ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ ORAL READING MISCUES

Ernest Gerard B. Durano

ernest.durano@lccdo.edu.ph
Lourdes College, Cagayan de Oro City

Oral reading fluency is a vital skill that each student must foster. In the conduct of
Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) for the Grade 8 students in one of
the public schools of Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental, it determined that students
commit various types of oral reading miscues such as omission, repetition,
mispronunciation, substitution, insertion, transposition, and reversal in reading a
Grade 8 Oral Reading Passage. This study used mixed-descriptive method in
analyzing data. Among the types of miscues, mispronunciation has the highest
number of frequencies that could be caused by geographical influences as the
learners try to read English words the same way as how they read the Filipino
words. The findings of the study show that it needs a reading intervention plan using
a bottom-up processing to address the oral reading miscues committed by the
learners.

Keywords: Oral reading miscues, omission, repetition, mispronunciation, substitution,

insertion, transposition, reversal

INTRODUCTION

Reading is a practice that allows learners to learn, gain information, and build

new abilities (Olivar, 2014). Reading fluency, a component of overall reading ability,

is essential to reading comprehension, which is the foundation of one's

understanding of the world. Life may be practically difficult without the ability to read.

Reading is a difficult ability to perfect that has far-reaching significance for man's

critical thinking and self-expression. The future of today's young individuals is

dependent on their ability to communicate, comprehend, and apply a wide variety of

texts thoughtfully.

The capacity to read linked material promptly, precisely, and expressively is

referred to as oral reading fluency. It entails efficient and effective word recognition

abilities that allow a reader to deduce the text's intended meaning. As a result, there

is no obvious cognitive effort connected with deciphering the text but it is one of
numerous important components necessary for optimal reading. Students who read

naturally, and with adequate speed, accuracy, and emotion are more likely to absorb

content because they can focus on the message of the text (Rasplica & Cummings,

2013, Pikulski and Chard, 2005).

Similar studies also suggest that a student's degree of verbal reading

competence is one of the most prevalent, dependable, and efficient measures of

student reading comprehension (Reschly, Busch, Betts, Deno, & Long, 2009;

Wayman, Wallace, Wiley, Tichá, & Espin, 2007). Reading instruction for fluency

development is thus acknowledged as an important element of the reading process.

These back up Rasinski, Rikli, and Johnson's (2009) claim that fluency may be

considered as a necessary step to comprehension, and it has been shown to

influence comprehension in the elementary grades and beyond.

With these implications, it shows that reading is indeed a critical process as it

asks students to interact in various mental activities, processes, and skills. These

skills include interpreting words, comprehending the linguistic syntax, creating

inferences, using prior knowledge, and dealing with working memory (Fletcher-

Janzen, Reynolds, & Vannest, 2013; Hollenbeck, 2011; Kendeou, McMaster, &

Christ, 2016; Woolley, 2011). This shows how wide is the role of reading in

developing the holistic competence of the learners for them to have better

communication and logical thinking skills, thus, developing them for academic

success.

Disturbingly, according to a report by the United Nations Children's Fund

(UNICEF) with United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) and the World Bank (2021), less than 15% of schoolchildren in the
Philippines, or about three out of every twenty, can read simple texts, in part due to

the country's longest school closure, the longest of the 122 countries included by the

report. Furthermore, the latest UNICEF assessment translates to a higher learning

poverty rate before the pandemic.

Recognizing the importance, complexities and challenges of reading, and in

accordance with the implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education Program, the

Department of Education (DepEd) implemented the "Every Child A Reader Program"

(ECARP) via DepEd Memorandum No. 402, s.2004 and Administrative Order No.

324). This program seeks to provide learners with structured reading and writing

instruction in order to become independent early readers and writers.

From the mentioned studies and department program, it shows the

importance of oral reading fluency in every aspect of educational and personal

success of a person. Thus, it is very vital to plan, craft and implement approaches to

enhance the oral reading fluency of the learners.

