Retrospective Míscue Analysis forStruggling Postsecondary Readers

By Eric J. Paulson and Pamela Mason-Egan

The term "miscue" is usedto avoid the negativeconnotations of "error'' or"mistake."

Eric J. PaulsonAssociate ProfessorGraduate Program in Literacy EducationDivision of Teacher Education

College of Education, Criminal Justice, &Human Services

University of CincinnatiCincinnati, OH 45221-0002eric.paulson@uc.edu

Pamela Mason-EganAcademic Success CoordinatorPalm Beach Community College4200 Congress AvenueLakeWorth,FL, 33461

ABSTRACT: Retrospective Miscue Analysis(RMA) is presented as an instructional strat-egy for postsecondary reading instruction.Oral reading miscues, which form the core ofthe RMA approach, are briefly described, andRMA is discussed as a one-on-one instructionalapproach utilizing the reader's own miscues.The theoretical underpinnings of RMA are dis-cussed and detailed procedures for implement-ing RMA are provided. Examples from severalRMA sessions that illustrate RMA proceduresare presented.

Recent studies (ACT, 2006; American Institutesfor Research, 2006; Associated Press, 2006a;Associated Press. 2006b) reinforce what de-velopmental educators have known for sometime: Many college students are underpreparedfor the demands of reading at the college leveland can benefit from developmental literacyinstruction. Although definitions of "who" un-derprepared college readers are vary, generalagreement might include a description of un-derprepared college readers as having difficultyengaging in college-level literacy practices in-cluding reading expository material at a levelproficient enough to integrate information andgain understanding (Martino, Norris, & Hoff-man, 2001). Other researchers have found thatunderprepared readers have difficulty accessingeffective reading strategies, have limited expe-rience applying metacognitive awareness, andmay have incomplete or unhelpful conceptionsof how they read and process language {Caverly,Nicholson, & Radcliffe, 2004; El-Hindi, 1996).As a result, many students are unsure of whatthey need to become more effective readers(Maitland, 2000). In addition, it has been notedthat many underprepared readers are guided bymisconceptions about the nature of the readingprocess (Marek, 1996a) and these misconcep-tions can influence how they engage in college-level literacy practices. Others have found thatunderprepared college students do not exhibithigh levels of self-regulated learning and maybe functioning in a passive and dependent role(Maittand). Through our discussions of the the-oretical underpinnings of Retrospective MiscueAnalysis (RMA), and our excerpts from actual

RMA sessions, our goal is to make apparent howRMA has exhibited positive influence to directlyaddress such areas.

This article is about expanding ideas of whatcan be useful in a postsecondary literacy con-text to serve those students who need more thanclassroom instructional time in order to developas college readers. Specifically, the expansiondiscussed herein will be in the context of one-on-one instruction for underprepared collegereaders. The type of one-on-one instruction to-cused on here is Retrospective Miscue Analysis(RMA), an individualized approach to literacyinstruction that utilizes students' own oral read-ing miscues as the basis for metacognitive dis-cussions about the reading process.

Miscue AnalysisAlthough oral reading miscues are sometimesassociated with younger readers, readers of allages and proficiency levels produce miscues.College readers are no exception, and amplework has demonstrated the utility of examin-ing college readers' miscues (e.g.. Brown, 1980;Ohaver, 1972; Paulson, 2001; Smith, 1980; Warde,2005). This section introduces and describes

Defining MiscuesMiscues are unexpected responses to the textthat readers produce when reading an unfa-miliar text aloud. The term "miscue" is used toavoid the negative connotations of "error" or"mistake" and reflects the method's underlyingassumption that miscues are the result of thesame language cue systems that produce expect-ed responses in oral reading; they are not simplyrandom errors. The term was introduced by KenGoodman (1965), and a taxonomy of miscueswas soon developed (Goodman, 1969). Soon af-ter, the process of miscue analysis was adaptedand formalized by Yetta Goodman and CarolynBurke (1973; Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005),and there have been hundreds of miscue analy-sis studies published since (Brown, Goodman, &Marek, 1996}. The following illustrates the mis-cues of a lst-year college reader (excerpted fromPaulson & 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 sectionof text: one substitution (it for that), one omis-sion {should is omitted), and two insertions {allis inserted in two places). In the first sentence,he substituted it for that. This is a syntacticallyand semantically acceptable miscue, since themiscue retains the grammatical form ofthe sen-tence and does not change the meaning. That is,this miscue is one that shows the readers un-derstanding of the author's syntactic construc-tion and overall meaning. Rather than a causefor concern, such a miscue could be evidencefor the utilization of many effective elementsof the reading process, such as an attention tosentence grammar and an awareness of the se-mantic relationships between different parts ofthe sentence.

The next three miscues are interrelated andshow some strengths as well as some areas thatthe reader may have needed to self-correct.First, the reader inserts the word all betweenthe words read and the. This miscue retains anacceptable syntactic construction with part ofthe sentence but does not fit as well with the endof the sentence: "You read all the papers" is asomewhat different semantic construction than"you read the papers." In the next sentence, thereader omits should and again inserts the wordall between the words read and the. The omis-sion of the word should changes the syntax ofthe sentence from a suggestion using a modalauxiliary to a simple description, and the result-ing semantic construction is at odds with therest of the text. However, what is evident fromthis sequence of miscues is that after the readerconstructed the penultimate sentence In a cer-tain way, he then constructed the subsequentsentence to reflect that syntactic construction.Tliis shows a strong understanding of parallelconstruction, where texts are written so that dif-ferent elements of a sentence or paragraph agreewith each other in tone, singular/plural usage,tense, and so on.

