Download - Can Johnny Read?
School-based Curriculum Action Research Series
Can Johnny Read?
- Improving Oral Reading Research Team: School-based Curriculum Development (Primary) Section Curriculum Development Institute Education and Manpower Bureau Baptist Rainbow Primary School (PM) Ms Lam Yuk Kiu, Iris Ms Lau Hang Fan, Christine
Copyright 2003 Education and Manpower Bureau, HKSAR
School-based Curriculum Action Research Series The 21st century marks the development of an information or knowledge
society with fast-changing needs and environment. In order to prepare our younger generation for their future needs, schools, through constant endeavours in search of excellence, have to provide students with different learning opportunities and experiences. In this respect, the school curriculum should best be aligned with the social development as well as the students’ interest.
Since 1998, the School-based Curriculum Development (Primary) Section
(SBCDP) has been collaborating with school teachers in curriculum development in various Key Learning Areas. Building on the strengths and successful experiences accumulated over the years, the Section has initiated action researches jointly with teachers, aiming at empowering teachers to make informed decisions on curriculum research and development. Why Do We Promote School-based Curriculum Action Research? Collaborative school-based curriculum action research aims to: enable teachers to enhance quality learning and teaching through knowledge
generated and constructed in the process of critical and systematic inquiry into different learning and teaching issues;
develop teachers' competence in curriculum development and research literacy as well as their sense of curriculum ownership;
develop schools into learning organizations through collaborative team work within schools and professional sharing in school networks.
How Do We Conduct Collaborative School-based Curriculum Action Research? In the course of school-based curriculum development, teachers’ critical reflections will help them identify issues worth addressing in the form of an action research. The following steps illustrate the basic cycle in action research: 1. Examine critically learning- or teaching-related issues worth researching into 2. Define the research focus and review literature for current theories and
practice 3. Develop action plans or intervention strategies 4. Implement action plans in contexts
5. Collect evidence and reflect on effectiveness of actions 6. Draw conclusions and use feedback to improve learning and teaching 7. Start a new cycle if necessary
As teachers progress through this spiral cycle, they improve their teaching through continual reflection and move closer to the solution of the identified problems. Taking the role as facilitator, Curriculum Development Officers from the SBCDP Section work as partners with teachers, rendering professional support throughout the research cycle, assisting them in reflecting and conceptualizing tacit knowledge embedded in their practice. How Can These Reports Be Used?
This series of action research reports portrays the participating teachers' educational beliefs and philosophy, and the developmental pathway undertaken to improve the school curriculum. The curriculum design, intervention strategies, action plans, research tools and instruments, as well as the findings and recommendations may be valuable references for teachers who intend to launch school-based curriculum development and/or collaborative action research in their schools. We sincerely hope that this series can serve as a platform to stimulate professional dialogue in curriculum research and development, and to spark off a research culture in primary schools in Hong Kong.
For comments and inquiries on the series, please contact Mr. WUN Chi Wa, Ankey Senior Curriculum Development Officer School-based Curriculum Development (Primary) Section Phone : (852)2762 0174 Fax : (852)2877 7954 Email : [email protected]
Contents Page A. Students’ Needs Identified 1
B. Strategies to Use 2
C. Curriculum Planning 4
D. Implementing the Strategies 6
(1) Systematic teaching of phonics (2) Applying phonics skills in everyday reading (3) Consolidating sight words – word walls & class dictionaries (4) Games for phonics and word recognition (5) Listening to tape – recorded stories (6) Teaching class readers and group reading (7) Reading aloud in class and peer comments
E. Assessing Oral Reading 16 - Running Records and Miscue Analysis
F. Assessing Oral Reading 30 - Using Unfamiliar Texts
References 35
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
A. Students’ Needs Identified An Action Research on “Learning English the Experience Way” was carried
out in Primary 2 in the school last year (2000-01). Students learnt English through
a range of learning experiences including shared reading, drama and field trips, etc.
They were provided the need to communicate real and imaginative feelings and
ideas in English. The findings showed a significant increase of student motivation
in learning English. Students also showed encouraging improvement in creative
writing as a result of the diversified inputs and the intensity of thought and
emotions evoked.
