ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN STUDENTS TAUGHT THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING AND TAUGHT THROUGH
SELF-QUESTIONING STRATEGY AT THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS OF
SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
Romandani Adyan
In reading, the students need an appropriate technique that is suitable with the
types of texts. Thus, according to School Based Curriculum 2006, Junior High
School students use functional texts as their reading materials. To make students’
reading process more effective, the technique used is important to consider. In this
case, the researcher tried to compare Collaborative Strategic Reading and
Self-Questioning Strategy for teaching reading..
The objectives of the research are to find out whether there is a significant
difference on reading comprehension achievement between students who are
taught through Collaborative Strategic Reading and those who are taught through
Self-Questioning Strategy and to find out which one is more effective technique.
The research was conducted at SMA Negeri 8 Bandar Lampung. This research ia
a quantitative research using true experimental design. The sample was chosen
randomly through lottery. The data was gained by administering a set of pretest
and posttest to both classes. The treatments were conducted in both classes. The
data was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version
17.0. the hypotesis was tested by using Independent Group t-test.
CURRICULUM VITAE
DEDICATION
By offering my praise and gratitude to Allah SWT for His abundant blessing to
me,
I’d proudly dedicate this piece of work to:
My beloved Parents, A. Rais Adyan and Asteratu
My beloved brothers, Haryadi Adyan and Rizki Saputra Adyan
My musical tutors, Uri A. Putra, David Tarigan and Arian Arifin
My fabulous friends of English Department
MOTTO
We change our opinion,
We change our years,
We change our pencils,
We change our dreams
We change our ladies,
Cars and money…
But we never change our
Friends
-Al Capone-
Keep calm, worry less, smile more and carry on
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise is merely to Allah SWT for his blessing and mercy that the writer is
enabled to
accompalished this script entitled “
A comparative study of reading
comprehension achievement between students taught through collaborative
strategic reading and taught through self-questioning strategy at the first year
students of SMA Negeri 8 Bandar Lamp
ung”
. This script is submitted as a
compulsory fulfillment of the requirements for S1 degree of English Education
Study Program at Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of
Lampung.
Gratitude and honor are addressed to all persons who helped and supported the
writer completed this script. Here, the writer would like to acknowledge his
sincere gratefulness to H. Ujang Suparman, M. A., Ph.D., as his first advisor,
Deddy Supriyadi, M.Pd., as his second advisor, and Dr. M. Sukirlan, M.A., as his
examiner who assist, guided, encourage and gave knowledge to accomplish the
script.
My thankfulness is also due to Drs. Banjir Sihite, M.Pd., the Headmaster of SMA
Negeri 8 Bandar Lampung and Martalinda, S.Pd., the English teacher of SMA
Negeri 8 Bandar Lampung, whereby the writer did his research, and all beloved
students of class X5 and X6 for their participation in this research.
The writer also would like to thank his
beloved friends of NERD‘07, especially
Lala, Sisil, Ayu, Dini, Diki, Dian, Fery, Rio, Dery, Ganis, Ike, Niky, Astiti, Silka,
Didi, Rini, Fevi, Nurul, Mey, Fetris, Joko, Reni, Umi, Wildan, Karisma, Azis,
Nopri, Rudy, Rahmat, Lisa, Desti, Lia, Decin, Delia, Lilis, Ratih, Zie, Na, Cia,
Nyimas, Mprit, Endah, Hadi, Rahmat, Sih, Egra, Siti, Esy, Asti & the
late-Akhirman. Moreover, he must thank his seniors and juniors; Mba Ari, Mas Arik,
Bang Jaka, Yudi, Mirwan, Wira, Iyra, Yussi, Ratih & Tacca; thank you so much
for being such a great companion along the way in finishing this holy script.
I actually realize that this script has many weaknesses in certain ways thus
suggestion are expected to make better paper in the future.
Bandar Lampung,
May 2012
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses introduction of the research which deals several points. i.e.,
background of the problem, identification of problems, limitation of the problems,
formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, significances of the research,
and scope of the research.