With that in mind, the researcher aims to find out the oral reading miscues of

the students of the Grade 8 students in one of the public schools in Kinoguitan,

Misamis Oriental in terms of omission, repetition, mispronunciation, substitution,

insertion, transposition, and reversal. These oral reading miscues were anchored

from the Revised Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (2018) which was set by the

Department of Education. Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) measures

the reading proficiency of pupils through word recognition and reading

comprehension of pupils in English and in Filipino. In this study, it seeks to

specifically, it will answer the following questions: (1) What are the oral reading
miscues committed by the students? (2) What intervention can be proposed based

from the reading miscues committed?

Oral reading miscue, as defined by Goodman and Goodman (2004), is a

response that is not consistent with what the listener is expecting to hear during the

oral reading observes. In a similar spirit, Davenport (2002) describes miscues as an

unanticipated reaction made by a reader during oral reading. Errors committed by

students when reading are called oral reading miscues. A mistake happens when a

student gives an answer that differs from the one that was anticipated. Mistakes are

a useful tool for understanding the reading process and can be used to gauge

students' performance (Brown, Goodman & Marek, 1996).

It is revealed that learners make mistakes or miscues when reading

(Goodman & Goodman, 2004). As defined by them, oral reading miscues are

“unexpected responses cued by readers’ linguistic or conceptual cognitive

structures”. During oral reading, oral responses are generated when the reader is

engaging in comprehension of a written text. Non-skilled readers are more prone

than proficient readers to commit errors. Non-proficient readers experience

difficulties while reading aloud. They are unable to recognize specific terms, omit

specific words, are unable to employ context cues to identify new and unknown

words, are unable to highlight commas while oral reading in series, and prefer to

ignore punctuation (Ediger, 2005). Furthermore, they tend to read slowly, hesitantly,

and with little or no emotion, which has a poor impact on text comprehension (Nes,

2003).
 Word identification difficulties might make it difficult for the learners to build

meaning. Many struggling readers struggle to reach a level of fluency that allows

them to readily absorb what they read (Mraz, et al., 2013).

Identifying word identification difficulties makes use with miscue analysis to

provide insights that can assist both students and teachers’ success (Mahmud &

Gopal, 2018). Furthermore, by doing miscue analysis, teachers may discuss ways to

enhance the design of teaching to increase students' oral reading fluency. According

to Flojo (2007), learners should be led to be more aware of their level of

achievement as well as specific reading strengths and weaknesses based on the

Philippine Informal Reading Inventory. Instruction becomes more effective as

learners' awareness develop.

Given this, there is a need for students to engage in oral reading miscue

analysis to better comprehend the reading process and become more confident

readers, and craft interventions on how to improve oral reading fluency. This will

make students more aware of the many reading methods and cognitive processes

that occur. They can become proficient readers by improving their awareness and

monitoring their own understanding while reading repeatedly.

For this study, it will employ Automaticity Theory of Laberge and Samuels

(1974) to analyze reading miscues and craft interventions on how to improve oral

reading fluency. Reading, according to Automaticity Theory, is a bottom-up serial

stage model of reading. To get to the higher-level processes, readers must grasp the

lower-level processes. LaBerge and Samuels (1974) held that teachers should make

sure students identify all the letters in the beginning stages of reading by repeated

reading in order to vouch for it. Students can then concentrate on the letter sounds,
which are created later during the blending stage. In order to teach reading fluency,

teachers might utilize tactics including repeated reading, readers theater, partnered

reading, choral reading, modeling reading, and supported reading using recorded

audio readings. In actuality, repetition—which increases reading speed—is the key

to this entire strategy.

Guided with various department orders and memoranda, such as the

Department of Education (DepEd) Order 34, series of 2022 – Guidelines on the

School Calendar and Activities for the School Year 2022-2023, and Regional

Memorandum No. 627, s. 2022-Regional Approach in Strengthening the

Implementation of RX ADOBE Learning Recovery and Continuity Plan, it shows the

need to carefully plan and implement the conduct of learning remediation and

enrichment, particularly on literacy and numeracy, to ensure that learners will

recover and catch up through specialized reading sessions from the reading

teachers. The project's purpose is to assist kids and learners who have been

recognized as frustrated and non-readers in becoming independent readers in their

mother tongue, Filipino, and English.

Therefore, provided with the current situation and available research, this

study aims to know oral reading miscues of the students such as omission,

repetition, mispronunciation, substitution, insertion, transposition, and reversal which

are based on the Phil-IRI guidelines. Furthermore, it will try to craft oral reading

interventions to further develop the students’ oral reading competence anchored on

the Theory of Automaticity. This study recognizes that there are other forms of

miscues from various proponents and different types of interventions that may help

enhance the learners’ oral reading fluency.

 This study is important especially that there is not enough oral Phil-IRI-based

reading miscue analysis conducted in identifying oral reading miscues here in the

Philippines. Furthermore, it is vital to conduct this study due to the 2021 report of

UNICEF and World Bank which said that less than 15% of schoolchildren in the

Philippines, or about three out of every twenty, can read simple texts, in part due to

the country's longest school closure. Lastly, this study can give a probable idea for

further study of future researchers.

METHODS

This study was conducted using mixed method through a descriptive design

since the researcher seeks to systematically describe the different oral reading

deviations. Moreover, it aims to answer the questions regarding the research

problem.

A total of 144 Grade eight students with 48 individuals per section for the

school year 2022-2023 will be chosen as the participants of the study. With the full

implementation of face-to-face classes, these students were taken from the three

section sections of the said grade level considering that these sections are under the

English class of the researcher. These three sections were from a public high school

in Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental. Furthermore, the selection of the participants was

not be randomized since it is pre-determined as to observe with the provisions of the

research design.

The researcher made use of the revised 2018 Phil-IRI (Philippine Informal

Reading Inventory)-Individual Reading Level for Grade 8 as the research

instruments in data gathering which supports the DepEd Order No. 8, s 2015 “Policy

Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program”.

Each student read a reading passage containing 371 words. This is a standardized

oral reading test composed of graded passage that can be administered individually

to assess students’ fluency and comprehension. The Phil-IRI reading test uses

predetermined set of criteria in identifying the reading miscues committed by the

students. These criteria include the corresponding percentage of word recognition

accuracy and the percentage of correct answers to comprehension questions as well

as the marking and scoring of the oral reading miscues.

Reading Level Word Reading Score (in %) Comprehension Score

Independent 97-100 % 80-100 %

Instructional 90-96 % 59-79 %

Frustration 89% and below 58% and below

Table 1. Phil-IRI Reading Profile

Types of
Marking the Miscue Example Scoring
Miscues
Count as 1 error
every
Underline the text and mispronunciation.
sleed
Mispronunciation write the phonetic (The dialectal
slide
spelling above it variation should
not be counted as
an error).
The huge Count as one error
Circle the omitted unit
Omission elephant a word or a phrase
of a language
omitted
Underline the text and
money Count as one error
Substitution write the substituted
monkey every substitution.
word above it
Use a caret to show
lovely Count a word or a
where the word/s was
Insertion the^ flowers in phrase inserted as
inserted and write the
the vase one error
word above the caret.
Underline the portion Count as one error
They found it in
Repetition of the text that was every word or
the
repeated. phrase repeated
 Use a transpositional The girl is pretty
Count as one error
symbol over and
Transposition every transposition
under the letters or
made.
words transposed.
Write the word/ Count as one error
dab
Reversal nonword above the every reversal
bad
correct word. made.
Table 2. Marking and Scoring the Oral Reading Miscues

In the conduct of the study, the researcher took into careful consideration the

health, safety, and privacy of the respondents of the study.

Before the start of the gathering of data, the researcher first asked for the

approval of the concerned school head.

