Module 2: Instructional Challenge

Take a look at the following examples of children's dialect-based miscues while reading and the difference between the child's original response (OR) and expected reponse (ER). Then answer the questions that follow.

1.	OR: It my little monkey here.	ER: Is my little monkey here?
2.	OR: We got to tell.	ER: We've got to tell.
3.	OR: Frog look at Toad calendar.	ER: Frog looked at Toad's calendar.
4.	OR: A word what sounded good.	ER: A word that sounded good.
5.	OR: hisself	ER: himself
6.	OR: I can come to your party?	ER: Can I come to your party?

Are these children's miscues evidence of proficient or non-proficient reading?  Explain. If you were teaching children who made these miscues, what, if any, assistance or teaching would you offer? 

       The children's miscues are evidence of proficient readers for various reasons. Examples two, three, five and six seem like they would stem from "at-home" or cultural dialect. From personal experience and after reading the text, it is evident in readers of varying dialect that they are apt to leave off contracted endings,a s in example two; leave off tenses, as in example three; pronounce words differently, as in example five; and say a statement as a question, as in example six. I actually had a friend who was born and raised in the heart of Louisiana and when she asked a questions like "can I come to you party" it would be in the structure of a statement, but because of the question infection at the end it was obvious she was asking not making a statement. Therefore, things of that nature are dialects that may effect the reading process. 

       Examples one and four may seem like trivial mistakes that had to have been made by a less-proficient reader, however, that implication would be wrong. These mistakes would also be made by a proficient reader because the reader is beginning to read for meaning through anticipation of what will come next in the sentence. With that, proficient readers tend to make the majority of their miscues in pronoun and basic words because of their subconscious instinct to predict upcoming words. 

       I would not offer these children any assistance throughout their oral reading because as Weaver states, "evidence that understanding usually precedes oral verbalization and in light of the evidence that proficient readers make miscues that reflect their predictions, their prior knowledge, and even their preferred language structures" (2002, p.74). If however, I did think that the oral language was effecting their understanding, I would simply allow the student to reiterate what they just read in their own words because that would show true comprehension. "When reading aloud, our understanding is usually ahead of our voice" (Weaver, 2002, p.76). There was another study done where Kenneth and Yetta Goodman focused on student miscues as well as their overall comprehension. It was determined "that there is 'no evidence that inability to cope with Book English is a general problem for any group' (1978, p.3-5). The students' dialect or interlanguage influence was evident in their reading, 'but it is not in itself a barrier to comprehension' (p.3-22)" (Weaver, 2002, p.76). 

References

Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.