We did not, however, get similar results in another area of our research –
students’ oral reading. A probable cause might be the lack of practice after shared
reading. We noted that however much students enjoyed the stories and reading
them together in class, they tended to forget what they read as soon as the big book
was taken away. As the big books were on temporary loan to the school they were
not used for repeated readings in later lessons as they should have been.
We also noted that students’ oral reading was often hampered by their
inability to apply phonic skills to pronounce unknown words and by their limited
sight vocabulary. All these shortcomings became our research objectives for the
research sequel this year.
1
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
B. Strategies to Use Reading is about decoding words and constructing meaning from text. In
the English Curriculum, KS1 students are expected to know the letters of the
alphabet and use the knowledge of basic sound-symbol correspondences to work
out how to read words aloud. They have to use simple strategies to get meaning
while reading, such as recognizing familiar words in new texts, knowing word
roots, understanding linking words for connections between ideas, predicting
meaning of unfamiliar words with the help of pictures and contexts, confirming
meaning by re-reading a part of the text, etc.
It is now commonly agreed that phonics helps children to make progress in
reading if introduced systematically alongside children’s normal reading (Hadley
1994; IRA 1997). However, although many words can be sounded out with phonic
cues, some 20% still need to be learnt by the look of the word. Many of these are
high frequency words which students will naturally meet when they read. They
will develop an automatic response to these sight words over time with exposure
to a range of reading books, language support materials and help (Hadley 1994).
Samuel (1998) advocated the idea that accurate and automatic word
recognition is necessary for reading fluency. This automaticity in word recognition
is achieved through extended practice. When students do repeated readings of the
same passages, their accuracy in word recognition will improve so much that it
will become automatic. The faster decoding of words helps them retain meaning as
they read, and that increases comprehension as well as fluency.
The effect of poor reading fluency on students’ learning is clearly
summarized by Hasbrouck et al (1999) in their research on special needs students’
learning. They found that poor readers often read too slowly to understand the
meaning of the passage. They stumble over unknown words, and tend to ignore
punctuation. As they struggle with the reading, the passage becomes a meaningless
combination of words. They lose interest in reading and all other school activities
2
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
that require reading, and they rarely read for pleasure. As a result they lag behind
in their school achievements and suffer a diminished self-worth.
In order to help students read well orally, we used the following strategies in
our action research: (a) strengthening the teaching of phonic skills, (b) building
up sight words, (c) reading familiar texts many times, and (d) having students
read in front of the class and give peer assessment.
Teachers used these strategies consistently in the English lessons throughout
the term.
2001-02
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JulyPhonics
Sight
words
Reading
aloud in
class
OST
Readers
Small
group
activities
Running
records
(pre)
“Hiccups
foe
Elephant”
Running
records 2
“Wet
Sunday”
Running
records 3
“Playing
with my
friend”
Reading
test &
interviews
Running
records
(post)
“Hiccups
for
Elephant”
Student
survey
(whole
class)
3
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
C. Curriculum Planning
To cater for the additional instruction and practice in oral reading, we cut down
the textbook contents, re-structured some units, added a few Big Books and readers,
and used a lot of phonics and vocabulary games. The resulting curriculum was rich,
interesting and effective for students to learn.
