This is a basic research about the relationship of most common oral reading miscues and the reading comprehension level of Grade 7 Less proficient Readers

1. 1
I. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
A single-sentence definition of reading is that “it is a complex process
that involves both learning to decode text and learning to make meaning from
texts” (Department of Education, 2019). Canoy & Loquias (2022) state that
students must use various techniques to succeed in decoding text because
word recognition is a difficult task while the National Reading Panel (2019) note
that the ability to derive meaning from print requires, (a) understanding the
connection between speech and print, (b) decoding unfamiliar words, (c)
reading fluently, (d) having the necessary background and vocabulary for
comprehension, (e) using active strategies for meaning construction from print,
and (f) maintaining motivation to read. These are essential for proficient
reading.
In the Philippine setting, the country is faced with problems with the
reading skills of secondary-level learners. Last October 2022, the Department
of Education, Division of Misamis Oriental administered the Phil-IRI Pre-Test to
Grade 2-12 learners from the division. The division-wide test revealed that out
of the 72,110 total number of actual takers in Secondary schools, 13,489
(18.71%) students were recorded as frustration in word recognition wherein
4,119 (5.71%) are Grade 7, 2,922 (4.05%) are Grade 8, 2,224 (3.08%) are
Grade 9, 2,206 (3.06%) are Grade 10, 1,298 (1.80%) are Grade 11 and 720
(1.00%) are Grade 12 (Department of Education, 2022). This data shows that
there is still a significant number of high schoolers who struggle to read fluently.

2. 2
As a reading teacher, the researcher has noticed that for some reasons,
students often make reading miscues. It has been observed that this is one of
the main reasons students are labeled frustration in word recognition. Pillai &
Paramasivam (2021) discover that non-proficient readers tend to make more
errors compared to proficient readers. These readers have trouble recognizing
words, omitting some, and struggle with using context for unfamiliar words,
potentially hindering their text comprehension, and impeding language and
reading development.
Alonzo & Angedan (2023) emphasize the importance of teachers using
miscue analysis to track students' reading progress. Shen, Zhou, & Gao (2020)
highlight how oral miscue analysis reveals cognitive and linguistic difficulties in
reading for meaning. Watson (2019) says that it provides authentic insights into
students' reading skills and helps identify specific weaknesses.
In contrast, insufficient research has explored the link between oral
reading miscues and students' reading comprehension. Shen et al. (2020)
contend that most studies focus on oral reading miscues' connection to
immediate text recall rather than reading comprehension. This gap limits
knowledge on the possible significant link between these variables in reading.
To address this gap, the purpose of this study is not merely to analyze the most
common oral reading miscues committed by grade seven students who are
considered less proficient readers, but it will also explore the relationship
between the oral reading miscues and their reading comprehension ability.

3. 3
II. RELATED LITERATURE
Reading is a complex process that involves sensation, perception,
comprehension, application, and integration (Estremera & Estremera, 2018).
Arisandi & Wachyudi (2018) regard reading as one of psycholinguistics process
because of the use of language. There is a process in comprehending a written
language. The process involves two points, thought and language. Essberger
(2019) says reading is interpreting written symbols. When we read, our eyes
receive written symbols (letters, punctuation marks, and spaces), and our
brains convert them into words, sentences, and paragraphs. We can read
silently or aloud (so that other people can hear). It is commonly suggested that
miscue is used to measure text reading comprehension (Huang, 2018).
Based on the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory Manual 2018 the
following are the types of reading miscues: (a) mispronunciations, (b)
insertions, (c) repetitions, (d) omissions, (e) substitutions, (f) transpositions, (g)
reversals and (h) reversals (Department of Education, 2018). Correspondingly,
Arisandi & Wachyudi (2018) discover that mispronunciation, insertion,
omission, calls for help, hesitation, repetition, and self-correction are common
among students who study English as a second language. Nonetheless, they
argue that these miscues, especially mispronunciation, are not influenced by
their linguistic background. Reading aloud can make learners have good
pronunciation. It means that their dialect can be corrected while they are
reading aloud.

4. 4
Miscue analysis is a technique of identifying reading problems by having
the readers read text aloud, recording the reader while reading, and then
documenting and analyzing miscues from the text. It means that listeners or
teachers can encourage readers difficulties in sounding written language. The
goal of miscue is “to determine primarily the degree of comprehension that a
student demonstrates since the goal of reading is, above all, the ability to
extract meaning from a passage” (Kinasih, 2022).
Similarly, Laily (2019) states that classroom miscue analysis on
language enables teachers to systematically examine learners’ oral reading
strengths and weaknesses in a focused and manageable way. Informed
insights can be of assistance to teachers for making decisions about what to
teach learners, for instance grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and reading
strategies. Also, Lynch (2021) states that miscue analysis helps students better
understand the reading process and become more confident readers. Students
are made aware of the many strategies and thinking processes that occur when
reading. By increasing their awareness, they can monitor their own
comprehension while reading and become proficient readers. In same article,
Lynch state that experts suggest that teachers perform a miscue analysis every
6 to 8 weeks. This is done to monitor any progress made by the student during
their reading development journey. Understanding the miscues and progress
made by the student will help when deciding how your lessons should look in
the future.

5. 5
Furthermore, Casaljay & Malabarbas (2022) stress that identifying
mistakes in students' oral reading performance is done to correct problems
quickly. Oral Reading Errors refer to the mistakes made by students while
learning to read orally. Casaljay & Malabarbas add that oral reading errors can
change the meaning of sentences. Mispronunciation affects grammar. Miscued
words are often content or function words. Meaningful content terms. Miscues
occur in oral reading when a reader reads a text in a manner that the listener
would not anticipate (Mahmud & Gopal, 2018).
On the relationship between oral reading miscues and reading
comprehension, Shen et al. (2020) investigate types of oral reading miscues
and their relationship with silent reading comprehension among college-level
Chinese (L2) learners. Their study reveals that students from different learning
levels used four miscue categories when orally reading grade-appropriate
material: orthographic, syntactic, semantic, and word-knowledge-based. Aside
from syntactic cues, the other three categories are negatively correlated with
silent reading comprehension. This suggests that oral reading practice and
analysis of oral reading miscues are necessary pedagogical measures for
training students to be better readers at all learning levels. Shen et al. (2020)
then recommend that part from analyzing students’ oral reading miscues,
teachers also may direct students to do self-analysis of their own oral reading
miscues to increase their consciousness of their own reading processes.

6. 6
Having students record their own oral reading and conduct self or peer analysis
of their miscues should be a component of regular reading instruction.
In a related study, Canoy & Loquias (2022) discover that any students
with reading difficulties or disabilities are also likely to continue to struggle with
word recognition. Students who struggle with reading can exhibit a variety of
distinct patterns of performance that contribute to their poor reading
comprehension and represent variation in performance on word identification,
phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, and rate of reading.
In terms of oral reading fluency, Rath (2018) says that researchers have
deduced that once fluency achievement increases, reading achievement
should increase, particularly in comprehension. Martins & Capellini (2019) oral
reading rate is related to reading comprehension; however, the number of
pauses showed no significant differences between reading comprehension for
most grade level analyzed.
In contrast, Casaljay & Malabarbas (2022) conclude that oral reading
fluency is not required to understand literature texts, so their oral reading
miscues are not the direct cause of their low grades. Results also disclose that
oral reading miscues committed by the students have no significant impact on
their overall academic performance in English, but differences in learners'
learning styles do. Researchers recommend English teachers provide intensive
oral and silent reading exercises in the classroom to improve academic
performance in Oral Communication and 21st Century Literature.

7. 7
III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This present study seeks to determine the relationship between the most
common oral reading miscues committed by Grade 7 non-proficient readers and
their reading comprehension level.
Specifically, this research aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the most common types of oral reading miscues that Grade 7 less
proficient readers make?
2. What is the respondents’ level of reading comprehension?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ oral reading
miscues and their reading comprehension level?
Hypothesis
Hₒ - There is no significant relationship between the Grade 7 less proficient
readers’ oral reading miscues and their reading comprehension level.
IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
This study aims to analyze the most common oral reading miscues of Grade
7 less proficient readers and their relationship to the respondents’ reading
comprehension level. This study will focus on grade 7 less proficient readers
enrolled in one of the schools of Claveria West District for the school year 2022-
2023. Less proficient readers are those identified as Frustration and Instructional
readers from Phil-IRI Pre-Test results conducted last October 2022. The findings
and implications will be interpreted through the study’s limitations, which will be
derived from the sample.

8. 8
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study will make use of the Descriptive-Correlation Design to determine
the most common oral reading miscues committed by 48 Grade 7 less
proficient readers as well as their reading comprehension level. Also, this study
will explore the correlation between these variables.
a. Sampling
This study will employ non-probability sampling through the purposive
technique wherein sample size will be drawn from the results of the Phil-IRI Pre-Test
conducted last October 2022. There were 48 Grade 7 learners who were identified as
instructional and frustration readers from the test. In this study, these learners will be
identified as less-proficient readers.
b. Data Collection
Data will be collected from 48 identified Grade 7 less-proficient readers
(Instructional and frustration) enrolled in one of the schools in Claveria West
District during the School Year 2022-2023.
The identified 48 students was identified from the Phil-IRI Pre-test
results. To record the common oral reading miscues, the researcher will be
utilizing the oral reading test results from the Phil-IRI post-test to be conducted
at the end of this school year. The passages that will be used for the post-test
will be from Phil-IRI Manual 2018 and will include 5-7 comprehension questions
which will be the basis to determine their reading comprehension level. The
researcher will use the predetermined set of criteria in identifying the reading

9. 9
comprehension level through the percentage of correct answers to
comprehension questions.
c. Statistical Treatment
For question number 1, the frequency count and percentage was used
to record the most common oral reading miscues that the respondents will
make during the oral reading post-test.
For question number 2, the scores of the respondents from the
comprehension questions were recorded into percentage and served as the
basis for their reading comprehension level. The reading comprehension level
shall be measured as follows: 80-100%(Independent), 59-79%(Instructional)
and 58% and below (Frustration) based on their correct answers (DepEd,
2018).
For question number 3, Pearson Product Moment Correlation (Pearson
r) determine whether the committed oral reading miscues have significant
relationship with their reading comprehension level.
All the inferential statistics were at a 0.05 level of significance.

10. 10
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION
This part presents the data gathered among 48 respondents. The discussions
of the results of this study are arranged in the same order as they are presented
in the statement of the problem.
1. What are the most common types of oral reading miscues that Grade 7
less proficient readers make?
Table 1
Distribution of the Most Common Oral Reading Miscues
Committed by the Respondents
Miscue Number of committed
Miscues
Percentage
Mispronunciation 215 38.81
Omission 91 16.43
Insertion 6 1.08
Substitution 132 23.83
Repetition 104 18.77
Transposition 5 0.90
Reversal 1 0.18
Total 554 100.00
Table 1 presents the distribution of the most common oral reading
miscues committed by the less-proficient readers in Grade 7.
It can be gleaned from the data shown above that the respondents
commonly committed Mispronunciation (38.81%) and Substitution (23.83%).
The data also shows that less proficient readers often commit Repetition
(18.77%) and omission (16.43%) in oral reading. This result is similar to the