After the approval to gather data was granted, the researcher then asked for

the informed assent and consent form of the parents of the respondents to ensure

the approval of the parents for their children’s participation in the conduct of the

study. The informed assent and consent form highlighted the benefit of their

participation, as well as the voluntary participation of the respondents and refusal

and withdrawal to participate in the study.

Considering the ethical parameters stated, the data that was gathered was

done with permission and confidentiality. Each student was asked to read to orally

the grade-level-assigned reading selection. Then, the researcher tallied the

frequency of committed oral reading deviations such as omission, repetition,

mispronunciation, substitution, insertion, transposition, and reversal as stipulated in

the Revised Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (2018).

Since the locale of the study has been allowed to fully implement the face-to-

face classes as it secured a safety seal from the Department of the Interior and Local

Government (DILF) and the Department of Education (DepEd), then the researcher
met the participants from Monday to Friday until all of them are done in orally reading

the assigned reading selection.

The gathering of data can be done since the students are all under the

English class of the researcher.

In treating the data, the following statistical tools were used by the

researchers. In Problem 1, descriptive statistics such as percentage, mean,

frequency distribution, and rank are used. In Problem 2, the researcher presents a

reading intervention plan based from the result of the oral reading miscues of the

learners.

Discussion

Findings of this study are presented in the table discussed herein. The first

table discusses the oral reading miscues of the Grade 8 students from the conducted

Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) Oral Language Pre-Test. The

second table presents the reading invention plan based on the findings of the oral

reading miscues of the students.

Table 3. Oral Reading Miscues of the Students

Oral Reading Miscues Frequency Percentage

Mispronunciation 1513 48.65
Substitution 356 11.45
Omission 286 9.20
Reversal 189 6.08
Insertion 237 7.62
Repetition 427 13.73
Transposition 102 3.28
There are seven (7) oral reading errors in word recognition, according to the

Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (PHIL-IRI) handbook. These include

transposition, repetition, insertion, reversal, substitution, and mispronunciation.

 The average number of mistakes made by respondents in terms of

mispronunciation is 1513 out of 3110 total miscues, with a mean error rate of

48.65%. This indicates that from the reading material provided to the respondents,

mispronunciation is the major oral reading challenge experienced by the

respondents in terms of word recognition. The most frequent mispronounced words

by the respondents are: acres [pronounced as ak-ris], mud [pronounced as mod],

widowed [pronounced as wi-do-wed], unique [pronounced as yo-ni-ki], honor

[pronounced as ho-nor], turned [pronounced as tur-ned], educate [pronounced as e-

du-ka-te] and thousands [pronounced as too-sands]. Word mispronunciation could

be caused by geographical influences. When a student reads sentences in Filipino or

English, the reader can potentially be phonetically reading the English words. It

should be emphasized that the students began reading in Filipino, a language whose

words have a constant phonetic pattern. A reader may read the words in the same

way while reading in English.

The next frequent form of oral reading miscue is repetition. Of 3110 over-all

miscues, 427 or 13. 73% repetition miscues were committed by the students.

Moreover, words that are commonly read repeatedly by the respondents are

“illiterate”, “institute”, “communal”, “assistance”, “patriotic”, “philanthropist”, and

“monument”. When reading, a reader could repeat a word or a phrase to allow

themselves more time to comprehend a term they are having trouble understanding

before moving on to the next one. Also, they are unsure with how the words are

being read.

Furthermore, 356 or 11.45 % substitution miscues were committed by the

students. Words such as providing is being substituted as consist to contest; “Mrs.”

to “Mr.”; “lives” (plural of life) to “live” (not on a recording); “live” to “love”; “plants” to
“plans”; “of” to “for”; “illiterates” to “literates”; and “kilometers” to “centimeter”.

Because they were unable to decode the entire word but were able to identify some

of its letters, the respondents may have substituted a word. Also, these are due to

how fast they read the text.

In addition, when students read the passage, 286 or 9.20% omission miscues

were committed by the respondents. Some of which are: taught, educational,

philanthropist, village, and $ (dollar sign). The students tend to omit these words

because they are not sure the correct pronunciation or not familiar with the words.

