Content area
Full Text
The purpose of this article is to examine the metatheoretical differences that impact how running records and miscue analysis differ in (a) the quantification of readers' produced responses to text 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 of errors 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.
As children read in classrooms, it is common practice for teachers to observe and record their oral reading behaviors through two main modes of analysis: running records (Clay, 2000) and miscue analysis (Y. Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005). The popularity and dominance of these procedures have resulted in them being incorporated into a variety of commercial assessment tools. Some tools draw upon running records, like the Fountas and Pinnell (2017) Benchmark Assessment System and the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project (2014) General Running Records Assessments, while others draw on miscue analysis. Other assessments, like the Basic Reading Inventory (Johns, Elish-Piper, & Johns, 2017) and the Qualitative Reading Inventory-6 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2017) use a hybrid form of both procedures when evaluating oral reading behaviors.
Running record and miscue analysis assessment procedures are similar in three ways. First, oral reading behaviors are recorded and coded while readers read continuous text. Second, using standard conventions, teachers note substitutions, omissions, or insertions that readers produce. Third, teachers note oral reading behaviors like rereading or self-correcting.
Based on these similarities, some researchers (e.g., Goetze &...