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 August 1, 2015

English Coordinator about the research

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- August 22, 2015 to

at-risk in Grade II February 8, 2016

ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME

 5. Phil. IRI Oral Reading Test by the School
Coordinator in English
 Pre-Test August 14, 2015
 Final Test January 8, 2016

6. Oral Reading Test by the researcher

 Progress Test November 20, 2015

7. Final Oral Reading Test by Master Teacher of February 8, 2016

the school

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%

6 25%
Reversal

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 Pre-test Progress Test Change

LEVEL No. % No. % No.
Independent 0 0%

Instructional 3 8%

Frustration 36 92%


12 33%
Slow


12 33%
Syllable


12 33%
At-risk

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

NO. OF PUPILS
READING
MISCUES AUGUST NOVEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

Mispronunciation 24 22 20 19

Substitution 23 20 19 18
Omission 6 5 4 4

Refusal to read 7 6 5 4
over 3 seconds
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 Pre –Test Post Test
RECOGNITION %
No. % No.
LEVEL
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%

39 100% 39 100%
TOTAL

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)
WORD RECOGNITION LEVEL
FRUSTRATION
NAMES
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

UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
SLOW
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
LIST OF GRADE TWO PUPILS
S.Y.2015-2016
(Phil.IRI Pre-Test Result)
SYLLABLE
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.
AT-RISK
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%
 LIST OF GRADE TWO PUPILS
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
S.Y.2015-2016
(Phil.IRI Post-Test Result)
SLOW SYLLABLE AT-RISK
1. AMARILLO, MARYAN-AN 1. JARIOLNE, MARCELO
2. DAYATA, ABBY GEL 2. ERENIO, ROBERT
3. MABILOG, KISHA DAWN 3. ERENIO, RUSHEL
4. MANLANGIT, KIMBERLY 4. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
5. MONTEVERDE, JIAH MAE 5. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
6. DAYATA, JHON MARK 6. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
7. FLORES, CYREL V. 7. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
8. JARIOLNE, JIMSON S. 8. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL
9. PIQUERO, AJ C. 9. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
10. VEDRA, BENGIEMIL JR. 10. ANSIN, JEE ANN
11. BALONQUIT, NENIAN O.
12. CORDOVA, SOL T.
13. MILLAN, AGA G.
14. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
15. DENTA, REY MARK S.

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

UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION

(Phil. IRI Pre-Test)
COMMON MISCUES
NAMES MISPRONUN SUBSTITU REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL

  
CIATION TION 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.   
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S.
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
33. DENTA, REY MARK S.
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
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
(November)

COMMON MISCUES
NAMES
MISPRONUN SUBSTITU REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL
CIATION TION 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. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S.
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE 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.
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S.
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
33. DENTA, REY MARK S.
TOTAL
LEGEND:
Slow to Instructional At-Risk to Syllable Syllable to Slow
during progress test during progress test during progress test
 COMMON MISCUES OF GRADE FOUR PUPILS
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
(January)

COMMON MISCUES
NAMES
MISPRONUN SUBSTITU REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL
CIATION TION 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. ROCAMORA, MIFEL S.
13. SACOTE, LEA MAE 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.
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S.
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
33. DENTA, REY MARK S.
TOTAL
 CONSOLIDATED NUMBER OF MISCUES OBTAINED BY PUPILS
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
(Phil. IRI Pre-Test)
NO. OF
COMMON MISCUES WORDS
41
NAMES TOTAL
MISPRONUN SUBSTITU REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL MISCUE
CIATION TION TO READ S
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
25. ANTIGA, JOSHUA B.
26. BENTO, JOHN RAFAEL S.
27. CRISOSTOMO, ELJAME
28. MILLAN, AGA G.
29. SALIOT, ANGELOU S.
30. TAGPINIS, EJAY BOY S.
31. VILLAMOR, JEROME S.
32. OMANDAC, JICEL E.
33. DENTA, REY MARK S.
34. ERENIO, ROBERT L.
35. ERENIO, RUSHEL J.
36. JARIOLNE, MARCELO B.
 CONSOLIDATED NUMBER OF MISCUES OBTAINED BY PUPILS
UNDER FRUSTRATION LEVEL OF WORD RECOGNITION
(Phil. IRI Post-Test)

NO. OF
WORDS
COMMON MISCUES = 40
NAMES
MISPRONUN SUBSTITU REVERSAL INSERTION OMISSION REFUSAL TOTAL
CIATION TION TO READ MISCUE
S
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
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U. 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
 SCORES IN WORD RECOGNITION
(No. of Words in the Passage – No. of
NAMES Miscues) DIFFERENCE
PRE-TEST POST TEST
( HPS = 41 ) ( 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
14. BALONQUIT, JAYDEN U. 27 38 11
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 Pretest Progress Final Phil.IRI Final

recognition Phil. IRI. 55 words 60 words MT

level 59 words 65 words

Independent

90 – 100%

Instructional

80 – 89%

Frustration

Slow

70 – 79%

Syllable

11 – 69%

At-risk

0 – 10%
 RELATION TEACHING
TO CLASS TIME/NO.
PROGRAM PROGRAM COMPONENT TEACHING EMPHASIS OF DAYS ORGANIZATION MATERIALS

Reading A. Reading Readiness

Intervention Added to
Program regular class  Pre-reading skills  Repetition & Rhymes 2 Group Pictures/charts
Using Phonics program
Approach  Letter naming  Letter and sound 1 Individual Pictures,
(30 minutes and recognition matching letter cards &
daily,  Letter reading and 1 audio-visual aids
12:30 – writing practice
1:00 p.m.)  Pair games 1 alphabet board

 Phonemic  Picture & Sound 3 Individual/ pictures

Awareness Matching Group &
 Rhyming Word 3 Letter cards
Activities
 Phonemic Awareness Pictures,
Competencies Word cards
1. Phonemic 3 &
Isolation Audio-visual aids
2. Addition 3
3. Deletion 3
4. Substitution 3
5. Identity 3
6. Categorization 5
7. Segmentation 3

 Sound blends 5 Pictures, charts &

audio-visual aids
 TEACHING
PROGRAM RELATION COMPONENT TEACHING EMPHASIS TIME/ ORGANIZATION MATERIALS
TO CLASS NO. OF
PROGRAM DAYS
B. Early Reading Skills
Reading Added to  Early decoding skills  Picture-Word 2 Group/ Pictures &
Intervention regular matching Individual Word cards
Program class  Word 2 Puzzles
Using Phonics program search/games
Approach  Re-ordering the 2 Pictures
(30 minutes letters of
daily, scrambled word
12:30 –
1:00 p.m.)  Vocabulary  Configuration 2 Group Charts
knowledge skills clues &
Pictures

 Basic sight word

C. Improving word 5 Individual/ Word cards
recognition Group
reading
(Read Aloud)

D. Comprehension  Multiple passage 5 Individual/ Charts

segments and Group
questions
 Sequencing using 3 Charts
word order and
grammar
 Paragraph reading 5 Story Books
with
comprehension
questions

TOTAL 65
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
Region X
Division of Bukidnon
District of Dangcagan
KAPALARAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

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/ NO. OF

READER/
NO. OF
NON-READER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 MISCUES
NON-READER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 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/
READER/ NO. OF NO. OF
NON-READER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 MISCUES
NON-READER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 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
 Department of Education
Region x
Division of Bukidnon
Dangcagan District
KAPALARAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Prepared by:

MT-1
Noted:

Head Teacher I

Recommending Approval:

District Supervisor