Moreover, some of these words tend to be omitted because it consists of many

letters.

Students also committed 237 or 7.62% insertion miscue when they read the

text. Also, words such as “a”, “in”, “of”, “the”, and “are” are being inserted by the

respondents while reading the passage given them. One explanation for insertion

might be because the reader anticipates certain phrases that aren't actually in the

text; it's usual for certain readers to add the article after a preposition (Phil-IRI 2017

Manual). Furthermore, students tend to insert some words due to how fast they read

the text.

189 or 6.08% reversal of words are caused by the students. These words are

mud to dam; staff to fats; now to won; way to yaw. The reader may have read so

quickly that a word, portion of a word, phrase, or sentence went unnoticed. Or, the

reader could purposefully reverse the word, part of the word, phrase, or sentence if

they are unsure how to interpret it.

The least number of miscues committed by the respondents is the

transposition of words which got 102 or 3.28%. It was also observed in the
respondents such as “enough for” to “for enough”; “by some donors” to “some by

donors”; “an hour or two” to “hour an or two”; on “730 acres” to “730 on acres”; and

“20-acre educational plant” to “educational 20-acre plant”.

Maramag (2022) stated that oral reading miscues are affected by the

students’ regional interference and phonetics, word recognition time-processing,

poor word decoding skills, and fast reading. Watson (2019) also mentioned other

factors that affect oral reading miscues such as the difficulty of words, difficulty of

scanning the text from left to right, poor text comprehension, and unsureness of word

pronunciation.

These reading errors that the students exhibited may also indicate that they

are unable to understand the reading assignments that have been provided to them.

According to Hudson, et. al. (2020), children with great decoding abilities but

inadequate reading fluency performed less well on reading comprehension tests

than their more proficient peers. The failure to reach automaticity in lower-order

processing, they said, placed heavy demands on working memory and leaves little

room for negotiating meaning in texts. Non-automaticity in decoding impedes reading

comprehension since working memory is essential for storing and retrieving

information from texts during the comprehension reading process.

A miscue, which is described as an actual observed reaction during oral

reading that differs from the predicted response, is similar to a window into the

reader's thinking process. Nothing a reader does while reading occurs by chance. As

he tries to interpret the print and find meaning, both his expected replies and his

mistakes come out (Goodman, 1973). These findings indicate and offer fresh

perspectives for reading teachers as well as a new foundation for education.

CONCLUSION

This oral reading miscue analysis reveals that learners have varying miscues

committed while reading a passage. These miscues occurred due to varying

reasons. Among the miscues, it is mispronunciation that has the highest number of

frequency and has the widest difference among the other types of miscues. Word

mispronunciation could be caused by geographical influences as the learners try to

read English words the same way as how they read the Filipino words.

With these deviations, a reading intervention plan was crafted to address the

oral reading miscues committed by the learners based on the Automaticity Theory of

Laberge and Samuels (1974). This intervention plan emphasizes the need to

repeatedly expose the learners to reading activities based on the bottom-up

processing. This developed intervention plan needs to be constantly reviewed in

order to enhance the reading experience of the learners.

It is recommended that in order to have a wider understanding of students’

oral reading miscues, it would be better if the students’ oral reading miscues per

proficiency level will be identified. It is also recommended that in order to maximize

the reading intervention, parents must be engaged to ensure parental involvement in

the learners’ reading progress for them to track progress and address difficulties.