Textbooks:
Now On Target Books 3A & B (1st Term) Now On Target Books 3B & D (2nd Term)
Additional reading:
For shared reading – How to make a mudpie Birthdays Gogo’s Adventure Reader 3
For repeated reading – The Magic Key Grandma Castle Adventure A Pack of Seeds
Additional listening:
Little Readers Series, various titles Butterfly Books, various titles
Phonics:
Onsets: s, f, d, p, w, m, b, l, n, h, g, j, r, k, th, sh, ch, pl, sp Ending sounds: -b, -d, -p, -k, -sh, -ch Rimes: -ut, -at, -en, -oy, -op, -ook, -oor, -oom, ool, -ice, -ing
Sight words:
high frequency words words learnt in previous years key words from textbook units
4
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Implementing the Strategies - Summary Systematic teaching of
phonics
Phonics started early in Term 1, building on what was done previously
Onsets and rimes chosen from course-book texts and taught explicitly with practice exercises
Focus placed on sound discrimination and blending skills
Applying phonic skills in everyday reading
Students made aware of need to use phonic skills to solve reading problems
Students helped to draw analogies with onset-rime patterns to sound out unfamiliar words
Consolidating sight words by building word walls and compiling class dictionaries
Sight words always introduced in context to emphasize meaning
Frequent revision using flash cards Topical vocabulary items posted on wall for
a period of time Words on the wall later entered into the class
dictionary for regular quizzes Students encouraged to keep personal
dictionaries/vocabulary books Students encouraged to use known words in
writing Practising phonics and word recognition in games and activities
Phonics and vocabulary games played at least once a week in split class lessons
Popular games included ‘Snap!’, Snakes and Ladders, dominoes and Pelmanism
Reading aloud in front of the class
Students signed up on monthly calendar and read to class a prepared story/text
Students could choose to read from textbooks or extensive readers
Involving students in peer assessment
Assessment criteria on good oral reading introduced after 1st round of reading aloud to class, and the audience was involved in assessing the readers
Listening to tape-recorded storybooks
Students listened to tapes using headphones The recordings provided native-speaker
models Students encouraged to read along
Repeated reading of stories Oxford Story Tree readers were taught in class
Students read in small groups/pairs during split class lessons
5
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
D. Implementing the Strategies (1) Systematic teaching of phonics
Phonics started early in Term 1, building on what was done previously
Onsets and rimes were chosen from course-book texts and taught
explicitly with practice exercises
Focus was placed on sound discrimination and blending skills
(2) Applying phonic skills in everyday reading Students were made aware of the need to use phonic skills to solve
reading problems
Students were helped to draw analogies with onset-rime patterns to
sound out unfamiliar words
Phonic worksheets
Phonic cards for practice
6
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
(3) Consolidating sight words – word walls & class dictionaries
Sight words were always introduced in context to emphasize meaning
There was frequent revision using flash cards.
Topical vocabulary items were posted on the wall for a period of time
Words on the wall were later entered into the class dictionary for
regular quizzes
Students were encouraged to keep personal dictionaries/vocabulary
books
Paired practice of reading sight word cards occurred in weekly split
class.
A word wall
Sample cards for phonics and sight words
8
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
A class dictionary
(4) Games for phonics and word recognition
☺ Games were played in weekly split class
☺ Snap, Dominoes and Pelmanism were popular games for quick word
recognition
☺ Snakes and Ladders revised basic structures and vocabulary
☺ Matching pictures and sentences of a familiar reader provided repeated
practice and fostered confidence in weaker students
☺ Sorting sentences that described a scene proved to be more
challenging and not so popular among weaker groups
Students playing “Pelmanism”
“Pelmanism” & “Snap!” cards
9
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
A reading game
Matching pictures and sentences; story sequencing
10
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Dominoes
Sample cards for the “Snakes and Ladders”
Snakes and Ladders
11
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
(5) Listening to tape-recorded stories
Students chose their favourite easy readers They listened to the tapes using headphones. The story was recorded
three times to reduce the need to rewind the tape. The recordings provided native-speaker models Students were encouraged to read along as they listened for the 2nd
time onwards.
Students listening with earphones
12
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
(6) Teaching class readers and group reading
Oxford Story Tree readers were taught in class Students read in small groups or in pairs during split class. Students were seen to initiate variation in their reading, e.g. whole
group reading together, each student taking turns to read, students
choosing to role-read, etc. Peer coaching and modeling was a strong element in this activity
Group reading of class reader
Students reading their favourite stories
13
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
(7) Reading aloud in class and peer comments
Students signed up on monthly calendar and read in front of the class a
prepared story/text. Most students read from textbooks in the 1st round, but moved onto
extensive readers in later rounds. Criteria of good oral reading were discussed with class after 1st round
and the audience was involved in giving supportive comments to the
reader.
Reading in front of whole class
Audience giving comments
14
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Students signed up on the calendar to read aloud in class
15
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
E. Assessing Oral Reading : - Running Records and Miscue Analysis
Apart from observing students reading aloud in class, we gave the six students in
the focus group individual oral reading assessments periodically. These students
were selected to represent the full range of ability in English. Altogether four tests
were given (i.e. November, January, April and June). We used storybooks that
were unfamiliar to the students – “Hiccups for Elephant” for both pretest and
posttest, and “A very wet Sunday” and “Playing with my friend” in between.
Before each reading, the tester would talk about the story in general with the
student, activate his/her prior knowledge about the contents and pre-teach some of
the special words if necessary. As the student read, the tester would take a running
record of the oral reading. The student was told to try his best to read every word,
but he could also ask for help if he needed it.
