13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples
Key Takeaways
Error analysis looks for recurring linguistic patterns in reading and spelling—not isolated mistakes.
Classify miscues and misspellings by phonology, phonics/syllable type, orthography, morphology, or irregular-word memory.
Use instructional-level samples; frustrational text produces noise rather than a clear teaching target.
Let the earliest unmastered pattern in your cumulative MSLE sequence drive the next lesson.
Quantify dominant error types and state them in plain language for families and school teams.
13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples
Quick Answer: Error analysis examines patterns in reading and spelling mistakes—not single typos—to diagnose which linguistic knowledge is missing (phonology, phonics, orthography, morphology, syllable patterns). Domain 4.G turns work samples into the next MSLE lesson.
Formal scores tell you how far a student is from peers. Error analysis tells you what to teach tomorrow. ALTA Domain 4.G expects CALTs to analyze oral reading and written spelling/composition samples for systematic patterns that map onto the structure of language.
Why Work-Sample Analysis Is Diagnostic Teaching Fuel
Multisensory Structured Language Education is diagnostic and prescriptive. Each lesson responds to what the student can and cannot yet do. A spelling inventory, dictated sentence, oral reading running record, or composition draft is a window into:
- Phoneme awareness and phoneme–grapheme mapping
- Knowledge of syllable types and division patterns
- Orthographic conventions and irregular “learned” words
- Morphological awareness (bases, prefixes, suffixes)
- Fluency and self-monitoring habits
A single odd misspelling is noise. A recurring pattern across items is signal.
A Practical Framework for Reading Errors
When listening to oral reading, classify miscues by linguistic type—not merely “wrong word.”
| Error pattern (examples) | Likely underlying issue | Instructional implication |
|---|---|---|
| bend → bed; slip → sip | Phoneme omission / weak PA or blending | Strengthen phoneme segmentation & blending; controlled CVC practice |
| bit → bite; short/long vowel confusion | Vowel phoneme–grapheme confusion; syllable-type insecurity | Teach closed vs. VCe contrast explicitly |
| struck → stuck; blend/cluster reduction | Cluster sequencing difficulty | Multisensory practice with initial/final blends |
| house → home (semantically related) | Over-reliance on meaning/guessing | Reduce picture/context crutches; demand decoding through the word |
| the → a; function-word instability | Attention, tracking, or automaticity of high-frequency forms | Review learned words; tracking supports; reread for accuracy |
| Accurate but extremely slow | Laborious decoding; limited orthographic mapping | Build automaticity after accuracy; repeated reading of controlled text |
Always interpret miscues in light of text difficulty. Errors on text far above the student’s decoding level are expected; analysis is most informative on instructional-level controlled or lightly decodable text.
Spelling Error Analysis: The Orthographic Microscope
Spelling is often more revealing than reading because it requires full phoneme–grapheme production.
Step-by-step process
- Collect a dictation or inventory spanning known and nearly known patterns
- Transcribe exactly what the student wrote
- Compare to the target; mark substitutions, omissions, insertions, and sequence errors
- Group errors by linguistic category
- Choose the earliest unmastered concept in your cumulative sequence as the next target
Common spelling pattern categories
| Student writing | Target | Pattern hypothesis |
|---|---|---|
| bot for boat | boat | Vowel team / long-vowel spelling not secured |
| jumpping for jumping | jumping | Doubling rule / syllable juncture insecure |
| hopeing for hoping | hoping | Drop-e rule not applied |
| direckly for directly | directly | Speech-based /t/ deletion in the /kt/ cluster, plus ck overgeneralized (ck is used only after a short vowel at the end of a base) |
| sed for said | said | Irregular learned word not automated |
| pasketti for spaghetti | spaghetti | Phonological representation / complex clusters |
Ask: Is the error primarily phonological (sounds missing/wrong), orthographic (plausible phonemes, illegal or immature pattern), morphological (base/affix mismanaged), or memory for irregular forms?
Morphology and Meaning Errors in Writing
Older students may decode single syllables yet collapse when writing morphologically complex academic words. Error analysis should inspect:
- Suffix additions that change spelling (run → running)
- Schwa in unstressed syllables (definAte vs. definite—morphology helps)
- Latin/Greek combining forms in content-area vocabulary
If a student writes happyness for happiness, the lesson may target the y-to-i rule and the noun-forming suffix—not another round of CVC short vowels the student already masters.
Quantifying Patterns Without Losing the Forest
Useful tallies for a work sample set:
- % of errors that are phonologically plausible
- Frequency of specific syllable-type failures (closed, VCe, open, r-controlled, vowel team, C-le)
- Rate of irregular high-frequency word errors
- Self-corrections (signs of monitoring) vs. unchecked guesses
Share summaries with families in plain language: “Seven of ten errors dropped or confused short vowels in closed syllables—so that is our primary therapy target this cycle.”
Linking Error Analysis to the Next MSLE Lesson
Error analysis closes the loop with Domain 5 diagnostic teaching:
- Identify the dominant unmet concept
- Review prerequisites briefly (VAKT if needed)
- Teach the concept explicitly with multisensory practice
- Apply in reading and spelling of controlled words/sentences
- Probe retention in later warm-ups
If analysis shows random, inconsistent errors with strong day-to-day fluctuation, consider attention, fatigue, vision/hearing concerns, or emotional factors—and collaborate rather than endlessly reteaching the same phonogram.
Pitfalls the Exam Likely Tests
- Treating every miscue as a “guessing” problem when the student lacks the phonics concept
- Ignoring morphology in intermediate/secondary samples
- Analyzing frustrational text and concluding the student “can’t learn phonics”
- Correcting surface punctuation while missing a systemic syllable-type gap
- Designing the next lesson around a rare one-off error instead of the dominant pattern
CALT Communication of Error Findings
In student reports (Domain 8 connection), describe patterns and instructional responses: “Spelling samples show consistent failure to apply the doubling rule when adding -ing to CVC bases. Therapy will include explicit instruction, guided discovery with letter tiles, and cumulative review dictation.” That sentence demonstrates Domain 4.G competence: linguistic diagnosis from work products.
A student’s spelling samples repeatedly show hopping written as hoping and running as runing. The error analysis that best guides instruction identifies difficulty with:
Initial consonant blends in CCVC words
Irregular high-frequency word memorization only
Syllable-juncture doubling when adding vowel suffixes
Listening comprehension of narrative text structure
During oral reading of instructional-level controlled text, a student consistently reads cap as cape and hop as hope. The most appropriate instructional response is to:
Provide explicit contrast teaching of closed versus VCe syllable types
Abandon phonics and teach only whole-word guessing from pictures
Assign denser grade-level novels to build stamina through struggle
Focus exclusively on punctuation and capitalization mini-lessons
Which practice best reflects effective error analysis of work samples for MSLE planning?
Correct every unique misspelling once, in the order they appear on the page
Ignore spelling and analyze only silent reading multiple-choice scores
Use only one rare error as the theme of the next six weeks of therapy
Tally recurring linguistic error types and target the earliest unmastered pattern
Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.