In short, miscues provide a host of informa-tion about students' reading. When used withestablished miscue instructional methods, asdetailed following, a students miscues can be apowerful tool for improving reading effective-ness.

Introducing RMAReaders' miscues are frequently used as diag-

nostic assessment measures, particularly whenteachers want an Ln-depth look at the strengthsand weaknesses of individual readers. This in-formation can be used for planning instruc-tional lessons as well as for research purposes;Goodman, Watson, and Burke (1996) discussnumerous ways that miscue information can betranslated into instruction, one of which is Ret-rospective Miscue Analysis.

Although RMA is an instructional approachusually associated with middle and secondarygrades, it is important to consider at the theo-retical level how RMA relates to older readers.Of course, "older readers" may be a bit of a mis-nomer as most college students are entering intothe transitional phase between adolescence andadulthood, and there is some uncertainty sur-rounding the adolescent/adult categorization.However, most researchers define adolescencefrom ages 10 to 18 and tend to categorize col-lege students as "adults" in many research stud-ies (Arnett, 2000). Several researchers (Arnett;

This collaborative processhelps the learner bridgethe gap from the moretraditional passive studentrole to more activeengagement in the learningprocess.

Dyson & Renk, 2006) have pointed out thatmost "traditional age" college students tend tosee themselves as neither adolescents nor adultsin what Arnett has described as emerging adult-hood. Although many college students may notview themselves as full-fledged adults, most seethemselves as in the process of attaining adult-hood status developing two essential qualities:accepting responsibility for one's self and mak-ing independent decisions (Arnett).

However, research has consistently foundthat ist-year college students often have diffi-culty independently engaging in college-levelliteracy practices such as understanding com-plex assignments, employing appropriate read-ing strategies, and self-monitoring for under-standing (Gorga Cukras, 2006). And, one ofthemost difficult parts of the transition to collegeis learning how to become self-regulated inde-pendent adult learners (Van Blerkom & VanBlerkom, 2004).

It is during this transitional time of emerg-ing adulthood when a significant opportunityexists to engage students in self-exploration.

reflection, and change. S elf-evaluation is an im-portant part of the learning process because itInvolves students in their own learning {Carr,2002). When students engage in self-evaluation,they reflect upon themselves as readers andlearners. Students ask themselves, '"How amI doing?,' 'Am I improving in this area?,' 'Whatare my strengths?,' and 'What are my areas forimprovement?"' {Carr, p. 195). The goal of self-evaluation is for students to gain insights intothemselves as readers and learners, and this iswhere educators begin with RMA. Throughoutthe RMA process, readers are engaged in explo-ration, reflection, and evaluation. This processis a means to gain insight, set goals, monitorprogress, and make necessary changes in read-ing behavior.

Overview of Retrospective MiscueAnalysis

The essence of an RMA session is a discussionbetween the instructor and the student aboutthe student's reading, specifically in terms ofthestudent's miscues. Goals of RMA discussionsoften include demystifying the reading process,raising reading to a metacognitive level, and en-gaging the reader in thinking about useful strat-egies for reading. Instructors seek to accomplishthose goals by encouraging readers to discusstheir own reading process in order to betterunderstand and value the complex processes ofreading and thereby revalue themselves as read-ers and learners.

Theoretical Underpinriings of RMASeveral key aspects make RMA a powerful in-structional approach. The themes of metacogni-tion discussions, motivation, and revaluing areconsistently found in RMA sessions, and theirexistence forms the theoretical basis for RMAprocedures.

Metacognitive discussions. During RMA,readers think and talk about their own miscuesthey produced with their instructor. Goodmanand Marek ( 1996b) have asserted that scaffoldingduring RMA enables instructors to help readersdiscover aspects of their own reading processes,instead of simply telling readers what to think.That Is, RMA "allows readers to become overtlyand consciously aware of their own use of read-ing strategies and to value their knowledge ofthe linguistic systems they control as they trans-act with written texts" (p. 40). A core elementof RMA is that learning happens when actions,thoughts, and experiences are discussed withthe learner as opposed to facts being given to thelearner; the emphasis is on learners playing anactive role in constructing knowledge. This col-laborative process helps the learner bridge the

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 2 • WINTER 2007

gap from the more traditional passive studentrole to more active engagement in the learningprocess. As they engage in these metacognitivediscussions they learn about themselves as read-ers and about the reading process while devel-oping more productive reading strategies.

RMA has been shown to help readers rene-gotiate their views of themselves and how theyimplement reading strategies (Black, 2004).When readers do not understand the nature ofthe reading process and the readers own rolein that process, reading effectiveness can suffer.Instruction should address not only students'beliefs about themselves as readers and learn-ers but also the beliefs students have about thereading process itself. That is, if a student be-lieves that reading is sounding out words andthat good reading means getting all of the wordson the page correct, that belief will drive theirapproach to reading, which can actually hinder,not enhance, comprehension (Marek, 1996a).RMA engenders discussions in which readers"consider the qualitative nature of their read-ing" (Goodman & Flurkey, 1996, p. 95), whichleads to a greater understanding, and control, ofthe process.

