Take a look at the following examples of children's dialect-based miscues while reading and the difference between the child's original response (OR) and expected response (ER). Then answer the questions that follow.
| OR: It my little monkey here. | ER: Is my little monkey here? |
| OR: We got to tell. | ER: We've got to tell. |
| OR: Frog look at Toad calendar. | ER: Frog looked at Toad's calendar. |
| OR: A word what sounded good. | ER: A word that sounded good. |
| OR: hisself | ER: himself |
| OR: I can come to your party? | ER: Can I come to your party? |
I would say that this child is a proficient reader because the miscues are done with the functioning words rather than with the more difficult words. If I had to rate it on effectiveness I would say this child is a moderately effective reader because some of the meanings were different than it was supposed to be. You can tell that the child can read just substitutes some minor words, missing endings, or switching beginning symbols but I could at least still understand what the original response meant.
If I was this child's teacher or I had a group of similar students who made these miscues I would assist the children without just correcting the children. I would ask probing questions after the miscue to see if they still understood the sentence or passage. I might have the students re-read this passage to see if they are able to self-correct themselves. I might have the students write about what they read to see what wording they use in order to see if they make similar substitutions in their writing because then that could connect to the same way they speak. I think these type of miscues can be fixed with familiar reads and writing about what the students' read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLisa,
ReplyDeleteI agree that this student is probably a proficient reader. I also noted that the miscues were typically related to function words. The Weaver text indicates that proficient readers often have more function word miscues than non-proficient readers.
I really like the point you made about looking for this same pattern in the student's writing. I would be curious to know if the student omits function words when writing. Familiar reads would also be helpful in the student's identification and correction of miscues.
Lisa, I agree that this child is a proficient reader. I would also agree that s/he is a moderately effective reader because he miscued on the function words. I like your idea of probing questions after the miscue to monitor their comprehension. I agree that teachers should not jump in and correct their miscues for the child. I believe children should try to see and change their miscue unless we see they honestly cannot correct the miscues. I often have my students write about what they read to monitor their comprehension. This helps the students spot out their own miscues.
ReplyDeleteLisa,
ReplyDeleteI also found the children in the example to be proficient readers. When they read the sentences, the meanings of the original sentences were not lost. In my opinion, this is evidence of comprehension. I like your idea of forming a small group with students who tend to be making the same miscues. I also like your idea of asking questions to check for comprehension despite miscues, and having students write about what they read to see if they make the same miscues in their writing. I think it is important that we focus on the overall goal of comprehension when reading with our students.