11. 11
findings of the study of Arisandi & Wachyudi (2018) in which the highest
frequency of miscue is mispronunciation with 63 frequencies out of 106 total
miscue frequencies. They found two reasons of mispronunciation, words are
unfamiliar, and the linguistic background of the participants are different from
the foreign language, English.
The data also shows that Insertion (1.08%), Transposition (0.90%), and
Reversal (0.18%) are the less common oral reading miscues committed by less
proficient grade 7 readers.
2. What is the respondents’ level of reading comprehension?
Table 2
Distribution of the Reading Comprehension Level of the
Respondents
Reading Level Frequency Percentage
Independent 14 29.2
Instructional 30 62.5
Frustration 4 8.3
Total 48 100
Legend: Frustration Level – Students scored 0-4 out of 7 items
Instructional Level – Students scored 5 out of 7 items
Independent Level - Students scored 6-7 out of 7 items
(DepEd, 2018 p. 21)
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of the respondents’ level of reading
comprehension. It can be gleaned from the table that the highest frequency of
30 (62.5%) students’ reading comprehension level was instructional. This
means that majority of the respondents scored 5 out of 7 items in the

12. 12
comprehension test conducted. These are the students who belong to the level
at which they profit the most from teacher-directed instruction in reading,
especially in activation of word meaning, understanding the sentences,
inference, control of comprehension, and understanding the text structure as
well as selecting the materials based on their reading speed and capacity.
It can also be noticed from the table that 14 students (29.2%) belonged
to independent level. These students scored 6-7 out of 7 items during the Phil-
IRI oral reading posttest. These students improved to become readers with
excellent comprehension.
As also noticed in the results, the lowest frequency of 4 (8.3%) students
has a reading comprehension level at frustration level. These are the students
who scored 0-4 out of 7 items in the comprehension test. This implies that these
students continue to be in the level at which they find reading materials tricky
that they cannot successfully respond to them. Tomas, Villaros & Galman
(2021) revealed in their study that that the perceived causes, origins and
attendant variables of the students’ poor reading level were non-mastery of the
elements of reading, presence of learners-at-risk, and no culture of reading.
According to Aquino and De Vera (2018), when one’s reading is not fluent or a
regular habit, then the development of one’s vocabulary is also retarded. During
reading, students continually process words to create meaning; and without a
strong vocabulary, students struggle to understand what they read.

13. 13
3. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ oral
reading miscues and their reading comprehension level?
Table 3
Correlates Matrix of the Respondents’ Committed Common Oral
Reading Miscues and Their Reading Comprehension Level
Variables r-value p-value Remarks
Reading
Comprehension
Level
Mispronunciation -.357 .013 significant
Omission -.298 .039 significant
Insertion -.298 .039 significant
Substitution -.333 .020 significant
Repetition -.109 .460 significant
Transposition .107 .469
not
significant
Reversal .012 .936
not
significant
Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (p<.05)
Table 3 presents the correlation between the respondents’ reading
comprehension level and the miscues they committed in oral reading.
The table reveals a negative correlation between the respondents’
reading comprehension level with the miscues Mispronunciation (r=-.298,
p=.013), Omission (r=-.298, p=.039), Insertion (r=-.298, p=.039), Substitution
(r=-.333, p=.020), and Repetition (r=-.109, p=.460) and that these miscues
have significant relationships with the reading comprehension skills of the

14. 14
learners. Since the correlation is negative, it is safe to state that the higher the
production of these oral miscues the lower the reading comprehension ability
of the learners become in the same manner that the lesser the production of
these oral miscues the higher the comprehension of grade 7 learners become.
When a reader makes miscues, such as substituting one word for
another or skipping words, they may misinterpret the text. This can lead to
confusion about the storyline, characters, or key ideas, ultimately hindering
comprehension. Miscues can disrupt the flow of the text, making it challenging
to maintain the context of the story or the argument being presented. Readers
may lose track of the plot, character development, or the logical progression of
ideas. If readers consistently make miscues by replacing words with simpler or
incorrect alternatives, their vocabulary development may suffer. This can limit
their ability to understand more complex texts in the future. Readers who
frequently make miscues may become discouraged or lose confidence in their
reading abilities. This emotional factor can further hinder comprehension as it
may lead to disinterest in reading or avoidance of challenging texts.
The results also reveal that the miscues Transposition (r=.107, p=.469)
and Reversal (r=.012, p=.936) have no significant relationship with the students
reading comprehension level. This means that these miscues have no bearing
to the level of reading comprehension of students.