Motivation. Underprepared students' pessi-mism about their abilities as readers certainly af-fects their motivation to read and often becomes"the most powerful obstacle that teachers facein helping those students become better read-ers" (McCabe & Margolis, 2001, p. 45). RMApractice recognizes that a negative self-conceptimpedes learning and that motivation is impor-tant, one reason that instructors choose positivemiscues to discuss with readers in order to buildconfidence in the students' own reading ability(Goodman & Flurkey, 1996). The interrelation-ship between self-efficacy, the "I can" belief, andreading comprehension implies that if studentsbelieve that they have the ability to understandwhat they are reading, then they will be moremotivated to engage with the text (Vacca, 2006).This advocacy for increasing both students' mo-tivation and self-efficacy, as well as providing in-struction for comprehension strategies, is cen-tral to the RMA process as well. Through RMAdiscussions readers acquire an enhanced under-standing about the reading process, their ownstrengths in reading, and more effective ways tostrategically approach reading, and this under-standing results in positive changes in attitudeand confidence in reading (Moore & Branting-ham, 2003).

Revaluing. Crucial to understanding thefoundation of RMA is the concept of revaluing,whereby readers redefine themselves as readersand gain a new understanding of the strengthsthey bring to the reading act, strengths like syn-tactic knowledge, semantic knowledge, world

experiences, and so on that are crucial parts ofreading. Revaluing also relates to how readersbegin to view the reading process itself (Flurkey,1996). Goodman (2003) has stated that the keyto helping readers in trouble is to "help them re-value themselves as language users and learners,and revalue the reading process as an interactive,constructive language process" (p. 421). The goalof revaluing is to support learners in risk taking,self-monitoring, and confidence building.

Aspects of the theoretical basis of RMA, suchas motivation and revaluing, are affected bygrowth in strategic reading comprehension de-velopment. That is, as opposed to simply beingan emotional support group for struggling read-ers, RMA builds individuals' self-esteem. As-pects of RMA like revaluing empower studentsto become self-efficacious readers. Moore andAspegren (2001) have explained this by present-ing "the concept of empowerment in RMA ashelping the reader 'exercise power' (Gore, 1992,p. 62) and control over the reading process" (p.

Semi-structured interviews...provide a starting point forlearning about a studentsreading and self-conceptionas a reader.

501). RMA takes the reader on a journey of self-reflection, exploration, and change. As studentstalk about their reading process, they often be-gin to realize that they know a lot more aboutlanguage, and about themselves as language us-ers, than they had previously realized.

Once a person begins to redefine him/her-self as a competent reader, there is a positiveimpact on bis/her reading proficiency.... Wemust not underestimate the power of sucha shift in attitude. It transforms people intolearners who take charge of their own learn-ing—who define themselves as readers: liter-ate human beings capable of learning whatthey want to learn. (Goodman & Marke,1996a, p. 203)

Through shared exploration of their own read-ing processes, students enhance their own un-derstanding of reading and how to become moreself-directed readers.

Procedures for RetrospectiveMiscue Analysis

This section provides a description of proce-dures for implementing Retrospective Miscue

Analysis with examples that illustrate key points.Procedures are based on and utilize Goodmanand Marek's (1996b) RMA guidelines.

Day OneAn RMA session begins like a typical miscueanalysis session, and the teacher's knowledge ofmarking, coding, and analyzing miscues is neeessary for successful implementation of RMA;for an introduction to miscue analysis, see Wilde(2000), and for a comprehensive course on mis-cue analysis, see Goodman, Watson, and Burke(2005). At the first meeting with the student,work toward establishing a friendly rapportso that the student is comfortable reading andtalking. At this initial meeting, it is also impor-tant for the instructor to begin learning aboutthe students perceptions regarding reading andhim or herself as a reader. Semi-structured interviews like the Burke Interview Modified forOlder Readers (BIMOR; Goodman & Marek.1996a) provide a starting point for learningabout a student's reading and self-conceptionas a reader. The following are excerpts (Paulson,2006) from a reading interview conducted witha college student using tbe BIMOR:

Pamela (Instructor): When you are readingand you come to something that gives youtrouble, what do you do?

Jason (Student): I usually read it overagain...either read it over or skip it because itfrustrates me... FJther I'll read it over twice,sometimes three times, and if I don't under-stand something, I'll either ask somebody orjust skip it. Usually, I just skip it because I'musually reading alone. Yeah, I usually just skipit and then see if I can put it together withsomething else in the beginning, or I go backand read what was before and after that andsee if I can get it then using context clues.

Pamela: Can you describe yourself as a read-er?

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 accurateand my speed is not very good, I'll read veryfast and then very, very slow. I'm all over theplace...rm like a heart monitor going up anddown.

Pamela: Is there anything that you would likuto change about your reading?

