Retrospective miscue analysis for struggling postsecondary readers

Retrospective Míscue Analysis for
Struggling Postsecondary Readers
By Eric J. Paulson and Pamela Mason-Egan
ABSTRACT: Retrospective Miscue Analysis
(RMA) is presented as an instructional strategy for postsecondary reading instruction.
Oral reading miscues, which form the core of
the RMA approach, are briefly described, and
RMA is discussed as a one-on-one instructional
approach utilizing the reader's own miscues.
The theoretical underpinnings of RMA are discussed and detailed procedures for implementing RMA are provided. Examples from several
RMA sessions that illustrate RMA procedures
are presented.
The term "miscue" is used
to avoid the negative
connotations of "error'' or
"mistake."
Eric J. Paulson
Associate Professor
Graduate Program in Literacy Education
Division of Teacher Education
College of Education, Criminal Justice, &
Human Services
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0002
eric.paulson@uc.edu
Pamela Mason-Egan
Academic Success Coordinator
Palm Beach Community College
4200 Congress Avenue
LakeWorth,FL, 33461
Recent studies (ACT, 2006; American Institutes
for Research, 2006; Associated Press, 2006a;
Associated Press. 2006b) reinforce what developmental educators have known for some
time: Many college students are underprepared
for the demands of reading at the college level
and can benefit from developmental literacy
instruction. Although definitions of "who" underprepared college readers are vary, general
agreement might include a description of underprepared college readers as having difficulty
engaging in college-level literacy practices including reading expository material at a level
proficient enough to integrate information and
gain understanding (Martino, Norris, & Hoffman, 2001). Other researchers have found that
underprepared readers have difficulty accessing
effective reading strategies, have limited experience applying metacognitive awareness, and
may have incomplete or unhelpful conceptions
of how they read and process language {Caverly,
Nicholson, & Radcliffe, 2004; El-Hindi, 1996).
As a result, many students are unsure of what
they need to become more effective readers
(Maitland, 2000). In addition, it has been noted
that many underprepared readers are guided by
misconceptions about the nature of the reading
process (Marek, 1996a) and these misconceptions can influence how they engage in collegelevel literacy practices. Others have found that
underprepared college students do not exhibit
high levels of self-regulated learning and may
be functioning in a passive and dependent role
(Maittand). Through our discussions of the theoretical underpinnings of Retrospective Miscue
Analysis (RMA), and our excerpts from actual
RMA sessions, our goal is to make apparent how
RMA has exhibited positive influence to directly
address such areas.
This article is about expanding ideas of what
can be useful in a postsecondary literacy context to serve those students who need more than
classroom instructional time in order to develop
as college readers. Specifically, the expansion
discussed herein will be in the context of oneon-one instruction for underprepared college
readers. The type of one-on-one instruction tocused on here is Retrospective Miscue Analysis
(RMA), an individualized approach to literacy
instruction that utilizes students' own oral reading miscues as the basis for metacognitive discussions about the reading process.
Miscue Analysis
Although oral reading miscues are sometimes
associated with younger readers, readers of all
ages and proficiency levels produce miscues.
College readers are no exception, and ample
work has demonstrated the utility of examining college readers' miscues (e.g.. Brown, 1980;
Ohaver, 1972; Paulson, 2001; Smith, 1980; Warde,
2005). This section introduces and describes
Defining Miscues
Miscues are unexpected responses to the text
that readers produce when reading an unfamiliar text aloud. The term "miscue" is used to
avoid the negative connotations of "error" or
"mistake" and reflects the method's underlying
assumption that miscues are the result of the
same language cue systems that produce expected responses in oral reading; they are not simply
random errors. The term was introduced by Ken
Goodman (1965), and a taxonomy of miscues
was soon developed (Goodman, 1969). Soon after, the process of miscue analysis was adapted
and formalized by Yetta Goodman and Carolyn
Burke (1973; Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005),
and there have been hundreds of miscue analysis studies published since (Brown, Goodman, &
Marek, 1996}. The following illustrates the miscues of a lst-year college reader (excerpted from
Paulson & Freeman, 2003).
JOURNAL of DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
Oh-Oh, the furnace clicked on,
it
that's all that was! Calm down, girl,
calm down! The trouble with you is,
all
^__^^
you read'^ the papers. You (should^
all
read'^ the comics and stop there.
Analyzing Miscues
'Ihis reader made four miscues in this section
of text: one substitution (it for that), one omission {should is omitted), and two insertions {all
is inserted in two places). In the first sentence,
he substituted it for that. This is a syntactically
and semantically acceptable miscue, since the
miscue retains the grammatical form ofthe sentence and does not change the meaning. That is,
this miscue is one that shows the readers understanding of the author's syntactic construction and overall meaning. Rather than a cause
for concern, such a miscue could be evidence
for the utilization of many effective elements
of the reading process, such as an attention to
sentence grammar and an awareness of the semantic relationships between different parts of
the sentence.
The next three miscues are interrelated and
show some strengths as well as some areas that
the reader may have needed to self-correct.
