ACTION RESEARCH IN READING

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
Region X
DIVISION OF BUKIDNON
KAPALARAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
An Action Research in Reading
by:
MARIA VICTORIA B. TAKIANG
Master Teacher I
IMELDA R. BILLIONES
ESHT- I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ……………………………………………………. 1
II. Problem Identification and Analysis …………………………… 2
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………. 3
Formulating Hypothesis …..…………………………………..... 3
III. Generation of Alternative Solutions …………………………… 4
IV. Plan of Action ……………………………………………………. 5
Objective …………………………………………………………. 5
Time Frame ……………………………………………………… 5
Target Subjects …………………………………………………. 5
Activities Undertaken …………………………………………… 5
Evaluation Criteria ………………………………………………. 7
V. Presentation and Interpretation of Results ……………….. 8
Phil.IRI Oral Reading Test Results (Pre-test) ………………… 8
Common Reading Miscues of Grade II……………………….. 9
Progress Oral Reading Test Results …………………………… 11
Reading Difficulties ………………………………………………. 12
Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test (Post-test) ………………………… 13
Results of the t-test of Difference Between the Mean Pre-test
And Post-test Scores in Word Recognition……………………. 14
VI. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ……………… 15
VII. Appendices………………………………………………………. 18

IMPROVING THE READING SKILLS OF SLOW READERS
IN GRADE II OF KAPALARAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
THROUGH PHONICS APPROACH
I. Introduction
Reading is a uniquely human activity characterized by the translation of symbols,
or letters into words and sentences that communicate information and mean something to
the reader.
Reading is the key to skillful learning and better living. The learners who read
well develop better understanding and effective adjustment towards life’s situations.
When the learners understand what they read they could identify, classify, build,
organize, synthesize, make adjustments and arrived at proper decisions.
Reading therefore is one of the potent areas where the learners must be placed
under and where an appropriate design may be addressed or utilized to assure the learners
to learn effectively the basic skills in reading.
Poor reading performance is one of the various problems that a teacher
encountered as she teaches. While such problems could be attributed to some causes such
as social, economic, environmental or psychological factors. It is then a vital task of all
concerned especially the teachers to improve the quality of instruction to help the slow
readers and readers at-risks acquire the basic knowledge and skills in reading which
could be utilized as avenues to undertake other subject areas prescribed in the curriculum.
The quality of education acquired by the pupils depend largely upon the pupil s’ know
how to read and interpret printed materials adequately; and without such abilities they are

barred practically from learning effectively and meaningfully to the other subjects in the
curriculum.
Remedial reading measures would then be expected if the pupils could not come
up with their expected performance. This is one way of knowing and meeting the needs
of pupils. It is through remedial teaching which will help the pupils in achieving better
reading skills and comprehension. When pupils are given assistance, encouragement and
challenges that one intends to improve performance, they will be inspired to study that
would enable them to perform better than they ordinarily do.
II. Problem Identification & Analysis
As a result of the Phil. IRI Pre-Test conducted, it is found out that 24 out of 36 or
67% of the pupils are slow readers and having difficulties in recognizing words; while
three ( 12 ) or 33% are found at-risks and having difficulties in sounding out syllables.
Thus, they belong to the frustration level in word recognition, much more in
comprehension. These pupils are the low performing and achieving pupils in any of the
tests given.
Several factors may have contributed to these reading difficulties. One factor for
most pupils is that basic skills in reading have not been fully developed or mastered. It is
for this reason that the researcher conducted an action research to find some teaching
strategies that will improve the oral reading abilities of slow readers and readers-at-risk in
Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School using the phonics approach.

Statement of the Problem
This action research aimed to improve the reading abilities of slow readers and
readers-at-risk in Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School for the school year 2015-
2016 through phonics approach. This will provide the necessary remedial measures to
correct and improve the reading potentials of these pupils.
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. How can I improve the reading abilities of my slow readers and readers-at-risk
pupils relative to the identified reading difficulties?
2. What is the recognition level of each group of pupils after the phonics
approach is used?
3. What is the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in
word recognition of the pupils?
Generation of Alternative Solutions
This action research attempted to use the phonics approach to improve the reading
abilities of slow readers and readers-at-risk in Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School
for the school year 2015-2016.
In the Phonics Approach to reading word recognition is taught by using the
grapheme-phoneme association method. A grapheme is the written letter (what you see
on paper). A phoneme is the sound that the letter represents (what you hear). Learners
are taught the vowels, consonants and blends. They are then taught to combine the
sounds and blend them into words. In this way the learner read unfamiliar words by using

the association of speech sounds with certain letters or groups of letters. The early
introduction of a phonics program as part of an overall reading approach has become an
almost universal practice in the teaching of reading. The phonics approach can be added
to a basal reading approach as well as the language experience approach as soon as
learners have mastered a basic sight vocabulary of about 50 – 100 words.
There are two phonics methods used in this study – the synthetic and the
analytical method depending upon the identified reading difficulties of the pupils. Using
the synthetic method the sounds are taught in isolation, they learn that the letter
represents a certain sound, e.g. b = buh, and must then learn to blend the sounds to form
words or, in other words, synthesize. The analytical method, on the other hand, teaches
the sound as part of a word, e.g. b as in bat. The learners learn the new words as the
phonic elements are introduced to them. Using this approach pupils were able to read
independently.

III. Plan of Action
A. Objective:
 To improve the reading abilities of the pupils and reduce the
percentage slow readers and readers-at-risk in Grade II using the
phonics approach.
B. Time Frame
 This action research was conducted for two quarters during the
school year 2015-2016. The intervention/remedial reading program
conducted daily @ 12:30 to 1:00 pm.
C. Target Subjects
 The subjects of this action research were the slow readers and
readers-at-risk in Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School for
S.Y. 2015-2016.
D. Activities Undertaken
With the foregoing stated problems on the reading abilities of slow readers
and readers-at-risk in Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School, the following
plan of actions were formulated to improve reading capabilities:
1. Strengthened the remedial reading program design – using the phonics
approach to correct and improve the reading skills of slow readers and
readers-at-risk.
2. Clustering of slow readers with common errors while reading for
intensive remedial teaching.

3. Conducted oral reading test after each component in the reading
program.
4. Results of the oral reading test were evaluated as guide in carrying out
the necessary remedial measures to improve reading skills.
5. Reading corner was made attractive and more functional.
6. Used multi-media for more comprehensive lessons in phonics.
7. Involved parents to make follow-ups of their children’s homework.
Time Table
The following dates with their corresponding activities were followed
during the implementation of the remedial reading program.
ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME
1. Conference with the School Head and School
English Coordinator about the research
August 1, 2015
2. Meeting with the parents concern August 3, 2015
3. Preparation of instructional materials August 6-13, 2015
4. Remedial reading to slow readers and readers-
at-risk in Grade II
August 22, 2015 to
February 8, 2016
ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME

5. Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test by the School
Coordinator in English
 Pre-Test
 Final Test
August 14, 2015
January 8, 2016
6. Oral Reading Test by the researcher
 Progress Test November 20, 2015
7. Final Oral Reading Test by Master Teacher of
the school
February 8, 2016
E. Evaluation
 By the end of March 2016 at least 75% of the slow readers could
have read words at their grade level with fluency, and the readers-
at-risk to become readers, as well.
F. Research Design
This action research relied chiefly on the results of the different oral reading tests
(recognition level) conducted during the period of the program. The descriptive
method of research was used in the study to find out the reading performance of
the pupils. The data gathered were tabulated, evaluated and analyzed using
percentages to identify the reading levels of the pupils.

