Before responding to this
Instructional Challenge, I would like to preface my thoughts by explaining that
I am in no way proficient at miscue analysis. As I explained in my Personal
Reading Theory, I have more experience with more proficient second grade
readers in the areas of fluency and comprehension, as well as reading for
meaning. As I read Chapter 4, I found myself marking in the text reminders as
to what some of the miscues meant, and I took careful notes in order to understand
the chapter and respond to this prompt. I found several helpful quotes from
Weaver to support my argument that these children’s miscues are evidence of
proficient readers. (Now, I could be completely wrong, but I am going to go
with my gut instinct here without the help of class discussion or formal
training on miscue analysis.) Weaver points out that both proficient readers
and nonproficient readers make miscues on simple words, as shown in the table
for this Instructional Challenge. If many (not all) of the words in the
sentence/text are correctly identified and understood, then that leads to a
higher construction of meaning. In the table, most of the words are identified
correctly, especially because the sentence still makes sense. Weaver discusses
that occasionally dialect miscues may just be an alternative way of expressing
the text. When pondering what assistance to offer, I adopt Weaver’s (2002) strategies
of disregarding any special reading materials or methodology, maintaining a
positive attitude, understanding that eventually word recognition will improve
with practice, discussing effective strategies, establishing revalue in one’s
self as a reader, and celebrating strengths.
No comments:
Post a Comment