First, the reader inserts the word all between
the words read and the. This miscue retains an
acceptable syntactic construction with part of
the sentence but does notfitas well with the end
of the sentence: "You read all the papers" is a
somewhat different semantic construction than
"you read the papers." In the next sentence, the
reader omits should and again inserts the word
all between the words read and the. The omission of the word should changes the syntax of
the sentence from a suggestion using a modal
auxiliary to a simple description, and the resulting semantic construction is at odds with the
rest of the text. However, what is evident from
this sequence of miscues is that after the reader
constructed the penultimate sentence In a certain way, he then constructed the subsequent
sentence to reflect that syntactic construction.
Tliis shows a strong understanding of parallel
construction, where texts are written so that different elements of a sentence or paragraph agree
with each other in tone, singular/plural usage,
tense, and so on.
In short, miscues provide a host of information about students' reading. When used with
established miscue instructional methods, as
detailed following, a students miscues can be a
powerful tool for improving reading effectiveness.
Introducing RMA
Readers' miscues are frequently used as diagVOLUME 31, ISSUE 2 • WINTER 2007
nostic assessment measures, particularly when
teachers want an Ln-depth look at the strengths
and weaknesses of individual readers. This information can be used for planning instructional lessons as well as for research purposes;
Goodman, Watson, and Burke (1996) discuss
numerous ways that miscue information can be
translated into instruction, one of which is Retrospective Miscue Analysis.
Although RMA is an instructional approach
usually associated with middle and secondary
grades, it is important to consider at the theoretical level how RMA relates to older readers.
Of course, "older readers" may be a bit of a misnomer as most college students are entering into
the transitional phase between adolescence and
adulthood, and there is some uncertainty surrounding the adolescent/adult categorization.
However, most researchers define adolescence
from ages 10 to 18 and tend to categorize college students as "adults" in many research studies (Arnett, 2000). Several researchers (Arnett;
This collaborative process
helps the learner bridge
the gap from the more
traditional passive student
role to more active
engagement in the learning
process.
Dyson & Renk, 2006) have pointed out that
most "traditional age" college students tend to
see themselves as neither adolescents nor adults
in what Arnett has described as emerging adulthood. Although many college students may not
view themselves as full-fledged adults, most see
themselves as in the process of attaining adulthood status developing two essential qualities:
accepting responsibility for one's self and making independent decisions (Arnett).
However, research has consistently found
that ist-year college students often have difficulty independently engaging in college-level
literacy practices such as understanding complex assignments, employing appropriate reading strategies, and self-monitoring for understanding (Gorga Cukras, 2006). And, one ofthe
most difficult parts of the transition to college
is learning how to become self-regulated independent adult learners (Van Blerkom & Van
Blerkom, 2004).
It is during this transitional time of emerging adulthood when a significant opportunity
exists to engage students in self-exploration.
reflection, and change. S elf-evaluation is an important part of the learning process because it
Involves students in their own learning {Carr,
2002). When students engage in self-evaluation,
they reflect upon themselves as readers and
learners. Students ask themselves, '"How am
I doing?,' 'Am I improving in this area?,' 'What
are my strengths?,' and 'What are my areas for
improvement?"' {Carr, p. 195). The goal of selfevaluation is for students to gain insights into
themselves as readers and learners, and this is
where educators begin with RMA. Throughout
the RMA process, readers are engaged in exploration, reflection, and evaluation. This process
is a means to gain insight, set goals, monitor
progress, and make necessary changes in reading behavior.
Overview of Retrospective Miscue
Analysis
The essence of an RMA session is a discussion
between the instructor and the student about
the student's reading, specifically in terms ofthe
student's miscues. Goals of RMA discussions
often include demystifying the reading process,
raising reading to a metacognitive level, and engaging the reader in thinking about useful strategies for reading. Instructors seek to accomplish
those goals by encouraging readers to discuss
their own reading process in order to better
understand and value the complex processes of
reading and thereby revalue themselves as readers and learners.
Theoretical Underpinriings of RMA
Several key aspects make RMA a powerful instructional approach. The themes of metacognition discussions, motivation, and revaluing are
consistently found in RMA sessions, and their
existence forms the theoretical basis for RMA
procedures.
Metacognitive discussions. During RMA,
readers think and talk about their own miscues
they produced with their instructor. Goodman
and Marek ( 1996b) have asserted that scaffolding
during RMA enables instructors to help readers
discover aspects of their own reading processes,
instead of simply telling readers what to think.
That Is, RMA "allows readers to become overtly
and consciously aware of their own use of reading strategies and to value their knowledge of
the linguistic systems they control as they transact with written texts" (p. 40). A core element
of RMA is that learning happens when actions,
thoughts, and experiences are discussed with
the learner as opposed to facts being given to the
learner; the emphasis is on learners playing an
active role in constructing knowledge. This collaborative process helps the learner bridge the
gap from the more traditional passive student
role to more active engagement in the learning
process. As they engage in these metacognitive
discussions they learn about themselves as readers and about the reading process while developing more productive reading strategies.
RMA has been shown to help readers renegotiate their views of themselves and how they
implement reading strategies (Black, 2004).
When readers do not understand the nature of
the reading process and the readers own role
in that process, reading effectiveness can suffer.
Instruction should address not only students'
beliefs about themselves as readers and learners but also the beliefs students have about the
reading process itself. That is, if a student believes that reading is sounding out words and
that good reading means getting all of the words
on the page correct, that belief will drive their
approach to reading, which can actually hinder,
not enhance, comprehension (Marek, 1996a).
