Reframing the reading process through EMMA (Eye Movement and Miscue Analysis)

Kim, Koomi, Duckett, Peter, & Brown, Joel. (2010). Reframing the reading process through EMMA (Eye Movement and Miscue Analysis). Talking Points, 22(1), 10-14.


Eye movement research is fascinating, and when it is paired with miscue analysis, we get a good peek through “a window on the reading process” (as miscue analysis pioneer Ken Goodman has called it). The second author of this article, Peter Duckett, is one of the foremost researchers on this cutting edge technique. Miscue analysis always has provided rich qualitative data on the things readers do when they read, but when we also get to chart the reader’s eye movements and fixations, we get a revealing look at the link between mind and body during reading. As with all assessments, we are still making inferences because we cannot crawl into the reader’s brain, but the concrete, observable data provided by the (very expensive) machines that follow and chart readers’ eye movements provides us with some strong reflections (or maybe a better metaphor would be echoes?) of what is going on in the brain.

This article is quite brief, probably too brief for someone who is really interested in eye movement research. I recommend googling “Peter Duckett” and accessing one of several articles he has written recently on this topic. The article here is only enough to whet the appetite. It describes how Duckett and his colleagues used data from Eye Movement and Miscue Analysis (EMMA) research to help preservice teachers look more closely at the reading process and question their conceptions of that process, which often tend to be simplistic and uncritical, echoing what they hear and see in the media and in government publications.

Most experienced reading teachers know that reading is a complex process, and that conceptualizing it as an atomistic, skills-based process that can be assessed only quantitatively will not work. When the simplistic view of reading is adhered to, we have an over-focus on decoding, reading everything letter-perfectly, assessing only what we can count (e.g., number of words read exactly per minute) and focusing on finding the reader’s deficiencies. A complex view looks at reading as meaning-based, a network of interrelated skills, and something that we need multiple assessments to capture. The great thing about EMMA is that it comes closer to capturing the process, and it focuses on the strengths of the reader and the beauty of the whole process. The authentic example provided in the article is a particularly powerful illustration of how a simplistic view of reading could devalue a reader’s strengths. It is an example worth sharing, even though I wish the article had more examples, and as a person who has read a good deal of the miscue analysis literature, I might debate just how authentic the text used with the child was (isn’t it time to finally retire “The Man Who Kept House” as a prototypical miscue analysis selection?).

I’d like to do more with EMMA, though the hardware required for the eye movement component is currently beyond the financial reach of the institution where I now work, so I must content myself with gathering miscue analysis data alone, but as with all electronic innovations, one day the cost will go down, and I think more people will contribute to this fertile line of literacy research.