Part II: Reflection

Insights into Chloees Reading:

Some of Chloees responses from the preliminary questioning led me to believe that she
thinks reading fast and sounding out difficult words were important parts of reading. Examples
include when Chloee responded that she is a good reader because she reads really fast and can
read a lot of hard words in response to number two of the Reading Self-Evaluation, and in
response to number three of the Burke she said that her friend Margaret is a good reader because
shes fast and good and understands all of the words. Also, in response to number seven in the
Burke, she responded that her teacher would help someone by letting the person sound it out
first, then tell them the word if they did not know it. To me, these comments indicated that she
put more emphasis on each individual word than constructing meaning. I thought her reading
may therefore be choppyword by word or in short phrases.
Another implication that made me think Chloee may not place importance on making
sense as shes reading was her response to number 6 of the Student Reading Attitude Survey
she has a little trouble understanding what she reads. This also made me think she may struggle
with the retell.
Although Chloee said that she reads really fast, this was not exemplified in her reading
of Babysitting. She read at an acceptable pace and slowed down when she was thinking or
anticipated a difficult word. She frequently did resort to graphic details when she was unsure of
a word and accepted some nonsense words (previously mentioned in Part I). However, out of
twenty seven substitutions/partials, seven were self-corrected, and only eight caused a change in
meaning. Therefore, at times, Chloee used context clues and prior knowledge to make meaning
and correct herself.
Some other strategies Chloee mentioned in the Burke were skipping unknown words and
asking someone later (number one) or asking her teacher (number five). I did notice that when
she was not certain of the name Sybil, she put in a name that sounded okay to her and read on.
She never did get the name, but she always put something in and kept reading. In the majority of
the sentences, Chloee also produces language structures that are acceptable
Insights into Chloees Reading Process:
Chloee has an apparent understanding of English grammar. She applies this knowledge
in her reading and therefore 88% of the coded sentences she read were syntactically and
semantically acceptable (see Classroom Procedure Coding Forms). Most of her miscues that
were syntactically acceptable were also semantically acceptable, and if they were not, mostly she
corrected them. For example, in line 1401 she read Three were and then corrected herself
There were. In the majority of the sentences, Chloee uses her knowledge of grammar to
generate language structures that are acceptable in English. There are, however, a few instances
where the sentence structure is not acceptable, but she does not attempt to correct. This could be
because the loss of meaning was not significant enough for her to notice. For example, she
omitted to in line 403 and read, She wanted to go clucking practice, but who
How this project has helped me with other students in my class:
This project has helped me look at reading and listen to readers in a different way. I
recently began doing DRAs with my students so I can group them for Guided Reading after
Winter Break. I found myself discarding the scoring pages and using the Informal Procedure

instead after using the initial part of the DRA that introduces the story and has a picture walk.
One of the books (a Level 2) is about things you can see by a pond. I found myself adding a
question during the introduction (thinking about how much we discussed childrens prior
experiences and knowledge): Do you know what a pond is? At least half of them responded
no. So we discussed parks and lakes, etc., first to help them make some meaning! I also found
myself listening for high-quality miscues and monitoring if I thought they were making meaning
as they were reading (for those at Level 4 and higher).
I now also now know to focus more on constructing meaning instead of just the words.
This means analyzing patterns in miscues and giving students the tools to improve on their own.
It is better to model and teach them strategies good readers use to help them progress into
proficient readers. I also know to put more emphasis on comprehension. I used to be more
concerned with making sure students could read all of the words correctly in their books.
What I might do differently next year:
This year and in years to come, I think I will frequently use Over the Shoulder and
Informal procedures instead of running records. In the past, after Guided Reading sessions,
the children would get to keep their books in their book buckets for Silent Reading time. I would
listen to them read their books in subsequent days and keep running records to check for fluency.
But I did not check for comprehension. I was more concerned about them reading the words
correctly. I will not be doing this any longer! I know now that, even for Kindergarten, it is okay
to talk with children about their miscues. It is more than okay, it is beneficial, to discuss their
high-quality and low-quality miscues to make them more metacognitive about their reading and
the strategies they employ while doing so.
Since we are just about to begin Guided Reading this year in January, I am thinking about
teaching my students some of the miscue terminology. This is a fragile time for some of them
who do not see themselves as readers yet. Some of them surprised themselves when they could
read a DRA book! Therefore, it is a crucial time to help them see that everybody miscues, and to
begin teaching them to read for meaning.
Our current reading curriculum, Good Habits Great Readers, is strategy-based. This is
the first year we have been able to use it from day one of school. Last year, we began it in
January. Each week has one big strategy such as activating prior knowledge, and a book that
is conducive to teaching, modeling, and practicing it. Each day, we practice using the strategy in
a different way. I introduce and model, then we discuss with partners and/or whole group, and
review the strategy. There are Guided Reading books and lessons that correspond with the
strategies each week as well. I have seen many positive results because of it. The children are
using many of the strategies. It is like a recipe, but I think in conjunction with the Miscue
Analysis perspective, it could be a balanced and wholesome reading program.
I am also thinking about doing the Burke with all of my students to get an idea of how
they feel about reading and what they think is important when they read. I can look at their
responses collectively, and plan whole group mini-lessons accordingly. In addition, I can use
them for individual conferencing, or in case I need to do a Miscue Analysis.