15. 15
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, the following are concluded:
1. Mispronunciation, Omission, Substitution, and Repetition are the
most common oral reading miscues that grade 7 less proficient
readers commit.
2. Mispronunciation, Omission, Substitution, and Repetition have
significant relationships with the reading comprehension level of the
learners.
3. In formal assessments of reading comprehension, readers who
make frequent miscues are likely to score lower than those who read
fluently and accurately.
4. Some miscues may be a natural part of the reading process,
especially when readers are engaging with challenging or unfamiliar
texts. However, consistent and disruptive miscues can certainly
impede a reader's overall understanding of a text.

16. 16
Recommendations
To lessen the production of oral reading miscues and improve reading
comprehension among learners, the researcher recommends the following
approaches:
1. Assessment and Diagnosis:
 Conduct regular assessments to identify students who are struggling
with reading comprehension and producing oral reading miscues.
 Use diagnostic tools to pinpoint the specific areas where students
are having difficulty, such as decoding, vocabulary, or
comprehension skills.
2. Effective Reading Instruction:
 Provide explicit and systematic phonics instruction to help students
develop strong decoding skills.
 Implement a balanced literacy approach that includes guided
reading, shared reading, and independent reading to expose
students to a variety of texts and reading experiences.
3. Individualized Instruction:
 Tailor instruction to meet the specific needs of each student.
Differentiate instruction based on reading levels and individual
challenges.
 Provide targeted support for English language learners and students
with special needs.

17. 17
4. Regular Fluency Practice:
 Incorporate regular fluency practice sessions where students read
aloud to improve their oral reading skills.
 Use tools like timed readings, repeated readings, and audio
recordings for self-assessment.
5. Vocabulary Development:
 Teach vocabulary explicitly and encourage students to use context
clues and word analysis skills to decipher unfamiliar words.
 Promote a culture of word exploration, where students are curious
about words and their meanings.
6. Comprehension Strategies:
 Teach a range of comprehension strategies, such as predicting,
summarizing, questioning, and making connections.
 Model and practice these strategies with students using both fiction
and nonfiction texts.
7. Home-School Connection:
 Encourage parents and guardians to read with their children at home
and engage in discussions about books.
8. Assessment and Progress Monitoring:
 Continuously assess and monitor students' reading progress to
adjust instruction and interventions accordingly.

18. 18
 Use formative assessments to gather data and make informed
instructional decisions.
9. Reading Enrichment Programs:
 Consider offering reading enrichment programs or clubs to motivate
and engage students in reading beyond the classroom.
VII. DISSEMINATION AND ADVOCACY
The research results will be cascaded to the internal and external stakeholders
of the school during the School Parent-Teacher Association Meeting, district, and
division research conferences. These channels will be utilized to share reflections
about the current research results and recommend future actions beneficial to
students, teachers, parents, and school administrators. This present study also
ensures that the research findings will be used to prompt creative decision making
and innovative teaching-strategies to improve and even solve reading problems
among learners.
VIII. UTILIZATION PLANS
The findings of this study will be open for access as bases to solve existing
problems in reading. School administrators and teachers are encouraged to adopt
the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the study that can provide
sufficient knowledge on the content focus.

