Metatheoretical Differences between Running Records and Miscue Analysis
Implications for Analysis of Oral Reading Behaviors
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13683183 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sinéad Harmey (0000-0003-2846-5064, UCL Institute of Education, corresponding author), Bobbie Kabuto (Queens College, CUNY) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 11-33 |
| Publication date | 2018-08-15 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research in the Teaching of English (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-527X • E-ISSN: 1943-2348 |
| Publisher | Routledge (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.58680/rte201829753 |
| OpenAlex | W2925776873 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 14 |
The purpose of this article is to examine the metatheoretical differences that impact how runningrecords and miscue analysis differ in (a) the quantification of readers’ produced responses totext and (b) the analysis of oral reading behaviors. After providing historical and metatheoretical overviews of both procedures, we present the data source, which included 74 records of oral readings from an extant data set collected from an informal reading inventory. Each record was coded using running record and miscue analysis procedures. We used inferential statistics to examine relationships across conceptually similar items of analysis (for example, the number oferrors or miscues). Findings from the inferential statistics show that there were significant, positive correlations between three of the five conceptually similar items, and a lack of statistically significant correlations between the use of meaning and grammar between running records and miscue analysis. Based on the findings, we argue that both procedures, which are often confused and conflated, possess metatheoretical differences that influence how oral reading behaviors are interpreted. These differences, in turn, impact how reading ability is framed and socially constructed. We conclude with the significance of this research for education professionals
Cognitive psychology · Conflation · Extant taxon · Linguistics · Miscue analysis · Reading (process · Reading comprehension · Set (abstract data type · Communication in Education and Healthcare · Computer Science · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |