Using a range of complementary methods (miscue analysis, interviews, and questionnaires), this thesis aims to explore the reading processes of some Korean primary school students in English. The questionnaire was collected from 78 Korean primary school students in Seoul. Of those students, 12 were selected to provide miscue data. Interview data was collected from the miscue participants as well as six adult participants (three state school teachers, one private lesson teacher, one parent, one member of staff at a children's bookshop). Established miscue analysis techniques were adapted to accommodate the research context of Korean primary school students; participants were asked to read the same text twice without any significant pause, and, after the second oral reading, were asked to translate what they read in English into Korean. Data analysis was carried out quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The number of miscues were counted and categorised into five types: substitutions, insertions, omissions, repetitions, and reformulations. In the qualitative analysis, translation and interview data were used to provide more information about reading processes. The analysis shows that more than thirty percent of miscues, mostly substitution miscues, were repeated across the two oral readings. They also show that a lot of non-word substitutions were produced and that most of the real-word substitutions produced were based on graphophonic cues, rather than syntactic or semantic cues. The translation data suggest that many students experience difficulty in using syntactic cues. The mismatches between miscue and translation data show that the students' difficulties in decoding do not necessarily reflect difficulties in reading comprehension, or vice versa. The analysis of the interview transcripts show that many students consider reading to be an oral activity and associate reading difficulties mainly with pronunciation and vocabulary. The results suggest that they approach reading in English in a disconnected way, failing to integrate cues from different levels. The discussion suggests that miscue analysis can perform a helpful role in allowing researchers to gain a greater understanding of readers' expectations of reading. It is also suggested, however, that Goodman's 'window' metaphor for miscue analysis may be misleading and that miscue data should be used with a degree of caution, without the assumption that it can serve as a transparency that will reveal all aspects of reading processes.