Analyzing the miscues - Miscue analysis - Ongoing assessment for reading

Miscue analysis is more concerned with the types or levels of miscues made rather than the actual quantity of miscues. After the reading session has ended and the student has completed a retelling of the story, the miscues that have been recorded on the typescript need to be analyzed or categorized.

Graphic similarity

When analyzing graphic similarity, the teacher is gaining insight on a student’s use of the graphophonic system. The teacher may see high, some, or no graphic similarity between the word as spoken and as printed.

High graphic similarity

Wilde suggests looking at the printed word in three parts.¹ If a student’s response “looks like” at least two of those three parts, then the word is considered to be of high graphic similarity. For example, if the word printed in the text read, “imagination,” looking at the word in three parts might look like “imag-in-ation.” If the student response was “inauguration,” the response could be broken into thirds as “inaug-ur-ation.” I could conceivably see the first and third parts of the two words being highly similar. Another teacher might look at these two sets of thirds and feel that high graphic similarity occurred on the second and third parts of the words as there are two letters in the middle section of each word, providing a graphic similarity of sorts. Still, another teacher might say neither the first nor second parts of these two third-ed words look enough alike to call the graphic similarity high. Certainly this is not a formula that will look the same for each person who performs it.

If the teacher determines that the printed and spoken words had high graphic similarity, the letter H is written above the miscue with a circle around it.

If one word is part of the other, the graphic similarity would also be called high. For example, if the text read, “someone” and a student read, “some” the graphic similarity would be recorded as high.

Note that substitutions need to be analyzed as to how similar the student’s final reading of the word was to the written text. Final readings of a single word substitution are the only miscues analyzed. If a student has self-corrected as a final answer, no analysis for graphic similarity is necessary.

Text:: The project encouraged the use of imagination.
Child read aloud:: The project encouraged the use of inauguration.
Miscue record:

Some graphic similarity

A miscue would be considered having some graphic similarity if one of the three parts a word is broken into is visually similar to the text printed word when broken into thirds. The typescript would be marked with an encircled letter “s” near the teacher-written substitution. If the text read “descriptor,” the word could possibly be broken into the three parts of “de-scrip-tor.” If a student response to that word was “inscription,” the response could be divided into these three parts, “in-scrip-tion.” Again, some teachers would break the words into different thirds, but the graphic similarity will most likely prove to be just one part of the word, the middle. Miscues where short words are substituted for one another, even when no letters are common to the text and the miscue, may be considered to have some graphic similarity because of the make up of the word. For example, “of” and “at” may be considered to be of some graphic similarity.

Text:: All academic records for the school were listed under the descriptor, “confidential.”
Child read aloud:: All academic records for the school were listed under the inscription, “confidential.”
Miscue record:

No graphic similarity

A miscue is of no graphic similarity when the text-printed word and the reader’s pronunciation of the word do not have any common letters or number of letters.² For example, if the text read, “parachute” and the student response was “film,” the miscue would be marked with an encircled “N” for “no graphic similarity.”

Text:: The parachute did not seem to be working.
Child read aloud:: The film did not seem to be working.
Miscue record:

Syntactic and semantic cues

After the miscues have been examined for graphic similarity, the sentences are looked at individually. With each sentence, three questions should be asked of the student’s reading:

Does this sound syntactically correct? (Does it sound like a sentence the reader might produce in his/her dialect of the language in which the text appears?) If the answer to this question is yes, a “Y” is coded for the sentence in either the left or right margin. If the answer is no, an “N” is coded in the margin.
Is the sentence semantically correct? (Does what the student has read make sense?) If the answer is yes, code a “Y” in the margin. If the answer is no, code an “N” in the margin. (If the sentence as read was not syntactically correct, than it cannot be semantically correct — if the answer to the first question was no, the answer to the second question must be no, as well.)
Did the student’s reading of this sentence change its meaning? Code a “Y” for “yes, a major change occurred in meaning,” a “P” for “partial change in meaning,” and “N” for “no change in meaning.”
(This question is only asked if the answer to the first two questions was yes. If you answered “no” to either of those questions, skip the third.)

It is helpful to use the same margin for coding of the cuing systems. This makes tabulation for the final writeup easier. Each sentence should have three characters in the margin to describe the cuing systems. There are either three letters, or two letters and a dash.

Consider again the first example above:

Text:: The project encouraged the use of imagination.
Child read aloud:

Now, the three questions concerning cuing systems are asked and coded.

Was the sentence syntactically correct as the student read it? Yes. “Inauguration” can be used as a noun in place of “imagination.” This is syntactically correct.
Was the sentence semantically correct? No. This does not make much sense.
Since the answer to question 2 was “no,” I will simply record a dash for the third question.