Running Records A Running Record is a detailed and accurate record of a child’s reading as he
reads. The teacher sits with the child and uses specific shorthand (or codes) to
record precisely what he is reading aloud.
In our action research we tape-recorded the reading aloud sessions as well as
taking the Running Records. This provided us with a detailed account of the
students’ reading behaviours, their strategies in solving reading problems, their
struggles and their efforts. These are the codes we used in our Running Records:
Accurately read
Substitution Child’s word
Text-word
Self-correction SC
Omission text-word
Teacher’s help
T
16
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Text difficulty & test conditions
Of the three books used in the assessment, “Hiccups for Elephant” is the most
difficult in terms of language; the other two books, “A very wet Sunday” and
“Playing with my friend”, are written for second language users, and so the
patterns and vocabulary are more controlled.
“Hiccups” was used for the pre-test and post-test, with an interval of six
months. Both tests were administered by the external agent. In between these
tests, the oral reading of the other two books were done by the students’ class
teachers.
We might have to take into consideration the greater text difficulty and
anxiety level created by the outside tester in comparing students’
performances of “Hiccups” with those of the “A very wet Sunday” and
“Playing with my friend”.
17
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Miscues analysis Cues and miscues
Reading is not just decoding words, but also constructing meaning. It involves
an active use of a variety of cues in the language system to infer, predict, confirm,
disconfirm and correct. We predict the next word or sentence based on what we see
on the page (the prints, the pictures, etc.), what we know of the sound and
structural systems of the language, and our knowledge of the world, etc. These are
the major “cues”, or sources of information, for us to understand the written text.
To be able to read well means using the multiple cueing systems of the language
effectively to construct meaning.
A miscue occurs when we predict a different syntactical structure from the one
the author used, or when we interpret a meaning different from what the author
intended, or when we lose meaning (Martens 1995).
Miscues not errors
Miscue analysis was developed by Ken Goodman in the 1970’s. He believes that
miscues are a natural part of the reading process. All of us are liable to make some
“unexpected responses” which are caused by what we know about the language
and the world. Goodman prefers to call these unexpected responses “miscues”
rather than “errors” because not all miscues are bad. In fact, the difference between
good and poor readers lies in the kind, or quality, of miscues they make.
The proficient readers will be able to integrate all the cues and use them
simultaneously to solve reading problems. As they are reading fluently, they
sometimes omit or substitute words without even knowing it, as the changes may not
interfere with the meaning as they process it. However, as soon as they realize the
interference in meaning or in structure, they will go back, re-read, confirm or correct
before they read on. In miscue analysis, all the omissions, substitutions and self-
corrections which in effect preserve or regain the meaning, are considered “quality
miscues”, and they are signals of a proficient reader.
19
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
In analyzing our students, we also tried to look for these “quality” miscues, as
they are indications of strengths, rather than weaknesses, of the students. We also
looked at the accuracy rate of each reading to see how well students decoded and
whether the texts were of a suitable difficulty level.
A useful tool for teachers By taking a running record and analyzing its content carefully, the teacher can
Observe precisely what the students are saying and doing (as opposed to what
she thinks they are saying and doing.)
Understand how they use the cue systems and reading strategies in the reading
process.
Build on their capabilities, not just focusing on their weaknesses.
Discuss with students and help them reflect on the reading process and
become more risk-taking in predicting words and meaning.
Select reading materials at the right instructional level.
20
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Constraints and Limitations
The way we put the Running Records and Miscue Analysis to use was greatly
limited by our knowledge and experience. We cannot therefore rule out any
wrong assumptions, or errors in coding, analysis and interpretations in our
work.
The codes for the running records were simplified so as to reduce the pressure
on the testers and make the ultimate analysis more manageable.
Knowing the students, we only concentrated on reading accuracy and not on
fluency. We therefore did not measure time taken or their word-per-minute.
Apart from some general feedback, we could not afford the time to discuss
miscues with each of the students in detail. At this stage our knowledge and
resources do not allow us to tailor-make reading programmes for individual
students. We would be happy if our miscue analysis could bring us more
understanding about the reading process and inform us of teaching strategies.
The benefits of these exercises would therefore be more for teachers’
professional development, and the impact on student learning would be more
indirect.