Jason: Speed and accuracy...being able toread quicker and more efficiently and to beable 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 hisown reading processes, which was continuedthroughout his RMA sessions. The full interviewwith fason explored his perceptions about hisabilities as a reader, his attitudes toward reading,his reading strategies, his perceptions and beliefsof what "good reading" meant to him, his earlyreading experiences, and his reading habits.

As with all miscue analysis sessions, an RMAsession begins with the student reading an unfa-miliar text aloud. This text should be challeng-ing to the reader but not at the frustration level,and should be chosen in consultation with thestudent, with the student's needs and interests inmind. For example, if the student is strugglingwitb textbook reading, using an excerpt from thestudent's history textbook may be an appropriatechoice. During this session, the student is audiorecorded reading the text aloud. After readingthe text, the student "retells" the text, which forexpository texts can take the shape of a detailedsummary of the information in the text. If thestudent reads fiction/literature, the retelling canbe more of a depiction of what happens in thestory from beginning to end. After the retelling,if the student neglects to include elements of thetext in the retelling, the instructor may want toask some questions about the text to further as-sess the reader's overall comprehension of thetext. Once the retelling is finished, then the ini-tial RMA meeting is complete, and the instruc-tor and student should make plans to meet on asubsequent day. During the interim between thetwo meetings, the instructor will prepare mate-rials for their first RMA discussion.

Day TwoPreparation for the session. In preparation

for the second meeting—which will be the firstRMA discussion—the instructor listens to theaudio recording and records the miscues thestudent produced, marking them on a typescriptor photocopy of the text. Since it is crucial tobegin with confidence building, the instructorshould examine the miscues and select severalthat show the reader's strengths and good use ofstrategies, as students will often view miscues aserrors that need remediation instead of being in-dicative of effective strategy use. The instructorshould find those sections on the audio record-ing so that they can be easily played when nextmeeting with the student.

First RMA discussion. At this first discussionmeeting, the instructor plays the portions of theaudio that were selected, while both the studentand the instructor follow along on a copy ofthe text. (If after the RMA session is completethe instructor plans to listen to the session for

themes, progress being made, and so on, then itis a good idea to audio record this aspect of theRMA session as well.) Together, the student andinstructor listen for preselected miscues, and ei-ther the student or the instructor can stop theaudio when they hear a miscue. The student andinstructor together then mark the miscues on ablank typescript or photocopy of the text.

Guiding questions. The instructor then be-gins a discussion about what the miscue showsabout the student's reading, emphasizing strate-gies that are evident and how to employ morestrategies. The instructor will guide tbe discus-sion with the "RMA Guiding Questions." Eachof the following RMA guiding questions is de-signed to help the reader focus on reading strat-egies and cueing strategies and is used to guidethe 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 viewmiscues as errors that needremediation.

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 onthe page?

5. Does the miscue sound like what was onthe page?

For all miscues ask:

6. Why do you think you made this mis-cue?

7. Did that miscue affect your understand-ing of the text?

Each question is usually expanded into a discus-sion by asking "Why do you think so?" Or "Howdo you know?"

Using these questions as a structural guide,the instructor and student discuss the student'sreading, retelling, and miscues, always workingtoward a better understanding of the student'sown reading as well as the reading process ingeneral. These questions are starting points, andit should be expected that the discussion goesbeyond the boundaries of those particular ques-tions. As with any one-on-one, student-orientedinstructional practice, each RMA discussion willbe different. The general goals, however, remainthe same: working with the student to come toa greater understanding of how reading works

with a view toward building on the student'sstrengths in order for him or her to become amore effective and efficient reader.

The following session illustrates how some ofthose questions play out in an actual RMA ses-sion. In this excerpt, Pamela and Jason discusstwo-word insertion miscues. As Jason sampledthe text, he made a prediction about the struc-ture or syntax of the following sentence from ashort essay.

The printed text, with Jason's miscues overlaid on top, is:

So you searched for the killersthe the

and ^ sluggers and ^ maulers — fel-

lows who could hit with the force of

a baseball bat.

Jason and Pamela discussed his insertion of theword "the" during his reading of the text andthey focused on the reason he produced it as ameans to gain some insight into ¡ason's readingprocess in the following excerpt:

Pamela: So, you said, "the killers and thesluggers and the maulers"...Does the miscuemake sense?...Of course it does...But I'mmore interested in why you put "the" in froniof those words.

Jason: Because I was addressing "the sluggers" and "the maulers" as separate things,like titles.

Pamela: Do you think it has anything to dowith the fact that the list starts with "the kill-ers" and then you stuck with the same pat-tern?

Jason: Yes...I did...True.

Pamela: I'm thinking that maybe you stuckwith the same structure that was there.

Jason: Yes, I just copied it. And I think ilsounds better.

This metacognitive discussion between instructor and student about the student's ownreading processes is evident in every aspectof RMA. As |ason read this text, he used theknowledge he had gained by sampling and fol-lowed the syntactic pattern the author used atthe beginning of the sentence. He sampled thetext and then predicted the structure of the restof the sentence. Jason told Pamela that he hadnot realized he had added the word "the" in thesentence. For Jason, the insertion of the wordsmade sense and the miscue was automaticallyconfirmed. There was no need for him to goback 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 betweenoral and written language since the addition ofthe word "the" sounded better to him. The moreJason learns, and is able to articulate, about hisown reading process, the more he realizes thathe brings strengths to the reading process thathe can build on. When instructors make clearto readers, like Pamela does here, that readersare making good choices, applying sound strate-gies, and understanding what they are reading,that discussion becomes motivation for furtherefforts to learn and apply new strategies to thereader's reading tasks.