RMA engenders discussions in which readers
"consider the qualitative nature of their reading" (Goodman & Flurkey, 1996, p. 95), which
leads to a greater understanding, and control, of
the process.
Motivation. Underprepared students' pessimism about their abilities as readers certainly affects their motivation to read and often becomes
"the most powerful obstacle that teachers face
in helping those students become better readers" (McCabe & Margolis, 2001, p. 45). RMA
practice recognizes that a negative self-concept
impedes learning and that motivation is important, one reason that instructors choose positive
miscues to discuss with readers in order to build
confidence in the students' own reading ability
(Goodman & Flurkey, 1996). The interrelationship between self-efficacy, the "I can" belief, and
reading comprehension implies that if students
believe that they have the ability to understand
what they are reading, then they will be more
motivated to engage with the text (Vacca, 2006).
This advocacy for increasing both students' motivation and self-efficacy, as well as providing instruction for comprehension strategies, is central to the RMA process as well. Through RMA
discussions readers acquire an enhanced understanding about the reading process, their own
strengths in reading, and more effective ways to
strategically approach reading, and this understanding results in positive changes in attitude
and confidence in reading (Moore & Brantingham, 2003).
Revaluing. Crucial to understanding the
foundation of RMA is the concept of revaluing,
whereby readers redefine themselves as readers
and gain a new understanding of the strengths
they bring to the reading act, strengths like syntactic knowledge, semantic knowledge, world
experiences, and so on that are crucial parts of
reading. Revaluing also relates to how readers
begin to view the reading process itself (Flurkey,
1996). Goodman (2003) has stated that the key
to helping readers in trouble is to "help them revalue themselves as language users and learners,
and revalue the reading process as an interactive,
constructive language process" (p. 421). The goal
of revaluing is to support learners in risk taking,
self-monitoring, and confidence building.
Aspects of the theoretical basis of RMA, such
as motivation and revaluing, are affected by
growth in strategic reading comprehension development. That is, as opposed to simply being
an emotional support group for struggling readers, RMA builds individuals' self-esteem. Aspects of RMA like revaluing empower students
to become self-efficacious readers. Moore and
Aspegren (2001) have explained this by presenting "the concept of empowerment in RMA as
helping the reader 'exercise power' (Gore, 1992,
p. 62) and control over the reading process" (p.
Semi-structured interviews...
provide a starting point for
learning about a students
reading and self-conception
as a reader.
501). RMA takes the reader on a journey of selfreflection, exploration, and change. As students
talk about their reading process, they often begin to realize that they know a lot more about
language, and about themselves as language users, than they had previously realized.
Once a person begins to redefine him/herself as a competent reader, there is a positive
impact on bis/her reading proficiency.... We
must not underestimate the power of such
a shift in attitude. It transforms people into
learners who take charge of their own learning—who define themselves as readers: literate human beings capable of learning what
they want to learn. (Goodman & Marke,
1996a, p. 203)
Through shared exploration of their own reading processes, students enhance their own understanding of reading and how to become more
self-directed readers.
Procedures for Retrospective
Miscue Analysis
This section provides a description of procedures for implementing Retrospective Miscue
Analysis with examples that illustrate key points.
Procedures are based on and utilize Goodman
and Marek's (1996b) RMA guidelines.
Day One
An RMA session begins like a typical miscue
analysis session, and the teacher's knowledge of
marking, coding, and analyzing miscues is nee
essary for successful implementation of RMA;
for an introduction to miscue analysis, see Wilde
(2000), and for a comprehensive course on miscue analysis, see Goodman, Watson, and Burke
(2005). At the first meeting with the student,
work toward establishing a friendly rapport
so that the student is comfortable reading and
talking. At this initial meeting, it is also important for the instructor to begin learning about
the students perceptions regarding reading and
him or herself as a reader. Semi-structured in
terviews like the Burke Interview Modified for
Older Readers (BIMOR; Goodman & Marek.
1996a) provide a starting point for learning
about a student's reading and self-conception
as a reader. The following are excerpts (Paulson,
2006) from a reading interview conducted with
a college student using tbe BIMOR:
Pamela (Instructor): When you are reading
and you come to something that gives you
trouble, what do you do?
Jason (Student): I usually read it over
again...either read it over or skip it because it
frustrates me... FJther I'll read it over twice,
sometimes three times, and if I don't understand something, I'll either ask somebody or
just skip it. Usually, I just skip it because I'm
usually reading alone. Yeah, I usually just skip
it and then see if I can put it together with
something else in the beginning, or I go back
and read what was before and after that and
see if I can get it then using context clues.
Pamela: Can you describe yourself as a reader?
Jason: Horrible...Lost...Like a lost dog,
Umm, I can read and I can get the job done,
but it takes me a long time. I'm not accurate
and my speed is not very good, I'll read very
fast and then very, very slow. I'm all over the
place...rm like a heart monitor going up and
down.
Pamela: Is there anything that you would liku
to change about your reading?
Jason: Speed and accuracy...being able to
read quicker and more efficiently and to be
able to read for enjoyment, almost.
This discussion marks the beginning of Jason's
CONTINUED ON PAGE 6
JOURNAL o/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4
increased metacognition about reading and his
own reading processes, which was continued
throughout his RMA sessions. The full interview
with fason explored his perceptions about his
abilities as a reader, his attitudes toward reading,
his reading strategies, his perceptions and beliefs
of what "good reading" meant to him, his early
reading experiences, and his reading habits.
