1 MMiscue Analysis 1

Oral Miscue Analysis for Reading Assessment and Adaptations for Hearing Disabled Readers: A Review of the Literature Isabelle Emery, France Goulard and Pamela Sept

APSY 667 (Fall) Myka Breymann Dr. Jac Andrews October 12, 2008

2 Miscue Analysis

Oral Miscue Analysis for Reading Assessment and Adaptations for Hearing Disabled Readers: A Review of the Literature Since the development of Oral Reading Miscue Analysis in the 1970s as a reading assessment tool, researchers have demonstrated that it is an efficient, naturalistic tool that is appropriate for the ecological model of reading assessment because it identifies a readers strengths in decoding as well as a readers weaknesses. Researchers agree, it can direct intervention techniques and assess the efficacy of reading intervention (reference). As well, it has developed into an effective tool for learners with hearing deficit. The importance of Miscue Analysis has increased as assessessment makes an ideological shift from assessment for deficit identification to identification of a learners strengths. This review of the literature on Miscue Analysis focuses on these four questions.
1. What is Oral Reading Miscue Analysis? 2. What does research tell us about the strengths of Oral Reading Miscue Analysis? 3. What does research tell us about the limitations of Miscue Analysis? 4. What are the limitations of Miscue Analysis for assessment of the hearing impaired?

What is Oral Reading Miscue Analysis? (Level 3 heading, flush left, italicized, sentence case) (no marks lost) Oral Reading Miscue Analysis is an informal reading assessment strategy to investigate decoding mistakes in oral reading. The term miscue was initiated by K. Goodman (1969) to describe an observed response in the reading process that does not match the expected response.

3 Miscue Analysis

K. Goodman uses the term "miscue", rather than "error" or "mistake" to avoid value implications. Miscue Analysis is an assessment that grew from the whole language theory of reading. Although once controversial through association with whole language theory, Miscue Analysis is now referred to as a lens that allows assessors to see the reading process in action (Y. Goodman, 1996). Oral Reading Miscue Analysis is a qualitative analysis method to determine if the errors, made by a reader affect their ability to decode the passage (McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008 p.343). The assessor picks an appropriate passage and records any miscues that might occur as the student reads orally. This tool allows the assessor to categorize the miscue into categories which include omissions (word omitted from passage by reader), substitutions (word replaced from original text by reader), repetitions (word or phrase repeated by reader), and reversals (the order of the text reversed by reader). The miscue can further be analyzed to determine if the meaning of the passage was significantly changed, that is changed in a manner that indicates a lack of comprehension. For example, the substitution of ready for right in hell be all right does change the sense of the passage (McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008, p.343). Further analysis demonstrates that miscues significant to text meaning can be categorized into miscues that are similar in inflection, syntax, grammar, or semantics to the original text. Whole language theorists (Tucker & Bakken, 2000) have demonstrated that Miscue Analysis can be used to assess several components of the reading process. It can be used to identify an appropriate reading level for the student through the calculation of the Accuracy Rate. It can identify how well a student is self monitoring while reading, through the calculation of the Self

4 Miscue Analysis

Correction Rate. It can also be used to identify which reading strategies a student is using (or not using). Recently, researchers have demonstrated that miscue analysis can also be a mirror for teachers to assist readers in evaluating their own reading process through an extension of the assessment referred to as Retrospective Miscue Analysis (RMA). In RMA, readers listen to audio recordings of their own oral readings and, with the help of a researcher, discuss to what degree their miscues are syntactically and semantically similar to the printed text and to what extent they affected comprehension. RMA combines the power of personal interaction with constructing knowledge in a social context (J. Theurer, 2002). In a case study of nine9 year old Salem, Almazroui (2008) demonstrated that improvement in reading can be facilitated by allowing the reader to reflect on their miscues which allows them to rediscover themselves as a reader, value their strengths, and find ways to overcome weakness. In this study, the student learned through Retrospective Miscue Analysis that it is acceptable to make miscues; and that rather than indicating failure, they reveal understanding, which results in a more confident reader who improves comprehension as a result. This is may be among the strongest evidence to date, to confirm Miscue Analysis is an assessment tool that works well in an ecological assessment of student strengths and needs. Excellent What does research tell us about the positive attributes of Miscue Analysis in an Ecological Assessment? Some of the strengths of the assessment include the ability to allow the assessor to observe the reader in a natural setting (Zutell, 1977). Ecological assessors believe the environment of assessment is significant. When teachers use miscue analysis for assessment, it can instruct them in