IV. Presentation and Interpretation of Results
The following were the findings revealed in the implementation of the
action research. Thirty-three (36) pupils in Grade II belonging to the frustration
level of recognition were covered by the study. They were grouped as a. slow
readers, b. syllable readers, and c. readers-at-risk. Five tables on oral reading tests
were presented, evaluated, analysed and interpreted: 1. Phil. IRI Pre-Test, 2.
Common Reading Miscues, 3. Progress Test, 4. Phil. IRI Post Test, and 5. Table
of Reading Difficulties. They were all conducted in different schedule by the
school coordinator in Reading, the Master Teacher of the school and the remedial
reading teacher.
1. Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test (Pre-Test)
Table 1 show that there were 39 Grade II pupils tested in word
recognition during the pre-test. Nobody is independent; three (3) or 8% fall
under instructional level, while thirty-six (36) or 92% belong to frustration
level in word recognition. The table further reveals that recognition level of
the Grade II pupils ranged from at-risk to instructional readers.
Among the pupils under frustration level in word recognition,
twelve(12) or 33% are slow, twelve (12) or 33% read by syllable, while three
(12) or 33% are readers-at-risk.

Table 1
Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test Results
(Pretest)
WORD RECOGNITION LEVEL No. %
Independent 0 0%
Instructional 3 8%
Frustration 36 92%
 Slow 12 33%
 Syllable 12 33%
 At-risk 12 33%
TOTAL 39 100%
The above data revealed that 92% of these pupils need thorough assistance and
remediation to improve their reading capabilities and skills, and develop reasonable self-
confidence. They were the main subject of the study.
2. Common Reading Miscues of Grade II Under Frustration Level of Word
Recognition
Different types of miscues in word recognition were also identified
in order to group the pupils under frustration level, specifically, the slow and
syllable readers with common errors for intensive remedial teaching. Their
common miscues were mispronunciation, substitution, reversal, insertion,
omission and refusal to pronounce within 3 seconds.
Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of slow and syllable
readers based on their common miscues.

Table 2
Common Miscues Among Slow Readers
and Syllable Readers in Grade II
COMMON MISCUES No. of Pupils %
Mispronunciation 24 100%
Substitution 23 96%
Omission 6 25%
Refusal to read over 3 seconds 7 29%
Insertion 7 29%
Reversal
6 25%
The above table shows that mispronunciation is the most common miscue of all (100%)
the slow readers and syllable readers in Grade II. Majority of them make substitution
(96%), while seven (7) or 29% of them are making insertions and refuse to read over 3
seconds. The least (25%) are making reversals and omissions.
3. Progress Oral Reading Test (Pupils Under Frustration Level in Word
Recognition)
Based on the progress test conducted by the researcher, a little
improvement in the number of pupils belonging to frustration level took place
compared to the initial test results which is 33 or 63% to 23 or 44% as shown
in Table 3. This means that effective remedial reading program is built for
intensive administration of reading instruction regularly so that reading
difficulties will be corrected.

Table 3
Progress Oral Reading Test Results in Grade II
RECOGNITION
LEVEL
Pre-test Progress Test Change
No. % No. % No.
Independent 0 0%
Instructional 3 8%
Frustration 36 92%
 Slow
12 33%
 Syllable
12 33%
 At-risk
12 33%
TOTAL 39 100% 39 100%
The above table shows that considerable progress of the pupil’s reading skills particularly
the pupils under the frustration level of recognition which is 23 or 44% compared to 33 or
63% last August 2012.
4. Reading Difficulties
Table 4
Number of Slow Readers Across Various Reading Miscues
As They Diminished Over the Given Period
READING
MISCUES
NO. OF PUPILS
AUGUST NOVEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY
Mispronunciation 24 22 20 19
Substitution 23 20 19 18

Omission 6 5 4 4
Refusal to read
over 3 seconds
7 6 5 4
Insertion 7 5 3 2
Reversal 6 5 4 3
The table indicates the number of pupils belonging to frustration
level of word recognition affected by the identified reading difficulties of the four
months of testing. It could be gleaned from this data that the number of pupils
affected, are reduced in every testing period. This result was made possible
through the remedial measures employed during the full implementation of the
program.
Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test (Post Test)
The final Phil. IRI oral reading test conducted by the school coordinator in
English and the Master Teacher of the school shows the final decreased of
pupils under frustration level of word recognition from 36 or 92% to 25 or
64% as of February 5, 2016. Table 5 shows the Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test
(Word Recognition) pre-test and post test results.
Table 5
Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test Results in Grade II
(Pre - test and Post - test)
WORD
RECOGNITION
LEVEL
Pre –Test Post Test
No. % No. %
Independent 0 0% 3 8%