REFERENCES

Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An

annotated bibliography. International Reading Assn.
Davenport, M. R. (2002). Miscues, Not Mistakes: Reading Assessment in the
Classroom. Heinemann, 361 Hanover Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912.
Ediger, M. (2005). Struggling traders in high school. Reading Improvement, 42, 34-
39.
Fletcher-Janzen, E., Reynolds, C. R., & Vannest, K. J. (2013). Reading
Comprehension. In Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the
Education of the Handicapped and Other Exceptional Children and Adults.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flojo. O. (2007). The Phil-IRI assessing the reading levels of pupils in the public
school. Handout.
Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (2004). To err is human: Learning about
language processes by analysing miscues. In R. B. Ruddell, & E. J.Unrau
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed. ) Newark:
International Reading Association
Hardiante, S. Umamah, A. and Ismiatun, F. (2020). Problems Faced by English
Students Across Proficiency Level in Reading Comprehension.
http://riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/jp3/article/view/5959
Hollenbeck, A. (2011). Instructional makeover: Supporting the reading
comprehension of students with learning disabilities in a discussion-based
format. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(4), 211-220. doi:
10.1177/1053451210389035
Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading comprehension: Core
components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3(1), 62-69. doi: 10.1177/2372732215624707
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–
323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
binti Mahmud, C. T., & Gopal, R. (2018). Miscue analysis: A glimpse into the reading
process. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 12-24.
Maramag, M. (2022). Oral Reading Difficulties and Reading Behaviors of Alternative
Learning System (ALS) Learners. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and
Education, 3(2 June Issue), 102-120.
Mraz, M., Nichols, W., Caldwell, S., Beisley, R., Sargent, S., & Rupley, W. (2013).
Improving oral reading fluency through readers theatre. Reading Horizons: A
Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 52(2), 5.
Nes, S.L. (2003). Using paired reading to enhance the fluency skills of less-skilled
readers. Reading Improvement, 40, 179.
Olivar, L. L., Manalo, J. A Palma, A. M., Ramirez, V. H., Gemino, K. L., Caiga, B. T.
(2014). Awareness of Maritime Students in Lyceum International Maritime
Academy on the Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) Program , Academic
Research International, 5(3), 206-213
Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (PHIL-IRI)2017 Manual
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.
Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnson, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than
automaticity? More than a concern for primary grades? Literacy Research and
Instruction, 48, 350-361.
Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency council for learning
Disabilities. University of Oregon.
Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-
based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A
meta analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47,
427-269. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
UNICEF. (2021). Filipino children continue missing education opportunities in
another year of school closure. Retrieved November 23, 2022,
from https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/filipino-children-
continue-missing-education-opportunities-another-year-school
Watson, S. (2019). Miscue analysis for diagnosing reading skills. ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/miscue-analysis-fordiagnosing-reading-difficulties-
3111062
Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature
synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of
Special Education, 41(2), 85-120. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020401
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning
difficulties. London: Springer.
 Appendix A
LETTER TO THE SCHOOL HEAD

RECHIE A. LAZALITA
Secondary School Principal I
Esperanza National High School
Esperanza, Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental

Dear, Sir:

The undersigned teacher who is a student from Lourdes College-Graduate School

and currently taking up Masters of Arts in Education, Major in English
Communication Arts is presently conducting a study entitled “Analysis of Students’
Oral Reading Miscues” in Partial Fulfilment of their requirements in Ed-Eng 111
(Practicum in English Instruction).

In line with this, I would like to ask your permission to allow me to conduct my study
pertaining to the students’ oral reading miscues.

Rest assured that the data that will be gathered be kept confidential. Thank you and
God Speed.