5 Miscue Analysis

intervention techniques that would be individualized for that student. In the case of Nathan (Moore & Brantingham, 2003) the researchers demonstrated that Retrospective Miscue Analysis will develop the readers ability to understand their own miscues, correct their own miscues, identify how they construct meaning from prior knowledge, and become empowered as a reader. In an additional study, McKenna and Picard (2006) demonstrated that miscue analysis can also be used to find the optimal text size and space for young readers. Oral reading miscue analysis provides the opportunity for teachers to study miscues, and to monitor their students progress towards fluency as reading progresses. As Paige (2006) demonstrated with his study of disabled middle school readers, Oral Reading Miscue Analysis can be used to determine the effectiveness of intervention strategies for students with difficulties in decoding. Oral Reading Miscue Analysis can have purpose other than for assessment alone. This type of analysis can inform instruction, communicate progress to parents in a diadetic way, and [in the United States] it can be used to respond to policy makers request for data (Valencia & Rhodes, 1990). What does research tell us about the limitations of Miscue Analysis in an Ecological Assessment? Research has shown that Miscue Analysis does have limitations as an assessment tool. Students who demonstrate no areas of weakness may still struggle with comprehension due to a lack of background knowledge which cannot be determined through the analysis of miscues (Rhodes & Shanklin, 1990). Their study indicated that Miscue Analysis alone cannot infer adequate comprehension of the text. Also, Zutell (1977) demonstrated that Oral reading is

6 Miscue Analysis

dependent on the dialect of the student which can lead to miscues as determined by the assessor, which does not impact the comprehension of the passage as expected. Zutell (1977) also demonstrates that the administration of Miscue Analysis requires an assessor who has additional training. Even with the right training, Miscue Analysis is a time consuming procedure that should be repeated every 6-8 weeks to demonstrate growth in the reader (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1987). What are the limitations of Miscue Analysis for assessment of the hearing impaired? Luckner and Handley (2008) point out that the majority of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing complete their education without being able to read and write well. The average student with a hearing loss graduates from high school with reading comprehension skills at approximately the fourth grade level (p. 7). They go on to say that The field of deaf education has a shortage of direct evidence of reading practices that have been tested and demonstrated as being effective with students who are deaf or hard of hearing (p. 8). While Luckner and Handley do not specifically address the effectiveness of miscue analysis for deaf and hard of hearing students, the conclusions of their meta-analysis of the research does suggest that research into the specific reading strategies employed by deaf and hard of hearing students, especially in the area of phonemic awareness, might prove fruitful. This challenge has been taken up by Chaleff &Ritter (2001), authors of The use of Miscue Analysis with deaf readers. They ask, Can the same techniques used with hearing students to assess their use of reading strategies be meaningfully applied to Deaf students? (p.190). They note that while Miscue Analysis has been widely used with regular students, educators have used it infrequently with deaf students. Luckner and Handley commented that An intuitive belief that has guided the

7 Miscue Analysis

field of education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing is that hearing loss prohibits access to the phonological system of the English language. Consequently the majority of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing do not incorporate the teaching of phonologyHowever, research with skilled readers who are deaf or hard of hearing indicates that they do employ phonological information while reading (p.32). Miscue Analysis does assess phonological knowledge so this may have been one reason it has not been used widely with deaf and hard of hearing readers. However, Chaleff and Ritter, in support of its use, state that deaf students are difficult to assess because they have limitations in expressive language but claim that this difficulty can be overcome by the use of Miscue Analysis because it allows one to see a childs development of a variety of reading behaviours even before expressive language is fully developed (p.196). They did find, however, that Miscue Analysis had to be adapted slightly in order to accommodate the learning of deaf students. There was not always a close correlation between the number of miscues and the ability to retell a story independently. The poor correlation of retelling to frequency and type of miscue in deaf students does not negate the usefulness of Miscue Analysis. Rather it draws attention to the need for an additional component in the process which takes into account the specific challenges of deaf reader. Interesting In order to adapt Miscue Analysis to the needs of deaf children, Chaleff & Ritter ask open-ended questions. This strategy, which they call a probe, is similar to the technique of asking the reader to discuss specific miscues which takes place in Retrospective Miscue Analysis. The authors found that deaf children are unaware of miscues that do not make sense because their

