When a reader produces a response to a written text (the observed response) that is not expected by the listener, the result is called a miscue. Using psychosociolingustic analyses of miscues in the context of an authentic text, miscue analysis provides evidence to discover how readers read. I present miscue analysis history and development and the foundational principles that led to understanding the reading process. The miscue analysis data used represents actual readers with a range of backgrounds, languages, ages and proficiencies. Teachers involved in miscue research develop their own knowledge about reading in order to develop curriculum and instruction to support readers' meaning making. When teachers engage readers in conversations about reading (retrospective miscue analysis), readers examine their own miscues and build concepts that allow them to discover their own reading strengths which leads them to revalue their abilities to make sense of print.
AdgerC. T.WolframW.ChristianD. (2007). Dialects in schools and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BaconH. R. (2014). Constructing literacy identities within communities: Women’s stories of transformation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3630069)
3.
BarnhouseD.ButlerC. (2014, 7). What stories do our reading conferences tell about our students?. Presentation presented at WLU Literacies For All Summer Institute, Pasadena, CA.
4.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.
5.
BoardP. (1982). Toward a theory of instructional influence: Aspects of the instructional environments and their influence on children’s acquisition of reading. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. NK58257)
6.
BomerR. (1999). Conferring with struggling readers. New Advocate, 12, 21–38.
7.
Cajon Valley Union School District, El Cajon, CA. (1974). Psycholinguistic Approach to Reading(PAR). Retrieved from eric.ed.gov/?id=ED108150
8.
ChinS. (1996). Korean ESL Students’ perceptions about themselves as readers and about reading in English(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9713409)
9.
CostelloS. (1996). Building confidence in a proficient reader. In GoodmanY.MarekA. (Eds.), Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp. 131–141). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers.
10.
EwoldtC. (101, 1981). A psycholinguistic description of selected deaf children reading in sign language. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 58–89.
11.
FlurkeyA. (2008). Reading flow. In FlurkeyA.PaulsonE.GoodmanK. (Eds.), Scientific realism in studies of reading (pp. 267–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
FriesC. C. (1952). The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
13.
GennaouiM.ChaleffC. (2000). Miscue analysis for deaf readers. Odyssey: New directions in deaf education, 2, 28–33.
14.
GoodmanK. (1973). Miscue analysis: Windows on the reading process. In GoodmanK. & ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. (Eds.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction (pp. 3–14). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
15.
GoodmanK. (1987). Determiners in reading: Miscues on a few little words. Language and Education, 1, 33–57.
16.
GoodmanK. (2008). Miscue analysis as scientific realism. In FlurkeyA.PaulsonE.GoodmanK. (Eds.), Scientific realism in studies of reading (pp. 7–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
GoodmanK. (2014a). Revaluing readers and reading. In GoodmanK.GoodmanY.. (Eds.), Making sense of learners making sense of written language: The selected works of Kenneth S. Goodman and Yetta M. Goodman (pp. 189–196). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
GoodmanK. (2014b). What’s whole in whole language in the 21st century?. New York, NY: Garn Press.
19.
GoodmanK.BuckC. (1973). Dialect barriers to reading comprehension revisited. The Reading Teacher, 27, 6–12.
20.
GoodmanK.BurkeC. L. (1968). Study of children’s behavior while reading orally. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.
21.
GoodmanK.BurkeC. L. (1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance: Final report (pp. 11–21). Washington, DC: Bureau of Research, Office of Education, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare.
22.
GoodmanK.FriesP.StraussS. (in press). Reading the grand illusion: How and why people make sense of print. New York: Routledge.
23.
GoodmanK.GoodmanY. (1978). Reading of American children whose language is a stable rural dialect of English or a language other than English. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare.
24.
GoodmanK.WangS.IventoschM.. (2012). Reading in Asian languages: Making sense of written texts in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
GoodmanY. (1967). A psycholinguistic description of observed oral reading phenomena in selected young beginning readers(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 6809961)
26.
GoodmanY. (1971). Longitudinal study of children’s oral reading behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.
27.
GoodmanY.BurkeC. (1971). Reading miscue inventory manual: Procedure for diagnosis and evaluation. New York, NY: Macmillan.
28.
GoodmanY.WatsonD.BurkeC. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. New York, NY: R.C. Owen Publishers.
29.
GoodmanY.FlurkeyA. (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis in middle school. In GoodmanY.MarekA. (Eds.), Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp. 87–105). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers.
30.
GoodmanY.FlurkeyA.MartensP. (2014). Retrospective miscue analysis: A window into readers’ thinking. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers.
31.
GoodmanY.GoodmanD. (2014). “I hate ’postrophe s”: Issues of dialect and reading proficiency. In GoodmanK.GoodmanY.. (Eds.), Making sense of learners making sense of written language: The selected works of Kenneth S. Goodman and Yetta M. Goodman (pp. 135–152). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
GoodmanY.WatsonD.BurkeC. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
33.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, England: Edward Arnold.
34.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: E. Arnold.
35.
HueyE. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading: With a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.
36.
JaegerE. (2015). Literacy and vulnerability: Shame or growth for readers who struggle. Talking Points, 26, 17–25.
37.
KimM. (2010). Adult ESL Korean readers’ responses about their reading in L1 Korean and L2 English(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3402930)
38.
MarekA. (1996). Surviving reading instruction. In GoodmanY.MarekA. (Eds.), Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp. 71–86). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers.
39.
MenoskyD. (1971). A psycholinguistic description of oral reading miscues generated during the reading of varying portions of text by selected readers from grades two, four, six, and eight(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 7214600)
40.
MurphyS. (1996). The validity and reliability of miscue analysis. In MarekA.EdelskyC. (Eds.), Reflections and connections: Essays in honor of Kenneth S. Goodman’s influence on language education (pp. 95–122). Cresskill, NH: Hampton Press, Inc.
41.
O’Brien de RamirezK. (2008). Silent, oral, L1, L2, French and English reading through eye movements and miscues. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3336609)
42.
PaulsonE. (2000). Adult readers’ eye movements during the production of oral miscues(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9972086)
43.
PaulsonE.Mason-EganP. (2007). Retrospective miscue analysis for struggling postsecondary readers. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, 2–13.
44.
RiggP. (1974). A psycholinguistic analysis of the oral reading miscues generated by speakers of a rural black dialect compared to the miscues of speakers of an urban black dialect (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 7513378)
45.
RussellD.GatesD.McCulloughC. (1961). Roads to everywhere. Boston, MA: Ginn.