19. 19
IX. REFERENCES
Alonzo, C. & Angedan, L.V. (2023). Improving Oral Reading Skills of Grade 7
Humility Poor Readers of DFLOMNHS Through Miscue Analysis.
Amburayan Research Journal. 1 (1): 61-67
Aquino, M. & De Vera, P. (2018). Development of Learning Material for Grade 7
Struggling Readers. TESOL International Journal. p. 23-40
Arisandi, V. & Wachyudi, K. (2018). Miscue Analysis in Reading Aloud By
Indonesian English Foreign Learner. ELTIN Journal: Journal of English
Language Teaching in Indonesia. 5(1):17-25.
Canoy, D & Loquias, A (2022). Identifying Reading Miscues and Reading
Performance in the Oral Reading Verification Test in English: Basis for an
Intensive Reading Program. Al-Kindi Centre for Research and
Development, London, United Kingdom.DOI: 10.32996/ijels.2022.4.4.6
Casaljay, M.J. & Malabarbas, G. (2022). Oral Reading Miscues among Grade
11 Students in a Technical-Vocational High School. International Journal of
Social Science and Education Research Studies, 2(7), 272-280.
Department of Education (2018). DepEd Order No. 14, S. 2018 – Policy
Guidelines on The Administration of The Revised Philippine Informal
Reading Inventory.
Department of Education (2019). DepEd Memorandum No. 173, s. 2019 Hamon:
Bawat Bata Bumabasa (3Bs Initiative).
Department of Education (2022). Division Memorandum No. 531, s. 2022.
Administration of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) and
Utilization of Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and Early Grade
Math Assessment (EGMA) Tool Pretest. Division of Misamis Oriental.
Essberger, J. (2019). What is reading? English
Club.https://www.englishclub.com/reading/what.htm
Estremera, M. L., & Estremera, G. L. (2018). Factors Affecting the Reading
Comprehension of Grade Six Pupils in the City Division of Sorsogon,
Philippines as Basis for the Development of Instructional Material. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, Arts,and Sciences, 5(3), 72-78
Huang, C., F. (2018). Investigation of reading obstacles and progress: a case
study of a less proficient efl learner in Taiwan, International Academic
Research Conference,1-65.

20. 20
Kinasih, M., J. (2022). An analysis of teacher’s feedback toward students‟
miscue in oral reading: a case study. Atma Jaya Catholic University.
Laily, R. (2019). The Analysis on Students’ Difficulties in Doing Reading
Comprehension Final Test. Metathesis: Journal of English Language,
Literature, and Teaching, 2(2), 253.
Lynch, M. (2021). Miscue Analysis for Diagnosing Reading Difficulties – The
Advocate. In Miscue Analysis for Diagnosing Reading Difficulties - The
Advocate.
Mahmud, C. & Gopal, R. (2018). Miscue analysis: A glimpse into the reading
process. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 12-24.
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i1.9927
Martins, M.A. & Capellini, S.A. (2019). Relation between oral reading fluency and
reading comprehension. Codas. Feb 25;31(1):e20170244. Portuguese,
English. doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20182018244. PMID: 30810631.
National Reading Panel (2019). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions. National
Institute of Child and Human Development. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org
Pillai, A.D.R. & Paramasivan, S. (2021). Miscue Analysis of Oral Reading Among
Non-Proficient Malaysian ESL Learners. Journal of English Language and
Literature. 2 (2): 179-185.
Rath, I. (2018). How Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension
Intertwined. Dissertations, Theses, and Projects. 63.
https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/63
Shen, H., Zhou, Y., & Gao, G. (2020). Oral Reading Miscues and Reading
Comprehension by Chinese L2 Learners. Reading in a Foreign Language.
32 (2): 142-168.
Tomas, M. , Villaros, E. and Galman, S. (2021) The Perceived Challenges in
Reading of Learners: Basis for School Reading Programs. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 9, 107-122. doi: 10.4236/jss.2021.95009.
Watson, S. (2019). Miscue analysis for diagnosing reading skills. ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/miscue-analysis-for-diagnosing-reading-
difficulties-3111062

21. 21
X. FINANCIAL REPORT
Proposal (1st
Phase)
Activities/Strategies Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Crafting of Research
Proposal
Internet Service 1 unit 200.00 200.00
Bond-Paper (Short) 50 pcs. 1.00 50.00
Full-blown (2nd
Phase)
Activities/Strategies Item Quantity Unit Price Total Price
Crafting of Full-blown
Research
Internet Service 1 unit 200.00 200.00
Bond-Paper (Short) 50 pcs. 1.00 50.00
TOTAL EXPENSES 500.00