21
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Miscue analysis of 4 oral readings Our miscue analysis was kept simple deliberately owing to limitations in our
knowledge and resources. We attempted to analyze the data both quantitatively and
qualitatively.
Quantitative analysis These are the questions we asked:
How many miscues were made? What is the accuracy rate?
How many times did students self-correct?
The accuracy rate is expressed as a percentage. It is calculated on account of
the no. of running words (RW) and errors* (E):*Self-corrections are not counted as errors
RW – E e.g. 120 – 15 = 87.5%
RW 120
The self-correction rate is expressed as a ratio. It is calculated on account of the
no. of errors (E) and self-corrections (SC):
SC : E + SC
e.g. 3 : 15 + 3 = 1 : 6 (i.e. 1 SC in 6 errors)
According to one of our references (i.e. The Longman Book Project), the
desirable accuracy rate is 90% and the desirable self-correction rate is 1: 3 to 5. If
a student is scoring 90% accuracy, he is reading at the right instructional level.
Below that accuracy rate he will find the material too difficult and will not be able
to make use of known grammatical structures or vocabulary to get meaning out of
the text. His reading will therefore be laborious and joyless.
22
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Results
(1) Accuracy Rates
a. Table of Accuracy Rates of All 4 Readings
Hiccups A Very Wet Sunday
Playing with my friend
Hiccups (post-test)
Student A (H) 56% 85% 93% 81%Student B (M) 60% 87% 85% 70%
3A
Student C (L) 52% 81% 85% 86%Student D (H) 74% 78% 95% 84%Student E (M) 52% 75% 94% 72%
3B
Student F (L) 38% 64% 81% 60%Average of students 55% 78% 89% 75%
b. Comparison Between the Pre-test and the Post-test:
Hiccups
VS. Hiccups
(post-test) Student A (H) + 43%
Student B (M) + 17%
3A
Student C (L) + 66%
Student D (H) + 13%
Student E (M) + 38%
3B
Student F (L) + 58%
Average of students + 36%
There was marked improvement in students’ performance, especially in the
first three readings. The scores on the pretest (“Hiccups”) were rather
disappointing, ranging from 38% - 74%. For the student scoring only 38%,
the text was almost incomprehensible and the reading was a painful struggle.
The significant rise in the accuracy rates of the following two readings (“Wet
Sunday” & “Playing with my friend”) was partly due to the easier texts and to
the fact that the tests were given by the students’ class teachers, who were
more able to put them at ease.
23
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
The most telling figures were the posttest results (“Hiccups”). After a time lap
of six months, students were not likely to have much residual memory of the
text, especially when most of them performed poorly the first time. The
improvement was across the board, averaging a 36% gain. The worst student
at the pretest who scored 38% accuracy went up to an encouraging 60%, and
the best student scored 86%.
(2) Self-correction rates
Hiccups (Pre) Wet Sunday Playing Hiccups (Post)
Student A 1: 39 1:27 1:3 1:6
Student D 0 0 1:3 0
Student B 1:13 1:8 1:7 0
Student E 0 0 1:3 0
Student C 1:28 1:12 1:3 1:6
Student F 1:36 1:22 1:4 1:36
The number of self-corrections was on the whole low. Students tended to read
on despite loss of meaning. There were few incidents of students going back
to check understanding and re-read. Faced with a difficult text, their primary
concern was on decoding words. There were too few known words or
structures in the text to help them construct meaning, and they had no way to
tell whether their attempts at reading certain unfamiliar words were right or
wrong. Such deprivation of information (‘cues’) was detrimental to their
reading success.
The ratios confirmed that “Hiccups” was a difficult text for students, and few
of them could spare the energy to self-correct, though the ratio improved
moderately the 2nd time (the posttest).
Students were still making few self-corrections in “A very wet Sunday”, but
the ratio in the following reading was much better. “Playing with my friend”
showed a healthy average SC ratio of 1 : 5 . Students were processing
meaning as they were reading. They were more able to notice a disturbance in
meaning when they made a miscue. The results tell us that the text difficulty
of this book was pitched at the right level.
24
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Qualitative analysis These are the questions we asked:
How well could the student use the cueing systems in language in decoding
words and constructing meaning? What caused the students to self-correct?
To what extent do the miscues change/preserve/regain the meaning of the text?
1. Using the cue systems in their readings
a) Using visual cues
Students used visual cues most often in their reading. Visual cues in our
cases include pictures and spelling patterns.
As all the storybooks used were fully illustrated, students relied on the
pictures for information and comprehension. Many of the self-
corrections indicate that they were sometimes finding cues from the
pictures for the word rather than reading the prints. (Note: All errors are underlined and text-words in brackets)
Example 1:
Mouse looks Elephant in the ears. (eyes) - Student D
More than one student made this miscue. The picture was misleading – it
shows Mouse standing near Elephant’s ear and shouting. So visually it is
looking in Elephant’s ears, not eyes. The miscue was clear evidence that
the students were using visual cues instead of reading the printed word.
Example 2
Stand on your mouth / SC . (head) - Student B
The substitution “mouth” for “head” shows that the student was not
attending to meaning or using phonic cues. However, a glance at the
picture told him that he had made a mistake and he quickly corrected
himself (SC).
25
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
On many occasions, substitutions bear high visual similarities to the text-
words but make no sense in the sentences, e.g.
I can sleep (stop) those hiccups. –Student F
Oh no, I’m tiger (tired). - Student D
Tree (There) is a tall mango tree. - Student C
(b) Using phonic cues
Attempts at sounding out words were limited by their phonic
knowledge – they knew the initial letter sounds, but failed to draw
analogy using known patterns in the words (i.e. rimes) The resulting
words were therefore often random substitutions, e.g.
Do you like to ties (take) a birds (bath)? - Student E
Monkey (mouse) want (wakes) up. - Student C
Only rarely did students see little words in bigger words or break long
words up into syllables, e.g.
I have not (nothing) to do. -Student E
A grass – hop - / grass – cop - per. (grasshopper) - Student B
c) Using semantic (meaning) cues
To decide whether a sentence containing a miscue is semantically
acceptable, we ask the question “Does it make sense?” Our analysis
shows that students were generally not asking themselves this question
when reading the stories, especially “Hiccups”. As a result many miscues
were random substitutions.
There were more examples of students using semantic cues in later
readings, e.g.
Poor animal (Elephant) has the hiccups. - Student A (posttest)
It’s a hot sunny (summer) afternoon. - Student B (posttest)
Here (There) is a tall mango tree. - Student E
26
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
Don’t (Do) you like to do a jigsaw? - Student C
We like / SC (are) the best of friends. -Student D
Many of these substitutions are also visually alike, or bearing similar
initial sounds. We cannot say for sure which cues the students actually
used -- visual, phonics or semantic. Perhaps they were using more than
one at the same time, and this would be a positive sign of reading growth.
Miscues that preserve the meaning of the sentence are ‘quality’ miscues
and are indications of a capable reader. Unfortunately such quality
miscues are far in between in the samples of readings we have.
d) Using structural cues
To decide whether a sentence containing a miscue is structurally
acceptable, we ask the question “Does it sound like English?” Our
analysis shows that students had most difficulty asking themselves this
question, as they knew too little of the grammatical system of the
language. Unlike native speakers, they lacked the ability to connect what
they see in print to the way it should sound in spoken language. Neither
did they have the intuitive knowledge that certain words in English go
together, e.g. prepositions are likely to be followed by nouns, etc.
Consequently their prediction in reading was greatly hampered.
There were plenty of examples to show that students failed to use
structural cues to read correctly, e.g.
As (All) the animals go back to sleep. - Student A
Can I watching (watch) the television? - Student C
We catch in (it) with our net. - Student D
Stand no (on) your head. - Student E
Do you want to do you (your) homework? - Student F
27
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
A much smaller proportion of miscues show that students were
monitoring themselves and self- correcting (SC) to keep the utterances
grammatical, e.g.
“Boo!” her / SC (he) shouts. - Student B
We like sharing or/ SC (our) candy….. - Student B
He was /SC (has) the hiccups. - Student A
Is /SC (In) the park there is a…… - Student A
A common error in all students’ readings is the inflectional “s” (e.g. 3rd
person singular verbs, possessives, plural nouns). Students would add or
drop the /s/ without being aware of the semantic or structural
consequences. These miscues have in many cases affected the accuracy
rate of the readings.
So, how well could the students use the cueing systems in language in decoding
words and constructing meaning?