What follows is another example of Jason'ssampling, predicting, and confirming strate-gies while reading the same short essay. Jason'smiscues are in itaUcs above the printed text fol-lowed 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 headand

several times, went down, was

counted out, and never came out of

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 andthen I would put "and." To me, in my head,the comma shouldn't be there. It's not neces-sary And that comma shouldn't be there andthat 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 knowl-edge of grammar and punctuation to make senseof the text; he constructed a sentence that madesense to him and that did not disrupt the mean-ing. We can also see that Jason was samplingand predicting when he said "It was the twelfthround" instead of "In the twelfth round" becausethe phrase just priorto that part of the text start-ed with "it was." He sampled the text and thenpredicted that the next sentence would startwith the same syntactic pattern; when this madesense to him, he continued reading without dis-ruption and told Pamela that he did not evennotice what he had done. Pamela also pointedout that it was fortuitous that he had not noticedthe miscues because, had he self-corrected, hewould have wasted his time correcting a high-

quality miscue—one that did not negatively af-fect syntax or meaning—that did not need to becorrected. This also offers evidence that Jasonhad moved away from his prior focus on wordsto a focus on making meaning.

Preparation for subsequent sessions. Aftercompleting the RMA discussion, if more thanone RMA session is planned—which is advis-able—another text can be read at this meeting orat a subsequent meeting. After the session is over,the instructor should reflect on and note impor-tant elements of the RMA discussion in prepa-ration for a subsequent session, and discussionscan pull together intertextual observations anddiscussions of reading strategies that arise overmore than one session. For example, after Jasonread a narrative short story, the RMA sessionsthat followed included a lot of discussion aboutJason's attempts at integrating new reading strate-gies, such as the conscious reduction of word rep-etitions and strategic rereading. During this dis-cussion, he also engaged in some self-assessment

Jason had moved away fromhis prior focus on words tofocus on making meaning.

and gained more insight into his reading process.Pamela asked Jason to compare his experiencewhen reading two short stories, and it becameapparent that Jason had made a conscious effortto reduce the number of repetitions and correc-tions 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 repeatyourself...

Jason: It was difficult...Sometimes I didn'tunderstand it as easily, but it moved it along.It wasn't as repetitive. And the problem isthat when I repeat, I'm trying to take in ev-ery little bit. So I think if I can just take inthe overall meaning, then it might be better. Imade a conscious effort not to repeat and toread a little slower and try to get it all in andif I couldn't.. .tben just keep going.

Pamela: You know you mentioned that atthe end of the story was where you got mostconfused. And that is where you did the mostrepeating. Isn't that interesting?

Jason: That's why I was repeating.,.I didn'tknow what was going on. I was so confused.I didn't know who was talking to who at theend.

Pamela: So you were using the repeating as astrategy to understand.

Jason: Yes.

Pamela noticed that Jason's rereading seemedto increase at points in the story where he seemedconfused, a significant observation since it dem-onstrated that Jason's repetition and rereadingincreased in response to the loss of meaning hewas experiencing. Instead of focusing on word-by-word reading, Jason was more attuned toconstructing meaning and was using rereadingas a strategy to comprehend the text. This wasa major shift from his first reading where hedemonstrated that he believed it was importantto read every word perfectly and accurately, andpulling together observations across more thanone RMA session illustrated this development.

RMA Research at thePostsecondary Level: Evaluating

Reader DevelopmentAlthough the theoretical underpin nings of RMAprovide a foundation for its use at the postsec-ondary level and the detailed introduction toimplementing RMA allows instructors to beginimplementing the approach, the purpose of thisarticle is not to present an original study. For thisreason, an evidence-based assessment of the ap-proach as reported in the literature is included.Research involving RMA across a range of agegroups has generally had a single-participant,case-study focus, using RMA data and miscueanalysis as the main measurement tool. In ad-dition, discourse between the instructor/re-searcher and the student, as well as responses tointerview questions, have been analyzed with aneye toward uncovering qualitative understandings of reading processes, effective reading strategies, and personal relationships with reading.Through this type of research on RMA, Good-man and Flurkey (1996) discuss how using RMAresults in readers who revalue both themselvesas readers and the reading process, raise theirunderstandings of reading processes to a meta-cognitive level, and, importantly, "improve theiractual reading strategies" (p. 87). Other researchdemonstrates that RMA can have positive ef-fects on readers' understandings about reading,the reading strategies they employ while read-ing, and their comprehension of the text beingread (Goodman & Paulson, 2001; Marek, 1996a).The transcripts of RMA sessions have been es-pecially useful in demonstrating how studentsthemselves often realize RMA's value in improv-ing 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 postsecond-ary level is relatively scarce, but it follows thegeneral research trends of RMA research at alllevels. In the studies at the postsecondary levelbriefly described here, readers' miscues were an-alyzed for qualitative and quantitative changes,and each reader's discourse was analyzed for evi-dence of transforming conceptualizations ofthereading process and the readers' personal viewsof him or herself as a strategic reader. The textsutilized in these studies are narrative, primarilybecause a major focus of the teacher/research-er was on basic reading comprehension at thecollege-level instead of on specific content areareading or textbook study strategies. Indeed, animportant next step in adding to the existingRMA research is to focus on textbook readingsand expository text.

