proceeded by an r, or when the word has a vowel diagraph—two letters sitting next to each that create a distinct vowel sound. Because of this boy’s struggles, I decided we should focus on vowel sounds,

We started the lesson, by playing the Say, Move it game, where a student moves tokens below the designated line for every sound in a word. I started with easy CVC words, such as “cat, dog, hat,” etc. before moving on to more complicated words like “boat, tail, book, rain,” etc. I was doing this to assess whether Luc understood phonemes and graphemes or not.

After the exercise, I explained how some words have more letters than sounds. I showed the word rain as an example. There are three sounds, but four letters, because there is an extra vowel in the word. I demonstrated this for him, using little print-out blocks that had the letters of the alphabet on them and spelled a few words that had more letters than corresponding sounds. I then showed Luc how to change the word by exchanging or adding letters. For instance, rain becomes train, train becomes trail , trail becomes tail, and tail becomes pail. The teacher will explain as she is changing the words, how the vowel sounds also change depending on the word. Rain is a long /a/ sound, while pail is closer to a short /a/ with a hint of a short /i/ sound.

We then worked together to do the following other word building lists, explaining about the different sounds the vowels make, depending on the words:

  • Dome
  • Home
  • Come
  • Some
  • Same
  • Came
  • Cane
  • Pane

And the list:

  • Book
  • Look
  • Took
  • Tool
  • Pool
  • Cool
  • Fool
  • Food
  • Good

During this exercise, I would periodically pause and ask the student to find a letter to add to the beginning or the end of the word to change it. For example, during the first list, after changing the word to same, I asked Luc to grab a letter and change the word. And he selected g, to create game. By the end of the exercise, Luc made five words of his own.

After we went through these word lists, I had him play the Say it, Move it game again, this time sounding out words like book and then counting out the letters. He saw that these specific words had a difference in letters and sounds, thanks to the vowel diagraphs in each of the selected words.


Assessing and Correcting Reading and Writing Difficulties: Chapter Four

While reading Chapter four, I was reminded of the fieldwork I completed last year for the Teaching Reading class. I had the great fortune of getting to observe my cooperating teacher give Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) assessments to her first-grade class. The school was using Fontas and Pinnell’s Benchmark Assessment System. This was a form of running records that used bits of IRI and miscue analysis with the added benefits of comprehension questions to see where the students were in their reading ability. Each reading level was assigned by a letter A-N, getting progressively harder down the alphabet. The children had to read two books, one fiction and one nonfiction, both at what the teacher believed was the student’s instructional level. If the book was giving them too much trouble, the teacher would select a story from the previous level instead. The teacher was looking for word identification and fluency skills, like the ones listed on page 93 of the textbook: mispronunciation (substitution), omission, insertion, repetition, rising or falling inflection, etc., and she used the symbols of IRI to mark the errors. As is the case with miscue analysis, the teacher also made note of how many words were figured out using semantic similarity vs. graphic similarity. At the end of the reading, the children got questions about what happened to help determine their comprehension.

One of the children I watched was a Turkish ELL student and was at a “D” level, very beginner. He struggled with word identification, including finding the English words in his schema to answer the questions at the end of the reading, but his comprehension was there. He knew what was going on in the story; he just couldn’t find the words to explain it and kept reverting to his native tongue. My cooperating teacher understood this and was very patient with him. I think patience is a key to a plethora of reading problems. If a child cannot read what is in front of him, no amount of cajoling or complaining is going to change the outcome. When we exercise patience, we are letting the student know that we accept their struggles and we want to help them succeed no matter how long it takes.

Another boy I viewed could figure out most of the words on his own and make self-corrections. But for one word he refused to sound it out on his own and looked to the teacher for help. He had basic comprehension, where he could tell you the gist of the story, but he couldn’t think critically. For instance, the teacher asked him why the boy in the book might have gone to a farm to find a cat, and the boy couldn’t answer. Critical thinking is an imperative part of learning, but it is something that many educators don’t invest time in teaching. I was impressed to see that this particular IRI series was pushing for higher critical thinking.

Another child I had the privilege to observe was a classified struggling reader. At one point, he got stumped on a phrase and knew it was wrong, but he didn’t know how to correct it. He had great comprehension, though, and great expression. He understood graphic cues—that bold letters should be read with emphasis and that sentences ending with exclamation points and question marks need to be read differently. I loved watching him, because despite the fact that he was below level for his grade and had reading difficulties, I could tell he enjoyed reading.

I feel that getting children to love books is the most important goal we can accomplish in the classroom. So many worlds will open up to them once they begin reading–so many opportunities for learning will be uncovered.  Whether students are struggling or above-average in reading, we teachers need to build up their enthusiasm so that they will learn to independently seek out literature to read. Reading, no matter how fast or slow you do it, always fosters growth.

Thomas G. Gunning, Assessing and Correcting: Reading and Writing Difficulties, rev. ed. (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2010), 94-105.