Theoretical:
- How can teachers use miscue analysis in the post-DIBELS era, with students have been trained to read fluently without oral miscues and without making meaning?
- Do students who show proficiency by miscueing without losing meaning also show proficiency on standardized reading tests that measure sentence level comprehension (and often with little context for academic vocabulary), such as the GED or the Accuplacer?
- Why are phonic cues strong for beginner readers (would for could, bead for read, etc.)?
- Why are pragmatic cues not part of the retrospective analysis?
Practical:
- How do you find texts that will generate the minimum of 25 miscues?
- How do you adjust texts for second language speakers to keep miscues at an acceptable level?
- How to separate semantic vs. syntactic miscues (think I know it, but do I?)
- How to separate semantic and syntactic miscues that do/don't affect meaning (ditto)
Lesson planning:
- Is it useful to teach students technical terms beyond "miscue" (such as syntactic, semantic)?
- Would it be useful to have a library of screencasts demonstrating reading strategies?
- If so, would it be best to demonstrate discrete skills or show an integrated use of strategies?
- How would my students respond to audio-taping?
- Would taping be practical for me?
- What circumstances naturally lead students to activate background knowledge (as opposed to completing an assigned KWL chart, for example)?
No comments:
Post a Comment