Oral Reading Miscue Analysis Is Good but Not Complete

Oral Reading Miscue Analysis Is Good but Not CompleteAuthor(s): Harold NewmanSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 31, No. 8 (May, 1978), pp. 883-886Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194668 .

Accessed: 22/06/2014 03:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:37:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194668?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Oral reading miscue

analysis is good but not complete

HAROLD NEWMAN

Differences between oral and silent reading suggest both

must be assessed; oral miscues don't reveal the higher skills, the role of thought.

TO

WHAT extent can we rely on an analysis of oral reading

miscues to tell us what happens during the act of reading?

A well-known psycholinguist, Kenneth Goodman, believes that by studying an individual's oral reading

miscues (responses to print that deviate from what is expected) the researcher or teacher can learn much

about a reader's predicting, sam

pling, self-correcting and reorgani

zing strategies. By means of a rather

complex classification system it is

possible, says Goodman, to deter mine the ratio between various types of miscues and the degree to which an individual integrates or utilizes

syntactic, semantic and graphophon ic cues systems (Goodman 1969).

The subject's retelling of what s/he reads then furnishes additional in formation about how thought and

language interrelate (however,

Goodman provides no system for

classifying these responses). Goodman (1977) makes it clear

that "oral output reflects the

underlying competence and the

psycholinguistic processes that have

generated it." Still, in view of the fact that in our society silent reading plays a more functional role than oral reading in the fulfillment of the

major objectives of reading, one

might logically raise these questions: Should an oral reading miscue

inventory constitute the sole basis of

investigating reading behavior in order to arrive at insights about the

psycholinguistic process at work? Are there differences between oral and silent reading that could account for divergent types of responses? Is a

study of oral reading miscues a reliable base for the development of a

theory and model of the reading process?

883



Oral and silent reading are

sufficiently similar in Goodman's view to warrant the conclusion that how one reads orally essentially

mirrors how one reads to oneself. On

the other hand, one need only to

examine a sampling of clinical records of youngsters at various

grade levels to discover that there

frequently are differences of perhaps a year or two between the oral and silent reading performance of the same individual. In some cases oral

reading is superior to silent reading and in other cases the opposite is true.

Furthermore, the relationship is not necessarily stable throughout a

reader's development. Data from the Gilmores' (1968) study indicate that the strong correlation between oral

reading error rate and silent reading comprehension in grades one and two rapidly declines from the third

through the eighth grades. Verifiable differences between oral and silent

reading rate indicate that, by the end of second grade, silent reading rate becomes faster than the oral reading rate (Durrell 1956) and that by the end of grade six, silent reading rate is double that of oral reading (McCracken 1967).

Eye movement photography also documents the fact that the number and duration of fixations, pauses and

regressions in oral reading exceed those occurring in silent reading.

Oral reading more difficult? When a subject's silent reading

performance is superior to his/her oral reading, it may be traceable to

more opportunities to try the fit of

his/her tentative guesses and to

revise them. Frank Smith (1973) believes that subjects whose reading

speed is about 200 words per minute are in a more strategic position to

assimilate and retain ideas for

immediate recall than those whose

speed is impeded by word-by-word

reading. The same person may be more comfortable and better able to concentrate while reading silently than when engaged in an oral reading situation. Some find oral reading distracting to their inner thought processes because the focus is on

reading strings of words rather than

reading for ideas. For some, oral

reading induces self-consciousness because of the possibility that errors

will be noticed. Others suppress attempts to work out pronunciation of a new word for fear of being wrong; they're afraid to take chances. Their behavior in a silent reading situation may be quite different since

they have more time (and feel less

pressure) to utilize semantic,

grammatical and graphophonic cues

and more time to engage in "the

psycholinguistic guessing game." For these reasons and others oral reading is regarded by some as more difficult than silent reading.

One cannot safely generalize that for all individuals either oral or silent

reading is easier or more difficult, less productive or more productive.

Some students need to hear the words they read to effectively process and retain what they read. They require the link between the spoken and printed word. Some individuals

regard oral reading as more interest

ing, dynamic and socially oriented and consequently try harder when

reading than they do when engaged in silent reading.

Goodman's belief that oral reading miscues are the "windows on the

reading process at work" is probably partially correct (it being understood that oral reading is not synonymous

with understanding). Silent reading may be more conducive to under

standing difficult concepts than oral

reading because it allows a person more time to think about what s/he has read. In view of the differences between oral and silent reading, an

exclusive use of oral reading as a

884 The Reading Teacher May 1978



means of developing insights about

the psycholinguistic process is inade

quate. A more meaningful and pro ductive approach for assessing read

ing behavior is to use data obtained

from both oral and silent reading assessment.