Not very well. In general, students lacked the skills of integrating cues to decode
unfamiliar words and construct meaning. Sometimes when they failed to read the
words, they resorted to deliberate omissions. In an extreme case the student
skipped sentences on two pages. Some omissions, however, are non-deliberate but
would not interfere with the flow of a fairly fluent reading and so were not
corrected.
Although the students were not mastering the cueing systems well, they were
making serious efforts to learn, and the progress was encouraging. As non-native
speakers of English, it is understandable that they may not be able to answer the
questions “Does it make sense?” and “Does it sound like English?” during their
reading process. To be able to do so, they will need to learn more about the sound
and structural systems of English, and build up a sizeable vocabulary through
extensive reading.
The second part of our qualitative analysis is on meaning change caused by
miscues.
28
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
2. How do the miscues change/preserve/regain meaning?
In our foregoing analysis, we have shown that students were not able to
answer the question “Does it make sense?” when reading unfamiliar and
difficult texts. There are plenty of examples of miscues that turn the reading
completely incomprehensible to the listener in the pretest reading of
“Hiccups”. The following sentence is a good illustration of such random,
nonsensical substitutions, e.g.
Hold you badge (breath) and cloff (count) of (from) 10 to 1. - Student D
How you are (Hold your breath) and count fry (from) 10 to 1. - Student E
How you bess (Hold your breath) and coo for (count from) 10 to 1. - Student F
His (Hold) your (breath) and come/cup (count) five (from) 10 to 1.- Student C
However, when the text is of suitable level of difficulty, such as “Playing
with my friend”, the students were more able to process meaning and to
monitor accuracy as they read. Consequently, they were more alert to a
disturbance of meaning when they made a miscue and would re-read and
correct it. The following examples show how students corrected their miscues
to regain meaning.
The grasshopper jumps …..but it can’t get up / SC (out). - Student D
The grasshopper ……………… but it can / SC (can’t) get out. - Student F
We go in / SC (He got it) on his birthday. - Student C
In the birthday / SC (park) there is a tall mango tree. - Student B
Is / SC (In) the park there is a tall mango tree. - Student A
We like sharing our candy and our to / SC (toys). - Student E
There are also a few miscues that do not change the meaning of the
sentence. As the meaning is preserved, the students might not be aware of the
miscue, and there was no self-correction. e.g.
I can stop his (those) hiccups. - Student B
Why not clean (tidy) your room? - Student B
It’s a hot sunny (summer) afternoon. - Student E
This (It’s) a hot summer afternoon. - Student D
29
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
F. Assessing oral reading - Using familiar texts
For additional information and to find out how repeated reading helps to
improve oral reading, we asked the six students to come for another reading test
towards the end of the research. (i.e. in May). This time they were not required to
read unfamiliar books but a book they knew quite well.
Students were asked to bring along the class reader “Grandma” and read us a
few pages that they liked from the book. Their readings were therefore prepared.
The results:
Running words No. of miscues Accuracy rate Self-correction rateStudent A 28 0 100% 0
Student D 34 2 94% 1 : 2
Student B 113 4 96% 0
Student E 50 7 86% 1 : 4
Student C 76 8 89% 1 : 4
Student F 113 30 73% 1 : 30
From the table we can say that repeated and prepared reading makes a big
difference in the accuracy rates. Most students scored very high marks and their
self-correction ratios were very desirable, showing that they were processing
meaning while decoding words. The book was of the right level of difficulty for
them. Student F might have found the book a little difficult, but her effort was
praiseworthy as she read on, page after page, and seemed to be enjoying herself.
In fact, “Grandma” was a popular reader among the students. It was a second
book in the series and the students had grown familiar to the characters and the
magical events. It is interesting to note that in their reading, almost all of them
were putting characterization in their voices and their facial expressions. It was a
happy voice that read “This is fun!” When Grandma punched a hole in the jumping
castle, there was alarm in the voice that read, “Oh no!….The castle begins to go
30
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
down.” Then we heard the angry voice of the keeper saying, “Go home and don’t
come back.” These were delightful moments for the readers and us listeners.
Perhaps these prepared readings were not truly valid tests. However, as a
teaching strategy, repeated reading does work. The results prove that it is effective
to have children read something they enjoy over and over again. Each time they
repeat the reading, they turn more vocabulary into sight words (i.e. words that are
quickly recognized). With less decoding to do, they could sample longer phrases
and concentrate on working out meaning. When we listened to the pauses in these
readings, we found that students were reading larger chunks of words, thereby
achieving better fluency and comprehension. The students knew they were doing
better and loved it. If success can breed success, this would start the virtuous cycle
of learning to read by reading, and reading some more.