8 Miscue Analysis

knowledge of English syntax can be very limited; therefore, we cannot interpret these miscues are reflecting the childs semantic or syntactic cueing system (p.193 Another limitation of Miscue Analysis for the assessment of deaf readers is the assessment of finger-spelling which is the spelling out of the individual letters of a word using the manual alphabet rather than using the appropriate sign for the whole word. Finger-spelling is considered a legitimate strategy in American Sign Language and the authors consider it a mnemonic or rehearsal strategy and compare it to hearing readers attempting to sound out a word, but its use may indicate an area of concern. Some researchers believe that is evidence that the reader understands the word although he or she may not know how to form the appropriate sign (Ewolt as cited by Chalett p.195), but Chalett and Ritter have found that students with strong visual memories are able to use the finger-spelled word without understanding what it means. Excellent Finally, there is one kind of miscue that is unique to deaf readers and this is the use of the wrong sign for a homonym. The unique challenge for deaf readers is that, unlike their hearing peers, [deaf] students must distinguish between the meanings of the word at the moment of their reading and demonstrate it by their choice of sign expression (p. 198). A hearing child has the advantage of not having to decide what the word means until after he/she has had the opportunity to read the whole sentence, at which time, the meaning of the word can be determined from the context. The deaf reader therefore needs to be rewarded for correcting any errors caused by the need to sign prior to understanding the context, which means that instruction has develop strategies for dealing with these words, possibly thorough the use of finger-spelling, place marker signs or by not counting these as miscues as long as the reader self-corrects for comprehension at an appropriate time. Other areas of difficulty for deaf students uncovered through the use of Miscue

9 Miscue Analysis

Analysis included difficulty in tracking pronoun referents and sentences containing negative terms such as not and didnt (p.199). The authors found that Miscue Analysis was a particularly valuable assessment tool for deaf students because it shows the child ability to comprehend text, organize information for a retell, and use all of the cueing systems (p.199). A summary of the limitations of Miscue Analysis as an assessment tool for reading ability in deaf and hard of hearing students are listed in Appendix A. Miscue Analysis is no longer controversial. Our review demonstrates conclusively; it is a valuable tool in an ecological assessment of reading. With limitations it can be used effectively for deaf readers. We have shown that it is an informal analysis technique that allows the assessor to determine if the ability of the reader matches the difficulty of the text. Retrospective Miscue Analysis expands the assessment to allow the reader to reflect on their own reading process and represents a significant enhancement in the assessment of deaf and hard of hearing readers. Although it can be time consuming to administer, the time invested may be well spent if it helps to identify specific areas of focus for reading interventions. The major weakness of this assessment technique, for all readers, but particularly for deaf readers, is that it does not assess comprehension. However, when combined with an informal reading comprehension assessment, research shows it becomes a powerful and comprehensive tool to assess, reflect, and assist in the design of intervention for all readers.

10 Miscue Analysis

Appendix A Limitations of Miscue Analysis in The Assessment of Reading in Deaf Students Difficulty Homonyms Finger-spelling Reason It May Not Assess Reading Ability Deaf readers must sign before knowing context and thereby the correct definition. Correct spelling does not mean that the reader comprehends the words- he or she may have a Limited syntax knowledge (common in deaf children) Miscue not corrected (but child knows they have made a mistake) No miscue observed (but comprehension is lacking) Many miscues (but comprehension is present) strong visual memory Miscues do not indicate knowledge of semantic or cueing systems. Deaf readers may correct mistakes to themselves without re-signing. Some are good at decoding but not constructing meaning Some are good at constructing meaning but make many signing mistakes. Note: Some of the limiting factors listed in the previous chart exist for hearing children also. Only the need to make
a different sign for each different meaning of a homonym is unique to deaf children.

References Almazroui, K. M., (2007). Learning together through retrospective miscue analysis: Salems case study. Reading Improvement, 44, 153-160.

