Skip to content
2018
Volume 53, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the metatheoretical differences that impact how runningrecords and miscue analysis differ in (a) the quantification of readers’ produced responses totext and (b) the analysis of oral reading behaviors. After providing historical and metatheoretical overviews of both procedures, we present the data source, which included 74 records of oral readings from an extant data set collected from an informal reading inventory. Each record was coded using running record and miscue analysis procedures. We used inferential statistics to examine relationships across conceptually similar items of analysis (for example, the number oferrors or miscues). Findings from the inferential statistics show that there were significant, positive correlations between three of the five conceptually similar items, and a lack of statistically significant correlations between the use of meaning and grammar between running records and miscue analysis. Based on the findings, we argue that both procedures, which are often confused and conflated, possess metatheoretical differences that influence how oral reading behaviors are interpreted. These differences, in turn, impact how reading ability is framed and socially constructed. We conclude with the significance of this research for education professionals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829753
2018-08-15
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ballantyne A. (2009)  Research origins: The historical context. Watson B. Askew B. . Boundless horizons: Marie Clay’ssearch for the possible in children’s literacy, 7–34. Rosedale, New Zealand: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blaiklock K. (2004)  A critique of running records of children’s oral reading. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 39, 241–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Catts H. W. Kamhi A. G. (2017)  Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 73–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Christ T. Cramer R. (2011)  Assessing word recognition and fluency using an information reading inventory. Michigan Reading Journal, 43, 7–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clay M. M. (1968)  Emergent reading behav-iour (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Auckland, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clay M. M. (1998)  By different paths to common outcomes. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clay M. M. (2000)  Running Records for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clay M. M. (2001)  Change over time inchildren’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clay M. M. (2013)  An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Doyle M. A. (2013)  Marie M. . Clay’s theoretical perspective: A literacy processing theory. Alvermann D. E. Unrau N. Ruddell R. B. . Theoretical models and processes of reading 6th 636–656. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Figueroa E. (1994)  Sociolinguistic metatheo-ries. New York: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Flurkey A. (1997)  Inventing learning disabilities. Taylor D. Coughlin D. Marasco J. . Teaching and advocacy, 211–232. York, ME: Stenhouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Foucault M. (1966)  The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fountas I. Pinnell G. S. (2017)  Bench-mark Assessment System. Retrieved from http://www.fountasandpinnell.com/bas
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goetze S. K. Burkett J. A. (2010)  Progress monitoring with whole text: A comparison study of Running Records and curriculum-based measures. Szabo S. Sampson M. B. Foote M. M. Falk-Ross F. . Mentoring literacy professionals: Con-tinuing the spirit of CRA/ALER after 50 years, 295–316. Waite Park, MN: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodman D. Flurkey A. Goodman Y. (2007)  Effective young beginning readers. Goodman Y. Martens P. . Criticalissues in early literacy, 3–16. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodman K. (1996)  On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodman K. (2003)  Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Flurkey A. Xu J. . On the revolution of reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman, 46–58. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodman Y. Martens P. Flurkey A. (2014)  The essential RMA: A window into readers’ thinking. Katonah, NY: Owen.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodman Y. Watson D. Burke C. L. (2005)  Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction 2nd New York: Owen.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Holmes J. A. Singer H. (1961)  The sub-strata-factor theory: Substrata factor differences underlying reading ability in known-groupsat the high school level. Berkeley: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johns J. Elish-PIPER L. Johns B. (2017)  Basic reading inventory: Kindergarten through grade twelve and early literacy assessments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kabuto B. (2014)  A semiotic perspective on reading picture books: The case of Alexander and the Wind-Up Mouse. Linguistics and Education, 25, 12–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kabuto B. (2017)  A socio-psycholinguistic perspective on biliteracy: The use of miscue analysis as a culturally relevant assessment tool. Reading Horizons, 56 (1), 25–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Keenan J. M. Betjemann R. S. Olson R. K. (2008)  Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kontovourki S. (2012)  Reading leveled books in assessment-saturated classrooms: A close examination of unmarked processes of assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 153–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kragler S. Martin L. (2009)  “I tried to make it not confusing by fixing it”: Describing six first graders’ use of strategies to understand text. Reading Psychology, 30, 512–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Landis J. R. Koch G. G. (1977)  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Leslie L. Caldwell J. (2011)  Qualitativereading inventory-5. New York: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Leslie L. Caldwell J. (2017)  Qualitativereading inventory-6. New York: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nilsson N. L. (2008)  A critical analysis of eight informal reading inventories. Reading Teacher, 61, 526–536.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pearson P. D. Valencia S. W. Wixson K. K. (2014)  Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory Into Practice, 53, 236–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rodgers E. D’agostino J. V. Harmey S. Kelly R. H. Brownfield K. S. (2016)  Exploring the nature of effective scaffolding. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 345–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rumelhart D. E. (2013)  Toward an interactive model of reading. Alvermann D. E. Unrau N. Ruddell R. B. . Theoretical models and processes of reading 6th 636–656. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Shea M. (2000)  Taking Running Records: A teacher shares her experience on how to take Running Records and use what they tell you to assess and improve every child’s reading. New York: Scholastic.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. TEACHERS COLLEGE READING AND WRITINGPROJECT (2014)  Running records, foundational assessments and benchmarks. Retrieved from http://readingandwritingproject.org/resources/assessments/running-records
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tracey D. Marrow L. M. (2012)  Lenseson reading: An introduction to theories and models. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ukrainetz T. A. (2017)  Commentary on “Reading Comprehension Is Not a Single Ability”: Implications for child language intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48 (2), 92–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vaughn S. Linan-THOMPSON S. Hickman P. (2003)  Response to intervention as a means of identifying students with reading/ learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Walpole S. Mckenna M. C. (2006)  The role of informal reading inventories in assessing word recognition. Reading Teacher, 59, 592–594.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilson P. Martens P. Arya P. (2005)  Accountability for reading and readers: What the numbers don’t tell. Reading Teacher, 58, 622–631.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wixson K. K. (2017)  An interactive view of reading comprehension: Implications for assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 77–83.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829753
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829753
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error