Silent reading comprehension is

regarded by many experts as the better way of investigating compre hension skills (Harris and Sipay 1975). Higher level skills?"reading

between the lines," inferential read

ing, and creative reading, for ex

ample?are best evaluated when the

reader has opportunities for careful,

thoughtful contemplation. Responses made in answer to questions chal

lenging the reader to interpret, visual

ize, analyze, synthesize, evaluate and

apply what s/he has learned from

print yield vital information about the inner processes of reading that is

only superficially tapped by oral

reading followed by an open-ended recounting of a passage's content.

Apparently, Goodman separates these higher level processes from

reading per se. For him the psycho

linguistic process is concerned with

extracting meaning from a linguistic medium. Thus the results of the

reading are distinguished from the

reading act, as Goodman makes clear

when he states that the "cycles of

reflective thinking in response to the

reading cannot be considered part of

the reading process itself any more

than following directions after having read them can be considered a part of

the reading' process" (Goodman

1969). This is certainly a logical distinc

tion, but it may not be functional for

educators who need to investigate

reading in its fullest range of uses. In

carrying out one of their major academic responsibilities?that of

reading and studying required texts

in the subject disciplines?students read silently, not orally. It is illogical therefore to confine an investigation

of their reading behavior to the initial levels of comprehension revealed by oral reading miscue analysis.

The differences between oral and silent reading lead one to question a

distinction between reading and

thinking and thus to question Good man's approach to gaining access to

and understanding the psycholinguis tic process through a study of oral

reading miscues. Silent reading be havior is too significant a variable for

understanding the higher mental

processes to be eliminated from any assessment of reading behavior. Fur thermore Goodman's view of com

prehension conflicts with the view of

large numbers of reading experts and authors of materials prepared for

instructing children?a view formu lated by Gates in 1949 and reiterated and reaffirmed since then:

To say that reading is a "thought

getting" process is to give it too

restricted a description. It should be

developed as a complex organization of patterns of higher mental processes. It can and should embrace all types of

thinking, evaluating, judging, imagin

ing, reasoning and problem solving... The reading act is completed or near

completion as the child uses his reading in some practical way. He goes

through steps of perception, under

standing and thinking in order that his

reading may be put to work. In every case the reading includes application. Furthermore reading is not to be

regarded as limited to mental activities.

The dynamic and emotional processes are also involved.

Newman is professor of reading and

language arts at Jersey City State

College, New Jersey.

References Durrell, Donald D. Improving Reading Instruction, p.

174. New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1956.

Gates, Arthur I. "Character and Purposes of the Year book." Reading in the Elementary School, Nelson B.

Henry, Ed., pp. 3-4. Forty-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1949.

Gilmore, John V. and Eunice C Gilmore. Gilmore Oral Reading Test. New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968. (As cited by George D. Spache in

Diagnosing and Correcting Reading Disabilities, p.

NEWMAN:... miscue analysis 885



121. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1976.) Goodman, Kenneth S. "Analysis of Oral Reading Mis

cues: Applied Psycholinguistics." Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1 (Fall 1969), pp. 9-30.

Goodman, Kenneth S. "Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game." Reading Process and Product, Harold Newman, Ed. Forest Hills, N.Y.: Prestige Educational, 1976.

Goodman, Kenneth S. and Yetta M. Goodman. "Learning about Psycholinguistic Processes by Analyzing Oral Reading." Harvard Educational Review, vol. 47

(August 1977), pp. 317-33. Harris, Albert J. and Edward D. Sipay. How to Increase

Reading Ability, 6th ed. New York, N.Y.: David McKay, 1975.

McCracken, Robert A. "The Informal Reading Inventory as a Means of Improving Instruction." The Evaluation of Children's Reading Achievement, Thomas C. Barrett, Ed., pp. 79-96. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1967.

Smith, Frank. Psycholinguistics and Reading. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

A Good-bye to My Remedial Readers Snakes, frogs, lizards, toads? That's how reading class goes!

Sometimes a pigeon Flying about...

At times, some cooking To round us out.

Functional words to get us through, Ice-skating, lumberyards and sewing too!

An occasional request to "leave my room'"

Because we just don't know what we're

Supposed to do...

All in all, we've had our fun. We've worked on reading And now we're done.

Summer is here.

Enjoy yourselves.

Ellen H. Rappoport, Catonsville, Maryland

886 The Reading Teacher May 1978



Documents

Oral Reading Miscue Analysis Is Good but Not Complete