11 Miscue Analysis

Chaleff C. D., Ritter M. H. (2001). The use of Miscue Analysis with deaf readers. The Reading Teacher, 55, 190-200. Girgin, . (2006). Evaluation of Turkish hearing impaired students' reading comprehension with the miscue analysis inventory. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 68-84. Goodman, K.S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied Psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9-30. Goodman Y. M. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective Miscue Analysis. The Reading Teacher, 49, 600-609. Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D.J., Burke. C.L. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc. Luckner, J. L., Handley, C. M. (2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 6-136. Maxwell, M.M. (1997). Communication assessments of individuals with limited hearing. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 231-244. McKenna, M.C., Picard, M. C. (2006). Revisiting the role of miscue analysis in effective teaching. Reading Teacher, 60, 378-380. McLouglin J.A., Lewis, R.B. (2008). Assessing students with Special Needs (7th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

12 Miscue Analysis

Miller, P. (2005). Reading comprehension and its relation to the quality of functional hearing: evidence from readers with different functional hearing abilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 305-323. Moore, R.A., Brantingham, K. L. (2003). Nathan: A case study in Reader Response and Retrospective Miscue Analysis: A study of miscues led to improved reading skills for one young boy. Reading Teacher, 56, 466-469. Paige, D.D. (2006). Increasing fluency in disabled middle school readers: Repeated reading utilizing above grade level reading passages. Reading Horizons, 46, 167-181. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E. (1992). Greater validity for oral reading fluency: Can miscues help?. Journal of Special Education, 2, 492-504. Rhodes, L. K., Shanklin, N. L. (1990). Miscue Analysis in the classroom. Reading Teacher, 44, 252-54. Theurer, J. (2002, January 1). The Power of Retrospective Miscue Analysis: One Preservice Teacher's Journey as She Reconsiders the Reading Process. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 2(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ661173) Retrieved September 30, 2008, from ERIC database. Tucker,-D.L., Bakken,J.P. (2000). How do your kids do at Reading and how do you assess them? Teaching-Exceptional-Children, 32, 14-19. Valencia, S.W. Rhodes, L.K. (1990). Miscue analysis in the classroom. Reading Teacher, 44, p252-255.

13 Miscue Analysis

Zutell, J. B. Jr. (1977). Teacher informed response to reader miscue, Theory into Practice, 16, 5, 384-91,

Assignment 1 Evaluation Rubric

Item

Outstanding

Very Good

Good

Barely

14 Miscue Analysis Satisfactory Adequate (1-0) (2-3) Knowledge and Comprehensi on (4/20) Based on information from many different sources, presented in a highly coherent and systematic form Strong base of evidence and sound interpretation of links between theory, research and practice Statements are well illustrated and analysed with well contextualized implications for practice identified Strong well developed arguments with critical appraisal of problems, issues Coherent, integrated and well organised presentation, correct use of APA Style Guide Based on information from several sources that are well described and explained Based on information from a few sources with some relationships and explanation Points are well explained and some evidence is included with one or two links between theory, research and practice Statements are explained with a few practical implications for practice identified A few critical arguments are presents with some attempt at appraisal/ evaluation Generally coherent but some breaks or lack of transition evident, correct use of Based on information from limited sources with only basic explanation and few details

Evaluation

(4)

(3+)

Integration (4/20)

Points are well developed and based on some evidence with links between research and practice

Points are clearly presents but there is a lack of evidence and links between theory, research and practice

Application (4/20)

Statements are carefully explained with practical implications for practice identified Well developed arguments with careful appraisal of some key problems, issues Integrated and systematic presentation although transitions are abrupt,

Statements are barely explained with incomplete or limited implications suggested Little or no attention given to critical evaluation of problems and issues

Critical Evaluation (4/20)

Organization and flow of the review (4/20)

Lack of coherence and attention to relationships between topics and points, errors in

15 Miscue Analysis references or application of APA Style Guide

correct use of APA Style Guide 19.5 = 97.5%

APA style guide

Well done. A few tips. Try to use sub-headings that are not questions. It is a nice break for the reader to encounter a question but too many becomes redundant. APA states that numbers less than ten should be written out. Thank you, Myka