As with all miscue analysis sessions, an RMA
session begins with the student reading an unfamiliar text aloud. This text should be challenging to the reader but not at the frustration level,
and should be chosen in consultation with the
student, with the student's needs and interests in
mind. For example, if the student is struggling
witb textbook reading, using an excerpt from the
student's history textbook may be an appropriate
choice. During this session, the student is audio
recorded reading the text aloud. After reading
the text, the student "retells" the text, which for
expository texts can take the shape of a detailed
summary of the information in the text. If the
student reads fiction/literature, the retelling can
be more of a depiction of what happens in the
story from beginning to end. After the retelling,
if the student neglects to include elements of the
text in the retelling, the instructor may want to
ask some questions about the text to further assess the reader's overall comprehension of the
text. Once the retelling is finished, then the initial RMA meeting is complete, and the instructor and student should make plans to meet on a
subsequent day. During the interim between the
two meetings, the instructor will prepare materials for their first RMA discussion.
Day Two
Preparation for the session. In preparation
for the second meeting—which will be the first
RMA discussion—the instructor listens to the
audio recording and records the miscues the
student produced, marking them on a typescript
or photocopy of the text. Since it is crucial to
begin with confidence building, the instructor
should examine the miscues and select several
that show the reader's strengths and good use of
strategies, as students will often view miscues as
errors that need remediation instead of being indicative of effective strategy use. The instructor
should find those sections on the audio recording so that they can be easily played when next
meeting with the student.
First RMA discussion. At this first discussion
meeting, the instructor plays the portions of the
audio that were selected, while both the student
and the instructor follow along on a copy of
the text. (If after the RMA session is complete
the instructor plans to listen to the session for
themes, progress being made, and so on, then it
is a good idea to audio record this aspect of the
RMA session as well.) Together, the student and
instructor listen for preselected miscues, and either the student or the instructor can stop the
audio when they hear a miscue. The student and
instructor together then mark the miscues on a
blank typescript or photocopy of the text.
Guiding questions. The instructor then begins a discussion about what the miscue shows
about the student's reading, emphasizing strategies that are evident and how to employ more
strategies. The instructor will guide tbe discussion with the "RMA Guiding Questions." Each
of the following RMA guiding questions is designed to help the reader focus on reading strategies and cueing strategies and is used to guide
the discussion about each miscue.
1. Does the miscue make sense?
2. Does the miscue sound like language?
3. Was the miscue corrected?
Students will often view
miscues as errors that need
remediation.
A. Should it have been?
If the answer to Questions i and 3a was "No,"
then ask:
4. Does the miscue look like what was on
the page?
5. Does the miscue sound like what was on
the page?
For all miscues ask:
6. Why do you think you made this miscue?
7. Did that miscue affect your understanding of the text?
Each question is usually expanded into a discussion by asking "Why do you think so?" Or "How
do you know?"
Using these questions as a structural guide,
the instructor and student discuss the student's
reading, retelling, and miscues, always working
toward a better understanding of the student's
own reading as well as the reading process in
general. These questions are starting points, and
it should be expected that the discussion goes
beyond the boundaries of those particular questions. As with any one-on-one, student-oriented
instructional practice, each RMA discussion will
be different. The general goals, however, remain
the same: working with the student to come to
a greater understanding of how reading works
with a view toward building on the student's
strengths in order for him or her to become a
more effective and efficient reader.
The following session illustrates how some of
those questions play out in an actual RMA session. In this excerpt, Pamela and Jason discuss
two-word insertion miscues. As Jason sampled
the text, he made a prediction about the structure or syntax of the following sentence from a
short essay.
The printed text, with Jason's miscues over
laid on top, is:
So you
the
searched
for
the
the
killers
and ^ sluggers and ^ maulers — fellows who could hit with the force of
a baseball bat.
Jason and Pamela discussed his insertion of the
word "the" during his reading of the text and
they focused on the reason he produced it as a
means to gain some insight into ¡ason's reading
process in the following excerpt:
Pamela: So, you said, "the killers and the
sluggers and the maulers"...Does the miscue
make sense?...Of course it does...But I'm
more interested in why you put "the" in froni
of those words.
Jason: Because I was addressing "the slug
gers" and "the maulers" as separate things,
like titles.
Pamela: Do you think it has anything to do
with the fact that the list starts with "the killers" and then you stuck with the same pattern?
Jason: Yes...I did...True.
Pamela: I'm thinking that maybe you stuck
with the same structure that was there.
Jason: Yes, I just copied it. And I think il
sounds better.
This metacognitive discussion between in
structor and student about the student's own
reading processes is evident in every aspect
of RMA. As |ason read this text, he used the
knowledge he had gained by sampling and followed the syntactic pattern the author used at
the beginning of the sentence. He sampled the
text and then predicted the structure of the rest
of the sentence. Jason told Pamela that he had
not realized he had added the word "the" in the
sentence. For Jason, the insertion of the words
made sense and the miscue was automatically
confirmed. There was no need for him to go
back and self-correct the miscue. In addition, he
CONTINUED ON PAGE 8
JOURNAL «/"DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 6
was also able to make the connection between
oral and written language since the addition of
the word "the" sounded better to him. The more
Jason learns, and is able to articulate, about his
own reading process, the more he realizes that
he brings strengths to the reading process that
he can build on. When instructors make clear
to readers, like Pamela does here, that readers
are making good choices, applying sound strategies, and understanding what they are reading,
that discussion becomes motivation for further
efforts to learn and apply new strategies to the
reader's reading tasks.