Instructional 3 8% 11 28%
Frustration 36 92% 25 64%
 Slow 12 33.3% 15 60%
 Syllable 12 33.3% 10 40%
 At-risk 12 33.3% 0 0%
TOTAL
39 100% 39 100%
The table reveals that out of 25 pupils under frustration level of word
recognition 15 or 60% are slow readers; 10 or 40% are syllable readers, while
there is no more at-risk.
Further, it shows that 11 slow readers went to the next higher level of
recognition while 12 readers-at risk became slow and syllable readers.
This implies that the pupils improved significantly in word recognition
after using the intervention program in reading using the phonics approach.
V. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
The main concern of this study was to improve the reading abilities of
slow readers and readers at-risk in Grade II of Kapalaran Elementary School for
the school year 2015-2016 through phonics approach.
Specifically, it tried to answer the following questions:
1. What are the strategies done to help the slow readers and readers-at-risk
relative to the identified reading difficulties?

2. What is the recognition level of each group of pupils after the phonics
approach is used?
3. Is there any significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in
word recognition of the pupils?
Objective
 To improve the reading abilities of the pupils and reduce the
percentage slow readers and readers-at-risk in Grade II using the
phonics approach.
Time Frame
 This action research was conducted for two quarters during the
school year 2015-2016. The intervention/remedial reading program
was conducted daily @ 12:30 to 1:00 pm.
This action research relied chiefly on the results of the different oral
reading tests (recognition level) conducted during the period of the program. The
descriptive method of research was used in the study to find out the reading
performance of the pupils. The data gathered were tabulated, evaluated and
analyzed using percentages to identify the reading levels of the pupils.
Conclusions
On the basis of findings obtained through the analysis of data gathered, the
following conclusions were arrived at:

1. There was significant improvement in reading abilities of slow readers and
readers at-risk in Grade II.
2. Phonics approach in reading is effective in improving the abilities of slow
readers and readers at-risk in word recognition.
3. There were reading difficulties which were prevalent among pupils at the
start of the study.
4. Continuous evaluation of pupil’s performance enable the teachers apply
varied remediation techniques to help pupils improve their abilities
especially in reading.
5. Daily remedial instruction and proper guidance make pupils feel that they
are important. It also builds proper attitudes and provides them desirable
experiences that make learning meaningful.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions made, the following
recommendations are suggested:
1. Since phonics approach in reading had been found effective in teaching
reading, teachers are encouraged to use this method in remedial reading
instructions.
2. Pupils should be grouped according to their abilities and level of
difficulties to facilitate assessment and evaluation of pupils’ reading
abilities.

3. Activities of pupils with reading difficulties must be followed up and
intensified at home and in the next grade level based on their identified
reading abilities and difficulties
References
A. Books
Miranda, Benita N. 2008. English For You And Me (Reading) 4
NPSBE. Book Wise Publishing House, Inc.
Punsalan, Twila G. and Gabriel G. Uriarte. 1997. Statistics, A
Simplified Approach. Rex Printing Company, Inc.
Villamin, Araceli M. and Villamin, Chita R. 2005. Remedial Reading.
A Handbook for Teachers and Students.Phoenix Publishing
House.
B. Unpublished Materials
Effective Reading Intervention Programs | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/about_5426892_effective-reading-intervention-
programs.html#ixzz1bkKMWMnZ

