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


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


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


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


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


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


Phonic books produced by students

7


(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


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


A reading game

Matching pictures and sentences; story sequencing

10


Dominoes

Sample cards for the “Snakes and Ladders”

Snakes and Ladders

11


(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


(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


(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


Students signed up on the calendar to read aloud in class

15


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


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


A running record

18


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


A running record – Grandma

32


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


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


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.

can johnny read?

Documents