31
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
What have we learnt about oral reading of our students?
As novice readers students could not use the multiple language cueing
systems simultaneously to decode and construct meaning. They relied
mostly on visual and phonic cues and so tended to produce non-word
substitutions that made no sense at all.
Unlike proficient readers who make quality miscues that do not disturb
meaning and can self-correct selectively to regain meaning, our students
seldom self-corrected their miscues because they had no idea of what
was semantically or grammatically acceptable.
The weaker students tended to read slowly and word by word. They were
struggling to decode at the expense of making meaning. It was a
common phenomenon to see students reading on despite loss of
comprehension.
There was, however, a general improvement in reading fluency and
comprehension at the later readings. As they had more sight words and
known structures, they were able to read longer phrases, thus taking in
larger pieces of information which aided their reading comprehension.
The regular practice of reading in front of the whole class trained the
necessary oral presentation skills and boosted self-confidence to perform.
Students’ growing love of reading was not only the result of the right
teaching strategies but more importantly the wonderful work of two
caring teachers. They devoted time and energy on the students,
particularly the ones with most problems. It is therefore not by chance
that Student F jumped from 38% reading accuracy to 60 % in a few
months, or that many expressly wished to be taught by the same teacher
the next year. Students understood and reciprocated teachers’ love with
their efforts. The result shows.
33
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
How does this knowledge inform our teaching?
We are reassured of the usefulness of many of the strategies we
used and we will continue using them, i.e. Sight word and phonic
drills, repeated reading of interesting readers, listening to good
models of oral reading on tapes, playing reading games, etc.
We see the importance of having a teacher that cares and
understands her students, one that would be patient and encouraging,
and one who knows about what it takes to read well.
We see the importance of selecting suitable reading materials. We
can safely say that all students love reading, if only they find a book
that they can read and will read. We will continue to look for simple
short stories for repeated reading.
We can create opportunities for students to hear each other read and
support each other by discussing strategies used and how to
improve.
We see oral reading as an essential bridge to independent (quiet)
reading. To cross this bridge, students need to acquire an interest in
reading English books on their own. This would be a challenge to
the school to develop a reading culture.
We need to help students to revalue reading and themselves as
readers.
34
Baptist Rainbow PM – AR (01-02) Can Johnny Read?
35
References Buck, C. (1981). Miscues of non-native speakers of English. In K.S. Goodman (ed),
Miscue Analysis. NI: ERIC. Burns, P.C.; Roe, B. D. & Ross, E. P. (1999). Teaching reading in today’s
elementary schools (7th Edition). Boston, NY: Houghton Miffin Company. Chard, D.J., Kameenui, E.J. (2000). Struggling first-grade readers: the frequency
and progress of their reading. The Journal of Special Education, 34 (1) 28-38. Retrieved from http://spweb.silverplatter.com/c43853
Goodman, Y. M. (1995). Miscue analysis for classroom teachers: Some history
and some procedures. Primary Voices K-6. 3 (4) 2-9. Goodman, Y. M. (1997). Reading diagnosis – qualitative or quantitative? The
Reading Teacher. 50 (7) 534-8. (Originally published in RT in October 1972 v.26)
Hadley, H. (1994). Blueprints: The Phonics Book. England, Cheltenham: Stanley
Thornes. Hasbrouck, J.E.; Ihnot, C. & Rogers, G.H. (1999). Reading naturally. Reading
Research and Instruction. 39 (1) 27-37. Retrieved from http://spweb.silverplatter.com/c43853
IRA. The Role of Phonics in reading instruction. A position statement of the
International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/positions/phonics.html
Martens, P. (1995). Empowering teachers and empowering students. Primary Voices K-6. 3 (4) 39-44.
Martens, P. (1997). What miscue analysis reveals about word recognition and
repeated reading: A view through the “miscue window”. Language Arts. 74 (8) 600-09.
Starrett, E. V. (2000). Teaching Phonics for Balanced Reading. USA, Illinois: Sky
Light. Wilde, S. (2000). Miscues analysis made easy – building on student strengths.
Portsmouth: Heinmann.