One study (Paulson, 2001) described the re-sults of a series of RMA sessions with a commu-nity college student in a developmental readingclass through a close focus on two of those RMAsessions. Though this student's oral reading wasusually very accurate, he had basic comprehen-sion difficulties while reading; for this reason, hemet with this article's first author (who was alsohis developmental reading instructor) once aweek to conduct RMA sessions outside of class.Although academic reading was a concern—anda focus of instruction in his reading class and inlater tutoring sessions—because basic compre-hension development was the focus of the ini-tial RMA sessions, the texts initially focused onwere narrative short stories. Through coding ofthemes and trends in the transcripts, student/teacher discourse in the RMA sessions demon-strated tbe student's qualitative gains in under-standing of how his own strengths as a readercould be used strategically to facilitate effectivereading. He also made improvements measuredthrough miscue analysis; specifically, throughthe RMA process this reader reduced the num-ber of departures from the text he produced, in-creased the quality (measured through syntacticand semantic acceptability) of the miscues hedid produce, and was able to control grammati-cal relationships and meaning construction at ahigher level. Importantly, as illustrated throughthe discourse in those two RMA sessions, thisstudent improved his understanding of howreading works and his understanding of his ownstrengths as a reader.

Marek's (1996b) study of another commu-nity college developmental reader reading avariety of narrative texts found similar benefitsof RMA. Over the course of u RMA sessions,development in reading effectiveness was mea-sured through miscue analysis which showed

increased control over grammatical relation-ships, increased semantic acceptability of oraltext, declining reliance solely on grapbophonicfeatures of the text, and fewer departures fromthe text overaU. Utilizing a pre-post approachwith interview questions designed to reveal thelearners perceptions of the reading process,Marek found that this learner demonstrated agreater control over the reading process and animproved feeling of ownership over the strate-gies employed to read effectively. In short, thisreader began the move from dependent readerto independent reader.

Mason-Egan (2006) implemented RMA withthree college freshman who had been diagnosedas reading disabled and were enrolled in a litera-cy support program at a private university. RMAwas used both as an assessment tool and as aninstructional method to support the studentsas they explored how they processed language,developed more effective reading strategies, and

Jason had been able to applysome ofthe insights gainedfrom the RMA sessions tohis reading.

revalued their abilities as readers. The studentsparticipated in approximately 10 to 12 one-on-one RMA sessions throughout the semester. Bythe end of the semester, each had experiencedwhat one of the students termed a "paradigmshift." Concluding RMA discussions revealedchanged views about themselves as readers andshifted views regarding tbe reading process.Students moved from a word-accuracy view ofreading to a meaning-centered view of reading.Each student reported increased confidence andmotivation. All either adapted old unproductivereading strategies or adopted new productiveones.

One of the readers in the Mason-Egan(2006) study was Jason, whose dialogue we haveused as an example throughout this article. Thefollowing excerpt is another example from thosesessions; here, the reader illustrated bis perspec-tive of the effectiveness of RMA.

Jason: Yes, when I read Clockwork Orange[a required course text], I found it [RMA]helpful.

Pamela: In what way?

Jason: I'm not sure if it was increased con-fidence...! knew that I knew how to read. Idon't know if I ever really tried myself to see

if I could actually do it. The actual readingmay have changed because I rememberedthinking that if I don't know a word to justkeep going and that I would understand mostof it if I understand the gist of it. And thatworked. I used to think that I needed to knowevery little thing cause every time I wouldgo to class, I had never really read the bookbefore. I had always thought that all of thoselittle things in the book came from little linesin the book that I needed to remember. Butnow 1 know that you need to read the book toget the bigger picture first.

Jason had been able to apply some of the insightsgained from the RMA sessions to his reading olA Clockwork Orange. He had not only begunto alter his beliefs about tbe reading process toinclude a more meaning-based focus—revalu-ing reading and reading processes—but he wasalso changing his reading actions. The changesin Jason's beliefs seemed to be influencing hisapproach to reading and tbis new approach washelping to solidify some of his new beliefs; Jasonbegan to understand reading as a reciprocal pro-cess and that be was progressing as a proficientreader.

In tbe following excerpt, Jason summed upwhat he had learned about his reading processthrough the retrospective miscue analysis ses-sions:

Pamela: Is there anything you have learnedabout your reading process up to this point?

Jason: That when I get frustrated, I'm focusing more on the words than on the context olthe sentence. I need to focus more on read-ing and not sounding out the words. Readingand taking in what the paragraph or sentenceis saying rather than what eacb word is saying or how eacb word is pronounced, Skip-ping words that aren't always necessary isokay and going through it and letting it flowrather than getting stuck on one thing.

