Introduction
Miscues analysis concerns itself more with the kinds or level of miscues committed rather than the real quantity of miscues. Once the reading session is completed and the student has finished the story retelling, the miscues which have been recorded at the transcript require be classifying or analyzing.
Transcript
The Robot and Mr. Mole
This is a robot.
His nose is a cone.
His legs are made of hose.
He falls into a hole.
“I can help”, says Mr. Mole.
“Go up this rope”, says Mr. Mole.
“Thank you Mr. Mole” says the robot.
/>
This is a robot.
This is a rowboat.
No. the sentence that the reader eventually reads does not make sense. Hence, it is not semantically acceptable.
Yes. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. Rowboat can be used as a noun in place of robot. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence changes the meaning of the story completely since a rowboat cannot be the same as robot.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the first third and last letters sound the same.
His nose is cone.
His nose is corn.
No. the sentence that the reader eventually reads does not make sense. Hence, it is not semantically acceptable.
Yes. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. Cone can be used as a noun in place of corn. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence changes the meaning of the story completely since cone cannot be the same as corn.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the first third and last letters sound the same.
His legs are made of hose.
His hands are made of hose.
His legs are made of hose. –correction
Yes. The sentence that the reader eventually reads makes sense. Hence, it is semantically acceptable.
Yes. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. Hands as noun can be used in place of legs. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence does not change the meaning of the story since hands can also be made of hose.
The reader is using phonic knowledge because the no letters sound the same.
He falls into a hole.
He falls in a hole.
Yes. The sentence that the reader eventually reads makes sense. Hence, it is semantically acceptable.
Yes. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. “In” can be used as a conjunction instead of “into”. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence does not change the meaning of the story completely since in means more or less the same as into.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the first letters sound the same.
Yes. The sentence that the reader eventually reads makes sense. Hence, it is semantically acceptable.
No. The sentence the reader produces does not sound like language. The conjunction in is missing. Hence, it is not syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence changes the meaning of the story completely since omission of in cannot be the same as having in intact.
The reader is using phonic knowledge because no letters sound the same.
“I can help”, says Mr. Mole.
“I can’t help” say Mr. Mole.
Yes. The sentence that the reader eventually reads makes sense. Hence, it is semantically acceptable.
Yes. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. can’t can be used as an adverb in place of can and say can be used as a verb in play of says. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence changes the meaning of the story completely since can’t cannot be the same as can.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the first and second letters sound the same.
“Go up this rope”, says Mr. Mole.
“Go up this lope”, says Mole.
No. the sentence that the reader eventually reads does not make sense. Hence, it is not semantically acceptable.
No. The sentence the reader produces does not sound like language. Lope can be used as a noun in place of rope. Hence, it is syntactically not acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence changes the meaning of the story completely since lope cannot be the same as rope.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the second and last letters sound the same.
“Thank you Mr. Mole” says the robot.
“Thanks Mr. Mole” says the robot.
Yes. The sentence that the reader eventually reads makes sense. Hence, it is not semantically acceptable.
No. The sentence the reader produces sound like language. “Thanks” cannot be used in place of “thank you”. Hence, it is syntactically acceptable.
The miscue in the sentence does not change the meaning of the story completely since thanks be the same as thank you.
The reader is using graphophonic knowledge because the first second letters sound the same.
Works cited
- Wilde, Sandra, Miscue analysis made easy: Building on student strengths (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 2000), 25.
- Goodman, Y., Watson, D. and Burke, C., (2005) Reading Miscue Inventory: From Evaluation to Instruction, 2nd Edition. Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc., New York.