What follows is another example of Jason's
sampling, predicting, and confirming strategies while reading the same short essay. Jason's
miscues are in itaUcs above the printed text followed by an excerpt from the subsequent RMA
The killing was seen by millions;
It was
it was on television. In the twelfth
round, he was hit hard in the head
and
several times, went down, was
counted out, and never came out of
quality miscue—one that did not negatively affect syntax or meaning—that did not need to be
corrected. This also offers evidence that Jason
had moved away from his prior focus on words
to a focus on making meaning.
Preparation for subsequent sessions. After
completing the RMA discussion, if more than
one RMA session is planned—which is advisable—another text can be read at this meeting or
at a subsequent meeting. After the session is over,
the instructor should reflect on and note important elements of the RMA discussion in preparation for a subsequent session, and discussions
can pull together intertextual observations and
discussions of reading strategies that arise over
more than one session. For example, after Jason
read a narrative short story, the RMA sessions
that followed included a lot of discussion about
Jason's attempts at integrating new reading strategies, such as the conscious reduction of word repetitions and strategic rereading. During this discussion, he also engaged in some self-assessment
Jason had moved away from
his prior focus on words to
focus on making meaning.
the coma.
Pamela; Okay...So, you substituted "It was"
and you got rid of "was" and added "and."
Jason: I'll tellyou why...comma, comma and
then I would put "and." To me, in my head,
the comma shouldn't be there. It's not necessary And that comma shouldn't be there and
that is exactly why I did that.
Pamela: So did the miscue make sense?
Jason: Absolutely.
As a result of Pamela and Jason's discussion,
it was apparent that Jason was using his knowledge of grammar and punctuation to make sense
of the text; he constructed a sentence that made
sense to him and that did not disrupt the meaning. We can also see that Jason was sampling
and predicting when he said "It was the twelfth
round" instead of "In the twelfth round" because
the phrase just priorto that part of the text started with "it was." He sampled the text and then
predicted that the next sentence would start
with the same syntactic pattern; when this made
sense to him, he continued reading without disruption and told Pamela that he did not even
notice what he had done. Pamela also pointed
out that it was fortuitous that he had not noticed
the miscues because, had he self-corrected, he
would have wasted his time correcting a high-
and gained more insight into his reading process.
Pamela asked Jason to compare his experience
when reading two short stories, and it became
apparent that Jason had made a conscious effort
to reduce the number of repetitions and corrections of high-quality miscues as he was reading.
The following is part of their discussion:
Jason: I just tried to keep going...
Pamela: So when you tried not to repeat
yourself...
Jason: It was difficult...Sometimes I didn't
understand it as easily, but it moved it along.
It wasn't as repetitive. And the problem is
that when I repeat, I'm trying to take in every little bit. So I think if I can just take in
the overall meaning, then it might be better. I
made a conscious effort not to repeat and to
read a little slower and try to get it all in and
if I couldn't.. .tben just keep going.
Pamela: You know you mentioned that at
the end of the story was where you got most
confused. And that is where you did the most
repeating. Isn't that interesting?
Jason: That's why I was repeating.,.I didn't
know what was going on. I was so confused.
I didn't know who was talking to who at the
end.
Pamela: So you were using the repeating as a
strategy to understand.
Jason: Yes.
Pamela noticed that Jason's rereading seemed
to increase at points in the story where he seemed
confused, a significant observation since it demonstrated that Jason's repetition and rereading
increased in response to the loss of meaning he
was experiencing. Instead of focusing on wordby-word reading, Jason was more attuned to
constructing meaning and was using rereading
as a strategy to comprehend the text. This was
a major shift from his first reading where he
demonstrated that he believed it was important
to read every word perfectly and accurately, and
pulling together observations across more than
one RMA session illustrated this development.
RMA Research at the
Postsecondary Level: Evaluating
Reader Development
Although the theoretical underpin nings of RMA
provide a foundation for its use at the postsecondary level and the detailed introduction to
implementing RMA allows instructors to begin
implementing the approach, the purpose of this
article is not to present an original study. For this
reason, an evidence-based assessment of the approach as reported in the literature is included.
Research involving RMA across a range of age
groups has generally had a single-participant,
case-study focus, using RMA data and miscue
analysis as the main measurement tool. In addition, discourse between the instructor/researcher and the student, as well as responses to
interview questions, have been analyzed with an
eye toward uncovering qualitative understand
ings of reading processes, effective reading strat
egies, and personal relationships with reading.
Through this type of research on RMA, Goodman and Flurkey (1996) discuss how using RMA
results in readers who revalue both themselves
as readers and the reading process, raise their
understandings of reading processes to a metacognitive level, and, importantly, "improve their
actual reading strategies" (p. 87). Other research
demonstrates that RMA can have positive effects on readers' understandings about reading,
the reading strategies they employ while reading, and their comprehension of the text being
read (Goodman & Paulson, 2001; Marek, 1996a).