Jason bad moved from a word-focused viewof reading to a meaning-centered view of read-ing, wbich was at the core of what Pamela iden-tified Jason needed to shift. Jason's ability torecognize and articulate this greatly facilitatedfurther development in his reading proficiency.As a result of understanding his own role withinthe reading process, Jason revalued himself as areader and a learner. RMA helped Jason movefrom a passive stance in reading to one of an ac-tive, knowledgeable, strategic reader focused oncomprehension.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

10 JOURNAL 0/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10

Implications for PracticeThe individualized nature of RMA can present achallenge to its implementation in postsecond-ary settings; a college instructor with 25 or morestudents in a single class may be at a loss as tohow to implement the strategy. Since RMA ses-sions generally utilize a one-to-one instructionalformat, it is natural that RMA sessions be con-ducted by trained tutors or learning specialists.

Sessions can be held in college reading labs orstudent learning centers either as a stand-alone,reading-support service or as part of an out-of-class tutoring or lab component for college read-ing courses. As part of a class lab component,RMA can be integrated Into a traditional devel-opmental reading curriculum, thereby creatinga more comprehensive and individually respon-sive reading support system for all students.

ConclusionThe collaboration between teacher and studentevident in Retrospective Miscue Analysis dis-cussions lends itself to a dynamic instructionalintervention. Throughout the RMA process,readers are engaged in exploration, reflection,and evaluation as a means to gain insight, setgoals, monitor progress, and make necessarychanges in their reading actions. The individualnature of RMA discussions means that a reader'sspecific issues can be addressed; this includes is-sues such as problems with reading comprehen-sion, vocabulary development, reading strate-gies, focus and engagement, reading efficiency,self-efficacy, and motivation. In addition, RMAmay be a useful method to support studentswith diverse learning styles, including studentsdiagnosed with learning disabilities. Second-language learners as well as nontraditional col-lege students may benefit from RMA as well.

As an instructional methodology that usesdiscussions about a student's miscues, and read-ing in general, to increase that students readingproficiency. Retrospective Miscue Analysis hasthe potential to address some ofthe issues thatdefine postsecondary reading difficulties. Issueslike limited experience applying metacognitiveawareness and incomplete or unhelpful concep-tions of how individuals read and process lan-guage (Caverly, Nicholson, & Radcliffe, 2004;El-Hindi, 1996), the need for improvement ineffective reading strategies and self-regulatedlearning (Maitland, 2000), and misconceptionsof the reading process that may be hinderingtheir development as strategic readers (Marek,1996a} can be addressed effectively using RMA.Through RMA discussions, aspects of metacog-nitive discussions, motivation, and revaluing are

intertwined and iterative, building understand-ings about reading en route to helping the stu-dent become a more effective and efficient read-er. As the connections between underpreparedreaders' characteristics, the theoretical under-pinnings of RMA, and the procedural examplesin this article illustrate, RMA has the potentialto positively impact underprepared college stu-dents' reading proficiency.

ReferencesArnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theo-

ry of development from the late teens throughthe twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5).469-480.

ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What theACT reveals about college readiness in reading.Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.act.org/path/policy/reports/reading.html.

American Institutes for Research. (2006). Newstudy of the literacy of college students findssome are graduating with only basic skills. Re-

The individual nature ofRMA discussions meansthat a reader's specific issuescan be addressed.

trieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.air.org/news/documents/Release20o6oipew.htm

Associated Press. (2006a). Reports on college lit-eracy levels sobering. Retrieved March 29,2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10928755/

Associated Press. (2006b). High school readinglinked to college success. Retrieved March 29,2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ii6o8629/from/RL.2/

Black, W. (2004). Assessing the metacognitivedimensions of Retrospective Miscue Analysisthrough discourse analysis. Reading Horizons

Brown, S.C. (1980). The efficacy ofthe ReadingMiscue Inventory in evaluating the readingperformance of college freshmen. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. New Mexico State Uni-versity, Las Cruces.

Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996).Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bib-liography. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Carr, S. (2002). Self-evaluation: Involving stu-dents in their own learning. Reading and Writ-ing Quarterly, 18,195-199.

Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., & Radcliife, R.(2004). The effectiveness of strategic readinginstruction for college developmental readers.

Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1).25-49.

Dyson, R., 8i Renk, K. (2006). Freshman adapta-tion to university life; Depressive symptoms,stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 62(10), 1231-1244.

El-Hindi, A.E. (1996). Enhancing metacognitiveawareness of college learners. Reading Hori-zons, 36, 214-230.

Flurkey, A. (1996). Revaluing and revelations. InY.M. Goodman & A.M. Marek (Eds.), Retro-spective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing readers andreading (pp. 107-118). Katonah, NY: Richard C.Owen Publishers, Inc.

Goodman, K.S. (1965). A linguistic study of cuesand miscues in reading. Elementary English.42(6), 639-643.

Goodman, K.S. (1969). Analysis of oral readingmiscues: Applied psycholinguistics. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 5(1), 9-30.

Goodman, K.S. (2003). Revaluing readers andreading. In A.D. Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.), Onthe revolution of reading (pp. 421-429). Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, K,S., St Burke, C.L. (1973)- Theoreti-cally based studies of patterns of miscues in oralreading performance (Final Report). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Goodman, Y. M., & Flurkey, A. (1996). Retrospective Miscue Analysis in middle school. In Y. M.Goodman & A.M. Marek (Eds.), RetrospectiveMiscue Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading(pp. 87-105). Katonah, NY: Richard C. OwenPublishers, Inc.