Respectfully yours,

ERNEST GERARD B. DURANO

Researcher/Teacher I

Appendix B
PARENTAL CONSENT

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE:
Dear Parent _________________________,
My name is Ernest Gerard B. Durano and I am Teacher I in Esperanza National High
School and Graduate School Student in Lourdes College. I am conducting a
research study to understanding of students’ oral reading miscues in order to craft
reading intervention program based on the findings of the study. The purpose of this
form is to provide you with information that will help you decide if you will give
consent for your child to participate in this research.
KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS RESEARCH STUDY:
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you want
your child to be a part of this study. The purpose of this study is to know oral reading
miscues of the students such as omission, repetition, mispronunciation, substitution,
insertion, transposition, and reversal which are based on the Phil-IRI guidelines.
Furthermore, it will try to craft oral reading interventions to further develop the
students’ oral reading competence. Your child will be asked to read a reading
selection and the teacher will tally the number of miscues that your child might
commit. We expect that your child will be in this research study for a matter of 2-20
minutes depending on the reading speed of the student and will undergo a reading
intervention program based on the findings of the study that might be conducted
throughout the school year. This study is beneficial as it seeks to further develop
students’ oral reading competence by identifying the miscues that they might
commit.
STUDY PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study is to know oral reading miscues of the students such as
omission, repetition, mispronunciation, substitution, insertion, transposition, and
reversal which are based on the Phil-IRI guidelines. Furthermore, it will try to craft
oral reading interventions to further develop the students’ oral reading competence
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
If you agree to participate, your child will be one of 144 Grade 8 student-participants
who will be participating in this research.
PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY:
If you agree for your child to participate in the study, she or he will be asked to read
a reading selection for 2-20 minutes depending on the reading speed of the student.
The teacher will then tally the number of miscues committed by the student. After
this, the students will undergo a reading intervention program based on the findings
of the study that might be conducted throughout the school year.

RISKS AND INCONVENIENCES:

There is no identified risk in this study since students will only be asked to read a
question and undergo a reading intervention program.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
All information taken from the study will be coded to protect each subject’s name. No
names or other identifying information will be used when discussing or reporting
data. The teacher-researcher will safely keep all files and data collected. Once the
data has been fully analyzed it will be destroyed.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION:
Your child’s participation in this study is voluntary. Your child may decline
participation at any time. You may also withdraw your child from the study at any
time; there will be no penalty and might not affect their grade. Likewise, if your child
chooses not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no
penalty.
BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
This study is beneficial as it seeks to further develop students’ oral reading
competence by identifying the miscues that they might commit.
PAYMENT OR INCENTIVE:
The students will not receive any compensation in their participation from this study.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
If you have questions about the study, please call me at 09050372237 or e-mail me
at ernest.durano@lccdo.edu.ph.
PARENT’S CONSENT:
By signing below, you are giving consent for your child to participate in the above
study. Please check the option that applies to you before signing.

☐ I give permission for my child to be part of this study.

☐ I do not give permission for my child to be part of this study.

Your child’s name: __________________________________

Parent’s name: _______________________________________

Parent’s Signature: ___________________________________

Date:___________________________
Appendix C
ASSENT FORM

My name is Ernest Gerard B. Durano and I am Teacher I in Esperanza National High

School and Graduate School Student in Lourdes College. I am conducting a
research study to understanding of students’ oral reading miscues in order to craft
reading intervention program based on the findings of the study. Your parent(s) know
we are talking with you about the study. This form will tell you about the study to help
you decide whether or not you want to take part in it.
What am I being asked to do?
If you decide to be in the study, I will ask you to read a reading selection for 2-20
minutes depending on the reading speed of the student. The teacher will then tally
the number of miscues committed by the student. After this, the students will
undergo a reading intervention program based on the findings of the study that might
be conducted throughout the school year.
What are the benefits to me for taking part in the study?
This study is beneficial as it seeks to further develop students’ oral reading
competence by identifying the miscues that they might commit.
Can anything bad happen if I am in this study?
I do not expect anything bad happening to you but some kids might feel anxious
upon reading the passages. To minimize this, just freely read the text and allow your
teacher to help and guide you.
Who will know that I am in the study?
If you decide to be in the study, I will not tell anyone else how you respond or act as
part of the study. Even if your parents or teachers ask, I will not tell them about what
you say or do in the study.
Do I have to be in the study?
No, you don’t. The choice is yours. No one will get angry or upset if you don’t want to
do this. And you can change your mind anytime if you decide you don’t want to be in
the study anymore.
What if I have questions?
If you have questions about the study, you can ask me now or anytime during the
study. You can also call me at 09050372237 or e-mail me at
ernest.durano@lccdo.edu.ph.