The transcripts of RMA sessions have been especially useful in demonstrating how students
themselves often realize RMA's value in improving their reading efficiency and effectiveness
(Marek, 1996a. 1996b).
CONTINUED ON PAGE lO
JOURNAL o/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8
Research involving RMA at the postsecondary level is relatively scarce, but it follows the
general research trends of RMA research at all
levels. In the studies at the postsecondary level
briefly described here, readers' miscues were analyzed for qualitative and quantitative changes,
and each reader's discourse was analyzed for evidence of transforming conceptualizations ofthe
reading process and the readers' personal views
of him or herself as a strategic reader. The texts
utilized in these studies are narrative, primarily
because a major focus of the teacher/researcher was on basic reading comprehension at the
college-level instead of on specific content area
reading or textbook study strategies. Indeed, an
important next step in adding to the existing
RMA research is to focus on textbook readings
and expository text.
One study (Paulson, 2001) described the results of a series of RMA sessions with a community college student in a developmental reading
class through a close focus on two of those RMA
sessions. Though this student's oral reading was
usually very accurate, he had basic comprehension difficulties while reading; for this reason, he
met with this article's first author (who was also
his developmental reading instructor) once a
week to conduct RMA sessions outside of class.
Although academic reading was a concern—and
a focus of instruction in his reading class and in
later tutoring sessions—because basic comprehension development was the focus of the initial RMA sessions, the texts initially focused on
were narrative short stories. Through coding of
themes and trends in the transcripts, student/
teacher discourse in the RMA sessions demonstrated tbe student's qualitative gains in understanding of how his own strengths as a reader
could be used strategically to facilitate effective
reading. He also made improvements measured
through miscue analysis; specifically, through
the RMA process this reader reduced the number of departures from the text he produced, increased the quality (measured through syntactic
and semantic acceptability) of the miscues he
did produce, and was able to control grammatical relationships and meaning construction at a
higher level. Importantly, as illustrated through
the discourse in those two RMA sessions, this
student improved his understanding of how
reading works and his understanding of his own
strengths as a reader.
Marek's (1996b) study of another community college developmental reader reading a
variety of narrative texts found similar benefits
of RMA. Over the course of u RMA sessions,
development in reading effectiveness was measured through miscue analysis which showed
10
increased control over grammatical relationships, increased semantic acceptability of oral
text, declining reliance solely on grapbophonic
features of the text, and fewer departures from
the text overaU. Utilizing a pre-post approach
with interview questions designed to reveal the
learners perceptions of the reading process,
Marek found that this learner demonstrated a
greater control over the reading process and an
improved feeling of ownership over the strategies employed to read effectively. In short, this
reader began the move from dependent reader
to independent reader.
Mason-Egan (2006) implemented RMA with
three college freshman who had been diagnosed
as reading disabled and were enrolled in a literacy support program at a private university. RMA
was used both as an assessment tool and as an
instructional method to support the students
as they explored how they processed language,
developed more effective reading strategies, and
Jason had been able to apply
some ofthe insights gained
from the RMA sessions to
his reading.
revalued their abilities as readers. The students
participated in approximately 10 to 12 one-onone RMA sessions throughout the semester. By
the end of the semester, each had experienced
what one of the students termed a "paradigm
shift." Concluding RMA discussions revealed
changed views about themselves as readers and
shifted views regarding tbe reading process.
Students moved from a word-accuracy view of
reading to a meaning-centered view of reading.
Each student reported increased confidence and
motivation. All either adapted old unproductive
reading strategies or adopted new productive
ones.
One of the readers in the Mason-Egan
(2006) study was Jason, whose dialogue we have
used as an example throughout this article. The
following excerpt is another example from those
sessions; here, the reader illustrated bis perspective of the effectiveness of RMA.
Jason: Yes, when I read Clockwork Orange
[a required course text], I found it [RMA]
helpful.
if I could actually do it. The actual reading
may have changed because I remembered
thinking that if I don't know a word to just
keep going and that I would understand most
of it if I understand the gist of it. And that
worked. I used to think that I needed to know
every little thing cause every time I would
go to class, I had never really read the book
before. I had always thought that all of those
little things in the book came from little lines
in the book that I needed to remember. But
now 1 know that you need to read the book to
get the bigger picture first.
Jason had been able to apply some of the insights
gained from the RMA sessions to his reading ol
A Clockwork Orange. He had not only begun
to alter his beliefs about tbe reading process to
include a more meaning-based focus—revaluing reading and reading processes—but he was
also changing his reading actions. The changes
in Jason's beliefs seemed to be influencing his
approach to reading and tbis new approach was
helping to solidify some of his new beliefs; Jason
began to understand reading as a reciprocal process and that be was progressing as a proficient
reader.
In tbe following excerpt, Jason summed up
what he had learned about his reading process
through the retrospective miscue analysis sessions:
Pamela: Is there anything you have learned
about your reading process up to this point?
Jason: That when I get frustrated, I'm focus
ing more on the words than on the context ol
the sentence. I need to focus more on reading and not sounding out the words. Reading
and taking in what the paragraph or sentence
is saying rather than what eacb word is say
ing or how eacb word is pronounced, Skipping words that aren't always necessary is
okay and going through it and letting it flow
rather than getting stuck on one thing.