Goodman, Y.M., & Marek, A.M. (Eds.). (1996a)Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing read-ers and reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C.Owen Publishers, Inc.

Coodman, Y.M., & Marek, A.M. (1996b). Retro-spective Miscue Analysis. In Y.M. Goodman& A.M. Marek (Eds.), Retrospective MiscueAnalysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp.39-47). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Pub-lishers, Inc.

Goodman, Y.M,, & Marek, A.M. (1989). Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Two papers (Occa-sional Paper No, 19). Tucson, AZ: Universityof Arizona, College of Education, Program inLanguage and Literacy.

Goodman, Y. M., & Paulson, E. |. (2001). Teachersand students developing language about readingthrough Retrospective Miscue Analysis (NCTEGrant No. R99:i7). Urbana, IL: National Coun-cil of Teachers of English. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED444140)

Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L.(1996). Reading strategies: Focus on compre-hension. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Pub-lishers, Inc.

12 JOURNAL 11/DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

The National Tutoring Association's16th Annual Conference

April 5-9th, 2008Dallas, Texas

NationalTutoring Association

Live LARGE Think BIG

For further information cali (863) 529-5206or visit our website at www.ntatutor.org

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS1C o m m u n i i i j C o l l e g e R e v i e u i

Editor: James C. Palmer,Illinois State University

Community College Review (CCR) has led thenation for over 35 years in the publication ofscholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentaryon community colleges. Submit your manuscript toCCR today.

For complete Manuscript Submission Guidelines,visit http://ccreview.sagepub.com

Contact the Editor atcommunity„coiiege_review@ncsu.edu

for any questions related to the manuscriptsubmission process, including editorial policies.

DSAGE Published in Association withNorth Carolina State University

Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L.(2005). Reading Miscue Inventory: Alternativeprocedures (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 empower-ment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C.Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and criticalpedagogy (pp. 54-73). New York: Routledge.

Gorga Cukras, G. A. (2006). The investigation ofstudy strategies that maximize learning forunderprepared students. College Teaching,54(0,194-197.

Maitland, L.E. (2000). Ideas in practice: Self-regulation and metacognition in the reading\àh. Journal of Developmental Education. 24(1),

26-36.

Marek, A.M. (1996a). An accomplished profes-sional: A reader in trouble. In Y. M. Goodman& A.M. Marek (Eds.). Retrospective MiscueAnalysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp.51-70). Katonah. NY: Richard C. Owen Pub-lishers, Inc.

Marek, A.M. (1996b). Surviving reading instruc-tion. In Y. M. Goodman & A. M. Marek (Eds.),Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing read-ers and reading (pp. 71-86). Katonah, NY:Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

Martino, N.L., Norris, J.A., & Hoffman, P. R.(2001). Reading comprehension instruction:

Effects of two types. Journal of DevelopmentalEducation, 25(1), 2-12.

Mason-Egan, P.D. (2006). Revaluing readers and

reading in a college support program. Unpub-

lished Doctoral Dissertation, Hofstra Univer-sity, Hempstead, NY,

McCabe, P., & Margolis, H. (2001, September/Oc-tober). Enhancing the self-etîicacy of strug-gling readers. The Clearing House, 75(1), 45-49-

Moore, R. A., & Aspegren, C. A. (2001). Reflectiveconversations between two learners: Retro-spective Miscue Analysis. Journal of Adoles-cent & Adult Literacy, 44(6), 492-503.

Moore, R.A., 8c Brantingham, K.L. (2003). Na-than: A case study in reader response andRetrospective Miscue Analysis. Vie ReadingTeacher, 56(5), 466-474.

Ohaver, A.R. (1972). A comparison study of se-mantic and syntactic cuing by low readingperformance college freshmen. In E Greene(Ed.), Investigations relating to mature reading.Twenty-first Yearbook of the National ReadingConference (pp. 110-118). Milwaukee, WI: Na-tional Reading Conference.

Paulson, E. ]. (2001). The discourse of Retrospec-tive Miscue Analysis: Links with adult learn-ing theory. Journal of College Reading andLearning, 32(1), 112-127.

Paulson, E.J. (2006). Self-selected reading for

enjoyment as a college developmental read-ing 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 studyof developmental reading at the college level.In G. Enright (Ed.), The 1980's: New sources of

energy for learning. Proceedings of the ¡3th An-

nual Conference of the Western College Reading

Association (pp, 65-69). WhittienCA: WesternCollege Reading Association.

Vacca, R. (2006). They can because they thinkthey can. Educational Leadership. 63(5), 55-59,

Van Blerkom, M. L, & Van Blerkom, D. L. (2004).Self-monitoring strategies used by develop-mental and non-developmental college stu-dents./owrMü/o/Co//c^e Reading and Learning,34(1), 45-60.

Warde, B.A. (2005). Reading miscues of collegestudents with and without learning disabili-ties. Journal of College Reading and Learning,

36(1). 21-36,

Wilde. S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (J)

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 2 -WINTER 2007 13