Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLONG, PATRICIA CATHERINE.
dc.creatorLONG, PATRICIA CATHERINE.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T18:49:42Z
dc.date.available2011-10-31T18:49:42Z
dc.date.issued1984en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/187728
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to examine differences in the effectiveness of two graduate teacher education programs in reading assessment, one group using the Reading Miscue Inventory and the other using one of its simplified forms, the Reading Appraisal Guide. The main question that is answered in this study is whether it is more effective for teachers to be given training in the Reading Miscue Inventory, or is training in the Reading Appraisal Guide sufficient to enable teachers to carry out competent assessments of children's reading ability? In the six months of the study's duration, different types of data were collected. These consisted of assessments of children's taped readings of a story by two groups of teachers before (the pretest) and after (the posttest) their respective training programs; anecdotal records of the teachers' views of the programs and the assessment instruments they were using, and observations of the teachers' reading assessments of children selected by them for their practicum. Quantitative analyses of the pretest and posttest were made; these were based on criteria drawn from the Reading Miscue Inventory manual and the investigator's own miscue analysis of the children's taped readings. They showed that the teachers trained in miscue analysis, as reflected in the Reading Miscue Inventory, were able to make significantly better assessments of children's reading ability than the teachers trained in the Reading Appraisal Guide. In addition to the quantitative analysis, written and oral statements made by the teachers during the pretest, posttest and training programs were subjected to qualitative analysis and comparisons. These indicated that both groups' programs had strengthened the teachers' adherence to the Goodman model of reading, but those trained in the use of the Reading Miscue Inventory developed more effective assessment abilities and were more approving of the instruments they used, than were those trained in the use of the Reading Appraisal Guide. It was concluded that the Reading Miscue Inventory is an appropriate assessment instrument for use in college graduate reading programs. It proved complex and time-consuming to use, but at the same time it enabled teachers to make more accurate, in-depth assessments of children's reading than did the Reading Appraisal Guide. The latter was found to have some serious drawbacks, mostly arising from attempts to make it quicker and easier to use.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectReading teachers -- United States.en_US
dc.subjectReading -- Code emphasis approaches.en_US
dc.subjectMiscue analysis.en_US
dc.titleTHE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE READING MISCUE INVENTORY AND THE READING APPRAISAL GUIDE IN GRADUATE READING PROGRAMS (ASSESSMENT, REMEDIAL, TEACHER EDUCATION).en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.identifier.oclc691272343en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest8421975en_US
thesis.degree.disciplineElementary Educationen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-27T04:28:43Z
html.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to examine differences in the effectiveness of two graduate teacher education programs in reading assessment, one group using the Reading Miscue Inventory and the other using one of its simplified forms, the Reading Appraisal Guide. The main question that is answered in this study is whether it is more effective for teachers to be given training in the Reading Miscue Inventory, or is training in the Reading Appraisal Guide sufficient to enable teachers to carry out competent assessments of children's reading ability? In the six months of the study's duration, different types of data were collected. These consisted of assessments of children's taped readings of a story by two groups of teachers before (the pretest) and after (the posttest) their respective training programs; anecdotal records of the teachers' views of the programs and the assessment instruments they were using, and observations of the teachers' reading assessments of children selected by them for their practicum. Quantitative analyses of the pretest and posttest were made; these were based on criteria drawn from the Reading Miscue Inventory manual and the investigator's own miscue analysis of the children's taped readings. They showed that the teachers trained in miscue analysis, as reflected in the Reading Miscue Inventory, were able to make significantly better assessments of children's reading ability than the teachers trained in the Reading Appraisal Guide. In addition to the quantitative analysis, written and oral statements made by the teachers during the pretest, posttest and training programs were subjected to qualitative analysis and comparisons. These indicated that both groups' programs had strengthened the teachers' adherence to the Goodman model of reading, but those trained in the use of the Reading Miscue Inventory developed more effective assessment abilities and were more approving of the instruments they used, than were those trained in the use of the Reading Appraisal Guide. It was concluded that the Reading Miscue Inventory is an appropriate assessment instrument for use in college graduate reading programs. It proved complex and time-consuming to use, but at the same time it enabled teachers to make more accurate, in-depth assessments of children's reading than did the Reading Appraisal Guide. The latter was found to have some serious drawbacks, mostly arising from attempts to make it quicker and easier to use.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_8421975_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
5.276Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
azu_td_8421975_sip1_m.pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record