Jason bad moved from a word-focused view
of reading to a meaning-centered view of reading, wbich was at the core of what Pamela identified Jason needed to shift. Jason's ability to
recognize and articulate this greatly facilitated
further development in his reading proficiency.
As a result of understanding his own role within
the reading process, Jason revalued himself as a
reader and a learner. RMA helped Jason move
from a passive stance in reading to one of an active, knowledgeable, strategic reader focused on
comprehension.
Pamela: In what way?
Jason: I'm not sure if it was increased confidence...! knew that I knew how to read. I
don't know if I ever really tried myself to see
CONTINUED ON PAGE 12
JOURNAL 0/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10
Implications for Practice
The individualized nature of RMA can present a
challenge to its implementation in postsecondary settings; a college instructor with 25 or more
students in a single class may be at a loss as to
how to implement the strategy. Since RMA sessions generally utilize a one-to-one instructional
format, it is natural that RMA sessions be conducted by trained tutors or learning specialists.
Sessions can be held in college reading labs or
student learning centers either as a stand-alone,
reading-support service or as part of an out-ofclass tutoring or lab component for college reading courses. As part of a class lab component,
RMA can be integrated Into a traditional developmental reading curriculum, thereby creating
a more comprehensive and individually responsive reading support system for all students.
Conclusion
The collaboration between teacher and student
evident in Retrospective Miscue Analysis discussions lends itself to a dynamic instructional
intervention. Throughout the RMA process,
readers are engaged in exploration, reflection,
and evaluation as a means to gain insight, set
goals, monitor progress, and make necessary
changes in their reading actions. The individual
nature of RMA discussions means that a reader's
specific issues can be addressed; this includes issues such as problems with reading comprehension, vocabulary development, reading strategies, focus and engagement, reading efficiency,
self-efficacy, and motivation. In addition, RMA
may be a useful method to support students
with diverse learning styles, including students
diagnosed with learning disabilities. Secondlanguage learners as well as nontraditional college students may benefit from RMA as well.
As an instructional methodology that uses
discussions about a student's miscues, and reading in general, to increase that students reading
proficiency. Retrospective Miscue Analysis has
the potential to address some ofthe issues that
define postsecondary reading difficulties. Issues
like limited experience applying metacognitive
awareness and incomplete or unhelpful conceptions of how individuals read and process language (Caverly, Nicholson, & Radcliffe, 2004;
El-Hindi, 1996), the need for improvement in
effective reading strategies and self-regulated
learning (Maitland, 2000), and misconceptions
of the reading process that may be hindering
their development as strategic readers (Marek,
1996a} can be addressed effectively using RMA.
Through RMA discussions, aspects of metacognitive discussions, motivation, and revaluing are
12
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1).
25-49.
Dyson, R., 8i Renk, K. (2006). Freshman adaptation to university life; Depressive symptoms,
stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(10), 1231-1244.
El-Hindi, A.E. (1996). Enhancing metacognitive
awareness of college learners. Reading Horizons, 36, 214-230.
Flurkey, A. (1996). Revaluing and revelations. In
References
Y.M. Goodman & A.M. Marek (Eds.), Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing readers and
Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theoreading (pp. 107-118). Katonah, NY: Richard C.
ry of development from the late teens through
Owen Publishers, Inc.
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5).
Goodman, K.S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues
469-480.
and miscues in reading. Elementary English.
ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the
42(6),
639-643.
ACT reveals about college readiness in reading.
Goodman,
K.S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading
Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.act.
miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading
org/path/policy/reports/reading.html.
Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9-30.
American Institutes for Research. (2006). New
study of the literacy of college students finds Goodman, K.S. (2003). Revaluing readers and
reading. In A.D. Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.), On
some are graduating with only basic skills. Rethe revolution of reading (pp. 421-429). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K,S., St Burke, C.L. (1973)- TheoretiThe individual nature of
cally based studies of patterns of miscues in oral
RMA discussions means
reading performance (Final Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Educa
that a reader's specific issues
tion, and Welfare, Office of Education.
can be addressed.
Goodman, Y. M., & Flurkey, A. (1996). Retrospec
tive Miscue Analysis in middle school. In Y. M.
Goodman & A.M. Marek (Eds.), Retrospective
trieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.air.
Miscue Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading
org/news/documents/Release20o6oipew.htm
(pp. 87-105). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen
Associated Press. (2006a). Reports on college litPublishers, Inc.
eracy levels sobering. Retrieved March 29,
2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ Goodman, Y.M., & Marek, A.M. (Eds.). (1996a)
id/10928755/
Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C.
Associated Press. (2006b). High school reading
Owen Publishers, Inc.
linked to college success. Retrieved March 29,
2006, from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ Coodman, Y.M., & Marek, A.M. (1996b). Retroid/ii6o8629/from/RL.2/
spective Miscue Analysis. In Y.M. Goodman
& A.M. Marek (Eds.), Retrospective Miscue
Black, W. (2004). Assessing the metacognitive
Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp.
dimensions of Retrospective Miscue Analysis
through discourse analysis. Reading Horizons
39-47). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
Brown, S.C. (1980). The efficacy ofthe Reading Goodman, Y.M,, & Marek, A.M. (1989). Retro
spective Miscue Analysis: Two papers (OccaMiscue Inventory in evaluating the reading
sional Paper No, 19). Tucson, AZ: University
performance of college freshmen. Unpublished
of Arizona, College of Education, Program in
doctoral dissertation. New Mexico State UniLanguage and Literacy.
versity, Las Cruces.
Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Goodman, Y. M., & Paulson, E. |. (2001). Teachers
and students developing language about reading
Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibthrough Retrospective Miscue Analysis (NCTE
liography. Newark, DE: International Reading
Grant No. R99:i7). Urbana, IL: National CounAssociation.
cil of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document
Carr, S. (2002). Self-evaluation: Involving stuReproduction Service No. ED444140)
dents in their own learning. Reading and WritGoodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L.
ing Quarterly, 18,195-199.
(1996). Reading strategies: Focus on compreCaverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., & Radcliife, R.
hension. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Pub(2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading
lishers, Inc.
instruction for college developmental readers.
intertwined and iterative, building understandings about reading en route to helping the student become a more effective and efficient reader. As the connections between underprepared
readers' characteristics, the theoretical underpinnings of RMA, and the procedural examples
in this article illustrate, RMA has the potential
to positively impact underprepared college students' reading proficiency.
JOURNAL 11/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
1
The National Tutoring Association's
16th Annual Conference
CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS
April 5-9th, 2008
Dallas, Texas
Communiiij College Revieui
Editor: James C. Palmer,
Illinois State University
Community College Review (CCR) has led the
nation for over 35 years in the publication of
scholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentary
on community colleges. Submit your manuscript to
CCR today.
For complete Manuscript Submission Guidelines,
visit http://ccreview.sagepub.com
National
Tutoring Association
Contact the Editor at
community„coiiege_review@ncsu.edu
Live LARGE Think BIG
For further information cali (863) 529-5206
or visit our website at www.ntatutor.org
Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L.
(2005). Reading Miscue Inventory: Alternative
procedures (2nd ed.). Katonah, NY: Richard C.
Owen Publishers, Inc.
Gore, J. (1992.) What we can do for you! What can
"we" do for "you"? Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C.
Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical
pedagogy (pp. 54-73). New York: Routledge.
Gorga Cukras, G. A. (2006). The investigation of
study strategies that maximize learning for
underprepared students. College Teaching,
54(0,194-197.
Maitland, L.E. (2000). Ideas in practice: Selfregulation and metacognition in the reading
for any questions related to the manuscript
submission process, including editorial policies.
DSAGE
Effects of two types. Journal of Developmental
Education, 25(1), 2-12.
Mason-Egan, P.D. (2006). Revaluing readers and
reading in a college support program. Unpub-
lished Doctoral Dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY,
McCabe, P., & Margolis, H. (2001, September/October). Enhancing the self-etîicacy of struggling readers. The Clearing House, 75(1), 4549Moore, R. A., & Aspegren, C. A. (2001). Reflective
conversations between two learners: Retrospective Miscue Analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(6), 492-503.
Moore, R.A., 8c Brantingham, K.L. (2003). Na\àh. Journal of Developmental Education. 24(1),
than: A case study in reader response and
26-36.
Retrospective Miscue Analysis. Vie Reading
Marek, A.M. (1996a). An accomplished profesTeacher, 56(5), 466-474.
sional: A reader in trouble. In Y. M. Goodman Ohaver, A.R. (1972). A comparison study of se& A.M. Marek (Eds.). Retrospective Miscue
mantic and syntactic cuing by low reading
Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp.
performance college freshmen. In E Greene
51-70). Katonah. NY: Richard C. Owen Pub(Ed.), Investigations relating to mature reading.
lishers, Inc.
Twenty-first Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 110-118). Milwaukee, WI: NaMarek, A.M. (1996b). Surviving reading instructional Reading Conference.
tion. In Y. M. Goodman & A. M. Marek (Eds.),
Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing read-Paulson, E. ]. (2001). The discourse of Retrospecers and reading (pp. 71-86). Katonah, NY:
tive Miscue Analysis: Links with adult learnRichard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
ing theory. Journal of College Reading and
Martino, N.L., Norris, J.A., & Hoffman, P. R.
Learning, 32(1), 112-127.
(2001). Reading comprehension instruction: Paulson, E.J. (2006). Self-selected reading for
VOLUME 31, ISSUE 2 -WINTER 2007
Published in Association with
North Carolina State University
enjoyment as a college developmental reading approach. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 36{z), ^1-^8.
Paulson, E. J., & Ereeman, A.E. (2003). Insight
from the eyes: The science of effective reading in-
struction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
Smith, C. C, (1980). The relationship between oral
reading miscues and comprehension: A study
of developmental reading at the college level.
In G. Enright (Ed.), The 1980's: New sources of
energy for learning. Proceedings of the ¡3th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading
Association (pp, 65-69). WhittienCA: Western
College Reading Association.
Vacca, R. (2006). They can because they think
they can. Educational Leadership. 63(5), 55-59,
Van Blerkom, M. L, & Van Blerkom, D. L. (2004).
Self-monitoring strategies used by developmental and non-developmental college students./owrMü/o/Co//c^e Reading and Learning,
34(1), 45-60.
Warde, B.A. (2005). Reading miscues of college
students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
36(1). 21-36,
Wilde. S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (J)
13