LIST OF GRADE TWO PUPILS
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
S.Y.2015-2016
(Phil. IRI Pre-Test Result)
NAMES
WORD RECOGNITION LEVEL
FRUSTRATION
SLOW
SYLLABLE AT-RISK
1. ANTIGA, JOSHUA BENTO /
2. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN UNSAY /
3. BENTO, JHON RAFAEL /
4. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME /
5. DAYATA, JHON MARK CASANES /
6. DENTA, REY MARK SASAN /
7. ERENIO, ROBERT LUCERO /
8. ERENIO, RUSHEL JAY ENTIA /
9. FAJARDO, JULIMAR ALINABON /
10. FLORES, CYREL VILLASES /
11. JARIOLNE, JIMSON SASAN /
12. JARIOLNE, MARCELO BINATLAO /
13. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK ABABON /
14. MILLAN, AGA GABAYA /
15. PIQUERO, AJ CORDOVA /
16. SALIOT, ANGELOU SINADJAN /
17. SASAN, CRIS LOYD BACLAYON /
18. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO /
19. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY SASAN /
20. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR. /
21. VILLAMOR, JEROME SEDEÑO /
22. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN /
23. ANSIN, JEE ANN BRIGOLE /
24. BALONQUIT, NENIAN OHAYAS /
25. CORDOVA, SOL TAGALOG /
26. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE AMPODE /
27. DAYATA, ABBY GEL SALDUA /
28. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN PULAO /
29. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE /
30. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY RECTO /
31. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE GILLES /
32. OMANDAC, JICEL ESPANIOL /
33. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL /
34. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY CUSTODIO /
35. ROCAMORA, MIFEL /
36. SACOTE, LEA MAE SUERTE /
TOTAL 12 12 12

S.Y.2015-2016
(Phil.IRI Pre-Test Result)
SLOW SYLLABLE AT-RISK
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD
4. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO
5. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN
MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE
9. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY
10. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE
12. SACOTE, LEA MAE SUERTE
1. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN
2. DAYATA, JHON MARK
3. FLORES, CYREL VILLASES
4. JARIOLNE, JIMSON SASAN
5. PIQUERO, AJ CORDOVA
6. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR.
7. ANSIN, JEE ANN BRIGOLE
8. BALONQUIT, NENIAN
9. CORDOVA, SOL TAGALOG
10. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E.
11. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY
12. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S.
1. ANTIGA, JOSHUA
2. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL
3. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
4. MILLAN, AGA GABAYA
5. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
6. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY
7. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
8. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
9. DENTA, REY MARK
10. ERENIO, ROBERT
11. ERENIO, RUSHEL JAY
12. JARIOLNE, MARCELO
Note: The Following were the basis in categorizing the pupil’s recognition
level:
INDEPENDENT: 97 – 100%
INSTRUCTIONAL: 90 – 96%
FRUSTRATION: 89% and Below
 Slow: 70 – 89%
 Syllable: 11 – 69%
 At-Risk: 0 – 10%

S.Y.2015-2016
(Phil.IRI Post-Test Result)
SLOW SYLLABLE AT-RISK
2. DAYATA, ABBY GEL
3. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN
4. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY
5. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE
7. FLORES, CYREL V.
8. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S.
9. PIQUERO, AJ C.
11. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O.
12. CORDOVA, SOL T.
13. MILLAN, AGA G.
15. DENTA, REY MARK S.
1. JARIOLNE, MARCELO
2. ERENIO, ROBERT
3. ERENIO, RUSHEL
6. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
8. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL
9. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
10. ANSIN, JEE ANN
Note: The Following were the basis in categorizing the pupil’s recognition level:
INDEPENDENT: 97 – 100%
INSTRUCTIONAL: 90 – 96%
FRUSTRATION: 89% and Below
 Slow: 70 – 89%
 Syllable: 11 – 69%
 At-Risk: 0 – 10%

COMMON MISCUES OF GRADE TWO PUPILS
(Phil. IRI Pre-Test)
NAMES
COMMON MISCUES
MISPRONUN
CIATION
SUBSTITU
TION
REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL
TO READ
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A.   
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A.   
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B.   
4. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO   
5. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN   
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A.   
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S.   
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P.  
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE  
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY R.   
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE G.   
12. SACOTE, LEA MAE S.   
13. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S.   
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U.   
15. DAYATA, JHON MARK   
16. FLORES, CYREL V.   
17. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S.    
18. PIQUERO, AJ C.   
19. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR.   
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B.    
21. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O.   
22. CORDOVA, SOL T.    
23. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E.   
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C.   
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S.
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
34. ERENIO, ROBERT L.
35. ERENIO, RUSHEL J.
36. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B.
TOTAL 24 24 6 7 6 7

