In the case of reading assessments we (teachers) are using the results to answer questions about and judge the skill levels of our students. These assessment results give us information about the child’s abilities in word recognition, language comprehension, and strategic knowledge (McKenna &Dougherty Stahl, 2009, p.41). Having worked in a first grade classroom and given countless reading assessments, I know that the process of the reading assessment is essential to analyzing a student’s abilities. The results of the assessment tell us some concrete information about the skill level of the child, but the process, especially noting those errors made along the way, help us to better understand the skill set that the child is working from. Miscue analysis of the oral errors made is an essential part of the reading assessment and gives great insight into the deeper issues behind children’s errors in reading. Most importantly, “Do the child’s errors reflect that he or she is reading for meaning or simply sounding out the words?” (McKenna &Dougherty Stahl, 2009, p. 63).
Miscues are children’s departures from the printed text as they read a passage. These miscues generally fall into nine categories: omission, insertion, substitution, reversal, teacher-supplied word, repetition, ignoring punctuation, hesitation, and self-correction (McKenna &Dougherty Stahl, 2009, p.47-48). Each of these miscues gives the teacher a clue into why the child is struggling with the passage. Omission may tell us that the child is simply not reading carefully enough, or is not tracking the words on the page correctly. Substitution may tell us that the child is often looking only at the first letter and guessing at the word based on his or her set of known words. Each of these miscues is important in the knowledge it gives us in its own way, however, I think that two of the most important (and closely tied) miscues I have seen in my first grade classroom are repetition and self-correction.
Repetitions and self-corrections are two of the most telling aspects of the reading assessment. “Repetition. A word or phrase is repeated, sometimes for better enunciation, sometimes to monitor comprehension…Self-correction. The child rereads one or more words in order to correct an error,” (McKenna &Dougherty Stahl, 2009, p. 48). Whether or not a student self-corrects and what a student self-corrects are both important to note when assessing. From my experience, a student who takes the time and energy to go back, reread (repeat), and to self-correct has a vested interest in his or her own learning. This student is taking the time and is cognizant of his or her reading skills to make sure that he or she is reading a word correctly. This is a student who is monitoring his or her own learning and is on the right track to becoming a fluent reader. Those students who read too quickly and do not take the time to check for accuracy seem to be reading solely for the approval of the teacher or to be done with their work, and are not checking for comprehension as they go. Although they may have a faster reading rate, they will most likely have a lower comprehension rate. A student who reads a sentence with an incorrect word, that often does not make sense in the context, should be able to note the discrepancy based on the meaning of the sentence, and go back to try and self-correct. The most successful of readers that I have tested in my first grade class are those that repeat, reread, and self-correct.
I believe self-correction and repetition are also keys to knowing which students will be able to read a more challenging text. Those students who are able to read difficult words and yet do not comprehend what they read will struggle with, and be frustrated by, a text that is outside of their comfortable range. Those students who are reading for comprehension may struggle through words, but as they take those words in context and experiment with skills and strategies that they know how to use when reading, are more likely to be able to figure out a difficult text. Being aware of the subject matter of the reading passage has a significant impact on a student’s ability to know when to self-correct or repeat, and comprehending a passage or book is what reading is all about!
Because I, and the Master teacher I work for, believe that self-correction is so valuable, to the student as well as the teacher, we do not count these as errors when determining the oral accuracy percentage. As stated by McKenna and Dougherty Stahl (2009) in Assessment for Reading Instruction, some believe that, “repetitions are healthy signs of comprehension monitoring and, in any case, involve no departure from the printed text,” (p.50). I agree that these repetitions and self-corrections are valuable to the student, who is clearly taking control of his or her own learning and self-monitoring comprehension of the text, as well as to the teacher who is attempting to determine whether or not the student is understanding the text as he or she reads, along with correctly recognizing words and apply reading strategies. We want our students to be able to understand and enjoy what they are reading – not simply read because they were given the task to do so.
Miscue analysis can give teachers great insight into how a student’s reading is developing as well as indicate the types of instruction that is lacking and needed. When it comes to the miscues of repetition and self-correction I find these very valuable hints to us, as teachers, about the skill set and self-monitoring of our students. This function of miscue analysis during a reading assessment is as valuable to us as the assessment results themselves. I have seen countless students undergo reading assessments and am constantly encouraging them to continue to self-correct and repeat, knowing that this aids in comprehension and helps to make them into more fluent readers. Those students who understand what they are reading and take the time and energy to self-correct are much more likely to enjoy what they are doing and to go on to become more fluent and careful readers.
McKenna, Michael C., and Dougherty Stahl, Katherine A. (2009). Assessment for ReadingInstruction (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
