Christina Agena

ITE 313
November 9, 2016

Miscue Analysis Reflection Questions

1. What is running records and miscue analysis?

Miscue analysis and running records are reading assessments administered to a student in

order to gather information about his/her reading abilities. These assessments provide

information about the students reading cueing system. A reading cueing system consists of three

different systems: syntactic cues, which focus on the structure of a word; semantic cues, which

focus on the meaning of a word; and graphophonic cues, which focus on the configuration and

correspondence of a word. All three cueing systems work interdependently. Miscue analysis and

running records also provide insight to a students comprehension level. Students read either a

narrative or informational text, then are asked to answer a few comprehensive questions. Wilde

(2000) suggests that students should read the text in its original format. For instance, if a

passage is retrieved from a chapter book, the student should read straight from the book itself, or

a direct copy of the book.

2. Based on the student data, what information is revealed about the student's
reading behavior? What information is not revealed?

Based on this students data, I was able to gain insight about what cueing system she uses

the most while reading. After reading 2 informational texts and 1 narrative text, graphophonic

cues received the highest percentage at 89%. Based on the data, this student has very high

reading accuracy, scoring 97% on the narrative text, and 98%, for both informational texts. This

accuracy is also showcased through her error ratios of 1:39 (narrative, 3rd grade text), 1:41 (4th
 Agena- p. 2

grade, informational text), and 1:65 (3rd grade, informational text). The data reveals that this

student was able to read through the texts with minimal errors.

The data collected does not reveal information about the students comprehension level.

This student received high accuracy percentages, which are not an accurate representations of her

comprehension level. Through these assessments, I was able to assess and discover that this

student has stronger comprehension when reading a narrative text, as opposed to an

informational text. This student received a 75% for a 3rd grade-leveled narrative text, 44% for a

4th grade-leveled informational text, and 67% for a 3rd grade-leveled informational text. I was

able to observe why this student may have weak overall comprehension. This student reads with

a lack of fluency and I would score her an 8/16 on the Multidimensional Fluency Scale

(Rasinski, 2004). This student read with a lack of expression, monotonic tone, lack of

smoothness, use of run-on sentences, and fast pace. Her lack of fluency might have hindered her

ability to comprehend the text. She seemed to be reading only to get the words out, rather than

reading to understand the passage. Although, I was able to gather this information about

comprehension through administering the test, this information was not revealed through the

calculated data.

3. What are the next instructional steps for this student?

I would begin by strengthening this students fluency when reading. I would first review

with her what different punctuation marks are used for. I would model how to read sentences

with different punctuations, and then ask her to do the same. Through this instruction, she will

be able to read with expression, correctly phrased sentences, appropriate breaks, and a consistent

pace.
 Agena- p. 3

I would also instruct this student on different ways of strengthening her syntactic cueing

system, since the miscue analysis shows that she used this system the least. Ideally, I would

want to have centers for all three different cueing systems, with different activities in each center

that the students can participate in. As an example activity, I would have her read and edit

passages with syntactic miscues. This will help her to notice when she reads a word that does

not make structural sense in a passage.

4. As a future classroom teacher, how can you use information from running records and miscue
analysis for instructional and intervention purposes?

Conducing running records and miscue analysis provides concrete areas of improvement

for each student. Low-leveled readers in particular can benefit from descriptive feedback and

areas of improvement. For example, with this student, I was able to observe that she needs to

slow down when reading, and take appropriate pauses between sentences. Without these

assessments, I would only be able to infer that she is a low-leveled reading and has weak

comprehension through her Reading Wonders Selection Tests scores. As a future classroom

teacher, I would also be able to pinpoint what cueing systems my student uses and what systems

need strengthening. I could also assess whether or not my student is proficient when

comprehending a text, or if he/she needs intervention for comprehension, as well.

5. What successes did you encounter with administering running records and calculating the
miscue analysis?

A success I encountered was gaining a deeper understanding of this particular students

reading level and abilities. Prior to the assessments, I knew that this particular student was a

low-leveled reader, but other than that I did not have a sufficient amount of information to
 Agena- p. 4

provide support or intervention. After conducting the running record assessments and miscue

analysis, I was able to pinpoint areas of improvement and better ways to support this student as a

reader. For example, I would instruct her to slow down when reading and to review the purpose

for different punctuation marks. Another success was learning that there are many different

reading factors. Reading accurately does not prove that the student comprehends what they are

reading. For example, this student has high reading accuracy, but low comprehension. I was

also able to observe that when this student encounters an unfamiliar word, she quickly guesses

instead of decoding or breaking the word into parts.

6. What challenges did you encounter with administering running records and
calculating the miscue analysis?

One challenge I encountered was a lack of time. I wish I could have conducted at least

one more assessment with this student but I was unable to find the time. I was able to experience

how a regular classroom teacher may have difficulty finding time to administer theses

assessments, especially with more than one student a day. The only time I could administer

theses tests were during the morning block, when the students are independently working on

Moby Max, or journals. But there were certain days where we encountered schedule shifts and I

needed to address the class during the morning block. During this time, I was unable to pull the

student on the side to conduct these assessments.

Another challenge was choosing appropriate leveled texts. Before conducting these

assessments, I knew that this student reads below grade level. Since this student was placed at

Level 1, or Standard Not Yet Met, on her 4th grade Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for

English Language Arts (ELA), I knew I should choose a 4th grade or lower passage. I was able to

choose an appropriate narrative passage that she was able to read and comprehend. But when

choosing an informational passage, I first chose a text that was too difficult for this student.
 Agena- p. 5

As a future teacher, I can foresee other challenges when conducting running records and

miscue analysis. For the first two assessments, I was able to pull this student outside to a quiet

location. But for the last passage, I needed to conduct the assessment during lunch recess, with

other students in the classroom. The noise of this students classmates could have distracted her

from reading and comprehending to the best of her ability. As a future teacher, I wont always

have the opportunity to pull students outside to a quiet location to administer these assessments.

But with distractions, the students data could become inaccurate since they are unable to read

uninterrupted.
 Agena- p. 6

References

Ransinski, T.V. (2004). Assessing Reading Fluency. Honolulu, Hawaii: Regional Educational

Laboratory at Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Wilde, S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy: Building on student strengths. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.