COMMON MISCUES OF GRADE TWO PUPILS
(November)
NAMES
COMMON MISCUES
MISPRONUN
CIATION
SUBSTITU
TION
TO READ
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A.
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A.
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B.
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A.
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S.
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P.
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY R.
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE G.
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE S.
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U.
16. FLORES, CYREL V.
18. PIQUERO, AJ C.
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B.
22. CORDOVA, SOL T.
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C.
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
TOTAL
LEGEND:
Slow to Instructional
during progress test
At-Risk to Syllable
Syllable to Slow

COMMON MISCUES OF GRADE FOUR PUPILS
(January)
NAMES
COMMON MISCUES
MISPRONUN
CIATION
SUBSTITU
TION
TO READ
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A.
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A.
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B.
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A.
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S.
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P.
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY R.
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE G.
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE S.
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U.
16. FLORES, CYREL V.
18. PIQUERO, AJ C.
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B.
22. CORDOVA, SOL T.
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C.
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
TOTAL

CONSOLIDATED NUMBER OF MISCUES OBTAINED BY PUPILS
(Phil. IRI Pre-Test)
NAMES
COMMON MISCUES
NO. OF
WORDS
41
TOTAL
MISCUE
S
MISPRONUN
CIATION
SUBSTITU
TION
TO READ
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A. 7 2 1 10
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A. 7 2 1 10
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B. 7 3 1 11
4. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO 6 2 2 10
5. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN 6 5 1 12
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A. 8 2 1 11
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S. 6 5 1 12
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P. 7 3 10
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE 7 1 1 1 10
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY R. 7 3 1 11
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE G. 9 1 1 11
12. SACOTE, LEA MAE S. 6 2 1 1 10
13. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S. 14 3 1 18
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U. 13 1 14
15. DAYATA, JHON MARK 12 4 1 17
16. FLORES, CYREL V. 13 4 1 18
17. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S. 7 5 1 1 14
18. PIQUERO, AJ C. 9 4 1 14
19. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR. 13 5 1 19
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B. 13 2 1 17
21. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O. 14 5 1 20
22. CORDOVA, SOL T. 18 2 2 2 24
23. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E. 11 2 1 14
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C. 9 4 1 14
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
34. ERENIO, ROBERT L.
35. ERENIO, RUSHEL J.
36. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B.

CONSOLIDATED NUMBER OF MISCUES OBTAINED BY PUPILS
(Phil. IRI Post-Test)
NAMES
COMMON MISCUES
NO. OF
WORDS
= 40
TOTAL
MISCUE
S
MISPRONUN
CIATION
SUBSTITU
TION
TO READ
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A. 1 2 3
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A. 1 1 2
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B. 2 2
4. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO 1 1 2
5. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN 9 9
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A. 4 4
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S. 4 2 6
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P. 5 5
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE 1 1 2
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY 7 1 8
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE 4 1 5
12. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S. 1 2
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE S. 1 1 2
15. DAYATA, JHON MARK 7 1 1 9
16. FLORES, CYREL V. 3 2 5
17. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S. 4 2 1 7
18. PIQUERO, AJ C. 4 2 6
19. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR. 7 2 1 10
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B. 12 1 13
21. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O. 3 2 5
22. CORDOVA, SOL T. 2 2 3 7
23. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E. 1 1
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C. 3 1 4
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B. 19 5 1 1 2 5 33
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S. 15 5 2 4 3 29
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME 20 6 1 1 1 4 33
28. MILLAN, AGA G. 2 1 1 1 7
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S. 6 1 1 8
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S. 15 12 2 1 30
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S. 15 12 1 1 27
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E. 10 5 1 1 1 18
33. DENTA, REY MARK S. 4 3 7
34. ERENIO, ROBERT L. 15 10 1 3 29
35. ERENIO, RUSHEL J. 10 12 3 30
36. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B. 16 11 1 1 1 2 32