Signing below means that you have read this form and that you are willing to be in
this study:

_______________________________________
Name of the Participant

_______________________________________
 Signature of the Participant

Date:___________________________

APPENDIX D
READING INTERVENTION PLAN BASED ON THE ORAL READING MISCUES

Objectives Strategies Responsible Time Materials Expected

Person Frame Needed Output

1. Pre - Call for a Principal November Flat Screen TV Trained

Implementation School 11, 2022 staff
Phase Learning School Sound Box implemen
Orient and train Action Cell Reading ting the
all the teachers (SLAC) Coordinator Laptop program
from Grades 7 to
Grade 12 School ICT PowerPoint with
including the Coordinator Flow of Activities
non-advisers
about the Teachers Conference
importance of the Notebook
implementation
of the school Attendance
reading Sheet
intervention
program and the
strategies to
enhance the oral
reading miscues
based on the
findings of the
conduct of Phil-
IRI Oral Reading
Test.
Craft Conduct of Principal November Flat Screen TV Instructio
instructional SLAC on 14-18, nal
materials that aid
the use of School 2022 Sound Box materials
students’ oral
varied Reading for each
reading instruction Coordinator Laptop category
proficiency al of
materials School ICT PowerPoint with students
that are Coordinator Flow of Activities
specific in
each Teachers Conference
category Notebook
of readers;
including Attendance
the use of Sheet
ReadMe
E-
Application
Tool for
frustration
readers
2. Group Principal November Flat Screen TV List of
Implementation learners 21, 2022 Students
Phase according School Sound Box in each
to their Reading Proficienc
Implement the proficiency Coordinator Phil-IRI Oral y Level
School Reading level Reading Result
Program Teacher
Adviser
Introduce School Year- Flat Screen TV Word
and Reading Round Identificati
identify Coordinator Laptop on of
letter Frustratio
name, School ICT E-Reader n
letter Coordinator Application Tool Readers
sounds
 and blend Teacher
letter Advisers
sound with
the use of
E-Reader
Application
Tool
(Phonemic
Awarenes
s) for
frustration
readers
Use audio- School Year- Flat Screen TV Oral
visual Reading Round reading
presentati Coordinator Laptop mastery
on/choral of the
reading/ Teacher Learning independ
modelling Advisers Materials ent and
reading/ frustration
reading readers
theater for
independe
nt and
instruction
al readers
Encourage School Year- Flat Screen TV Oral
teachers Reading Round reading
across Coordinator Laptop mastery
learning of the
discipline Subject Learning independ
to Advisers Materials ent and
integrate frustration
teaching readers
reading in
their
instruction
via choral
reading,
etc.
3.Post Assess School Head Every end Flat Screen TV Reading
Implementation and of the Interventi
Conduct evaluate School quarter Speaker on
quarterly or the Reading Assessm
monthly reading process of Laptop/Tablet ent
assessment as implement Team
deemed ation of Facilitators of Reading Ability
necessary for the school the Scoring
monitoring and reading Instructional Progress
supervision on interventio and
the n program Independent Reading Chart
implementation Reader
of the school Assessment Tool
 reading
intervention
program.
Gather feedback Conduct a Principal Every end Flat Screen TV Feedback
on the meeting of the of the
effectiveness of School quarter Sound Box teachers
the school Reading
reading Coordinator Laptop Reading
intervention Progress
program and School ICT Reading Chart
present reading Coordinator Progress Chart
progress chart
for students Teachers Conference
across all Notebook
reading
categories Attendance
Sheet
Improve the Call for Principal Every end Flat Screen TV SLAC on
reading School of the the
intervention Learning School quarter Sound Box improvem
program via Action Cell Reading ent of
SLAC based on (SLAC) Coordinator Laptop reading
the feedback of interventi
the teachers School ICT Reading on
Coordinator Progress Chart

Teachers Attendance
Sheet

PowerPoint
Presentation