NAMES
SCORES IN WORD RECOGNITION
(No. of Words in the Passage – No. of
Miscues) DIFFERENCE
PRE-TEST
( HPS = 41 )
POST TEST
( HPS = 40 )
1. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A. 31 37 6
2. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A. 31 38 7
3. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B. 30 38 8
4. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO 30 38 8
5. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN 29 31 2
6. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A. 30 36 6
7. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S. 29 34 5
8. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P. 31 35 4
9. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE 31 38 7
10. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY 30 32 2
11. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE 30 35 5
12. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S. 30 38 8
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE S. 23 38 15
15. DAYATA, JHON MARK 24 31 7
16. FLORES, CYREL V. 23 35 12
17. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S. 27 33 6
18. PIQUERO, AJ C. 27 34 7
19. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR. 22 30 8
20. ANSIN, JEE ANN B. 24 27 3
21. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O. 21 35 14
22. CORDOVA, SOL T. 17 33 16
23. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E. 27 39 12
24. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C. 27 36 9
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B. 0 7 7
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S. 0 11 11
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME 0 7 7
28. MILLAN, AGA G. 0 7 7
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S. 0 32 32
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S. 0 10 10
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S. 0 13 13
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E. 0 22 22
33. DENTA, REY MARK S. 0 33 33
34. ERENIO, ROBERT L. 0 11 11
35. ERENIO, RUSHEL J. 0 10 10
36. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B. 0 8 8
TOTAL
MEAN
P.L.
Prepared by: Noted by:
MARIA VICTORIA B. TAKIANG IMELDA R. BILLIONES
MT-1 ESHT-1

 slow to instructional
 instructional to independent
 at-risk to syllable
 syllable to slow
No. of mistakes
Word
recognition
level
Pretest
Phil. IRI.
59 words
Progress
55 words
Final Phil.IRI
60 words
Final
MT
65 words
Independent
90 – 100%
Instructional
80 – 89%
Frustration
Slow
70 – 79%
Syllable
11 – 69%
At-risk
0 – 10%

PROGRAM
RELATION
TO CLASS
PROGRAM COMPONENT TEACHING EMPHASIS
TEACHING
TIME/NO.
OF DAYS ORGANIZATION MATERIALS
Reading
Intervention
Program
Using Phonics
Approach
Added to
regular class
program
(30 minutes
daily,
12:30 –
1:00 p.m.)
A. Reading Readiness
 Pre-reading skills
 Letter naming
and recognition
 Phonemic
Awareness
 Repetition & Rhymes
 Letter and sound
matching
 Letter reading and
writing practice
 Pair games
 Picture & Sound
Matching
 Rhyming Word
Activities
 Phonemic Awareness
Competencies
1. Phonemic
Isolation
2. Addition
3. Deletion
4. Substitution
5. Identity
6. Categorization
7. Segmentation
 Sound blends
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
5
Group
Individual
Individual/
Group
Pictures/charts
Pictures,
letter cards &
audio-visual aids
alphabet board
pictures
&
Letter cards
Pictures,
Word cards
&
Audio-visual aids
Pictures, charts &
audio-visual aids

PROGRAM RELATION
TO CLASS
PROGRAM
COMPONENT TEACHING EMPHASIS
TEACHING
TIME/
NO. OF
DAYS
ORGANIZATION MATERIALS
Reading
Intervention
Program
Using Phonics
Approach
Added to
regular
class
program
(30 minutes
daily,
12:30 –
1:00 p.m.)
B. Early Reading Skills
 Early decoding skills
 Vocabulary
knowledge skills
C. Improving word
recognition
(Read Aloud)
D. Comprehension
 Picture-Word
matching
 Word
search/games
 Re-ordering the
letters of
scrambled word
 Configuration
clues
 Basic sight word
reading
 Multiple passage
segments and
questions
 Sequencing using
word order and
grammar
 Paragraph reading
with
comprehension
questions
2
2
2
2
5
5
3
5
Group/
Individual
Group
Individual/
Group
Individual/
Group
Pictures &
Word cards
Puzzles
Pictures
Charts
&
Pictures
Word cards
Charts
Charts
Story Books
TOTAL 65

Republic of the Philippines
Region X
Division of Bukidnon
District of Dangcagan
GRADE II PHIL.IRI ASSESSMENT SCORES – ORAL READING in ENGLISH
DATE ADMINISTERED: NO. OF WORDS:
PRE-TEST : August 14, 2015 PRE-TEST: 41
POST-TEST: February 8, 2016 POST-TEST: 40
NAME OF PUPILS READER/
NON-READER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
NO. OF
MISCUES
READER/
NO. OF
MISCUES
1. BALONQUIT, HEART S. Reader 1 1 0 1 0 4 Reader 1 1 1 1 0 0
2. LIMBAGA, PRINCESRIA Reader 1 1 1 0 0 4 Reader 1 1 0 1 1 0
3. NAVARRO, MIGUEL JAKE Reader 1 1 1 0 0 3 Reader 1 1 1 0 1 1
4. LOPEZ, JAMES PATRICK A. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 1 0 1 0 3
5. FAJARDO, JULIMAR A. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 2
6. SASAN, CRIS LOYD B. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 11 Reader 1 0 1 1 0 2
7. SUBTENIENTE, JR ALAO Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 2
8. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN Reader 0 0 0 0 0 12 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 9
9. CUSTODIO, FRIAJANE A. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 11 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 4
10. DAYATA, ABBY GEL S. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 12 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 6
11. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN P. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 5
12. MANDAPITON RAZEL MAE Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 2
13. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY Reader 1 0 0 0 0 11 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 8
14. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE Reader 0 0 0 0 0 11 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 5
15. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 10 Reader 1 1 1 0 0 2
16. SACOTE, LEA MAE S. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 18 Reader 1 1 0 1 0 2
17. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 14 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 2
18. DAYATA, JHON MARK Reader 1 0 0 0 0 17 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 9
19. FLORES, CYREL V. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 18 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 5
20. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 14 Reader 1 0 0 0 0 7

NAME OF PUPILS READER/
NO. OF
MISCUES
READER/
NO. OF
MISCUES
21. PIQUERO, AJ C. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 14 Reader 1 0 1 0 0 6
22. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL Reader 1 0 0 0 0 19 Reader 1 0 1 0 0 10
23. ANSIN, JEE ANN B. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 17 Reader 1 0 0 0 1 13
24. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 20 Reader 1 1 0 0 0 5
25. CORDOVA, SOL T. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 24 Reader 1 0 0 1 0 7
26. PAHAMUTANG, ANGEL E. Reader 1 0 0 0 0 14 Reader 1 1 0 0 0 1
27. PULAO, KEMLLY JOY C. Reader 0 0 0 0 0 14 Reader 1 0 1 0 0 4
28. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B. Non-Reader Reader 0 0 0 0 0 33
29. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S. Non-Reader Reader 0 0 0 0 0 29
30. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 33
31. MILLAN, AGA G. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 5
32. SALIOT, ANGELOU S. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 8
33. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 30
34. VILLAMOR, JEROME S. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 27
35. OMANDAC, JICEL E. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 18
36. DENTA, REY MARK S. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 7
37. ERENIO, ROBERT L. Non-Reader Reader 0 0 0 0 0 29
38. ERENIO, RUSHEL J. Non-Reader Reader 0 0 0 0 0 30
39. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B. Non-Reader Reader 1 0 0 0 0 32
Prepared by:
MARIA VICTORIA B. TAKIANG
Master Teacher 1
Noted by:
IMELDA R. BILLIONES
School Head

Region x
Division of Bukidnon
Dangcagan District
Prepared by:
MT-1
Noted:
Head Teacher I
Recommending Approval:
District Supervisor

ACTION RESEARCH IN READING

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ACTION RESEARCH IN READING

Similar to ACTION RESEARCH IN READING (20)

More from Cheryl Brown

More from Cheryl Brown (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ACTION RESEARCH IN READING