1.1
Background of the Problem
English, as an international language, is used in many fields all over the world. It is
also a fact that English is widely needed by people, for example to transfer new
modern science, technology, and information. Transferring new modern science,
technology, and information can be done through reading process. Based on these
facts the writer considers that reading is a very important skill in order to increase our
knowledge and way of thinking. Regarding its importance, the government of
Indonesia decided to put English as a compulsory subject because English is
considered as the first foreign language.
There are four skills of language to be mastered in learning English, i.e. listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. Based on the reason that the students are expected to
read information which are mostly written in English, reading dominates the teaching
III. RESEARCH METHODS
This part discusses the design of this research and how to collect the data from the
samples. The writer encloses the data collecting technique and the procedures of this
research. The writer also gives the scoring system and how the data will be analyzed.
3.1 Research Design
To conduct this research, the researcher used
Control
Group Pretest Posttest Design
.
This design belonged to true experimental designs. True experimental designs have
three basic characteristics: (1) a comparison group is present, (2) The sample are
randomly selected and assigned to the groups, and (3) a pretest is administered to
capture the initial differences between the groups (Hatch and Farhady 1982:22).
The researcher used this design because he wanted to give special treatment to the
experimental class one using collaborative strategic reading in teaching reading
comprehension. There were two classes of this experimental study; experimental
class one which get treatment through collaborative strategic reading and another as a
experimental class two which get treatment through self-questioning strategy.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN STUDENTS TAUGHT THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING AND TAUGHT THROUGH
SELF-QUESTIONING STRATEGY AT THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG
(A Script)
By
ROMANDANI ADYAN
UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN STUDENTS TAUGHT THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING AND TAUGHT THROUGH
SELF-QUESTIONING STRATEGY AT THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
ROMANDANI ADYAN
A Script
Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of
The requirement for S-1 Degree
In
The Language and Arts Department of
The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
Research Title
: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING
COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN
STUDENTS TAUGHT THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING AND
TAUGHT THROUGH SELF-QUESTIONING
STRATEGY AT THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS OF
SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG
Student’s Name
: Romandani Adyan
Student’s Number
: 0713042042
Department
: Language and Arts Education
Study Program
: English Education
Faculty
: Teachers Training and Education
APPROVED BY
Advisory Committee
Advisor
Co-Advisor
H. M.U. Suparman, M. A., Ph.D. Drs. Dedy Supriyadi, M.Pd.
NIP 19570608 198603 1 001 NIP 19580505 198502 1 001
The Head of Language and Arts Education Department
ADMITTED BY
1.
Examination Committee
Chairperson
: H. M.U. Suparman, M. A., Ph.D.
……….
Examiner
: Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M. A.
………
Secretary
: Drs. Dedy Supriyadi, M.Pd.
……….
2.
The Dean of Teachers Training and Education Faculty
Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si.
NIP 19600315 198503 1 003
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN STUDENTS TAUGHT THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING AND TAUGHT THROUGH
SELF-QUESTIONING STRATEGY AT THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG
(A Script)
By
Romandani Adyan
0713042042
Advisors :
H. M. Ujang Suparman, M.A., Ph.D.
Dedy Supriyadi, M.Pd.
ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses introduction of the research which deals several points. i.e.,
background of the problem, identification of problems, limitation of the
problems, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, significances of
the research, and scope of the research.
1.1
Background of the Problem
English, as an international language, is used in many fields all over the world. It
is also a fact that English is widely needed by people, for example to transfer new
modern science, technology, and information. Transferring new modern science,
technology, and information can be done through reading process. Based on these
facts the writer considers that reading is a very important skill to increase our
knowledge and way of thinking. Regarding its importance, the government of
Indonesia decided to put English as a compulsory subject because english is
considered as the first foreign language.
There are four language skills to be mastered in learning English, i.e. listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. Based on the reason that the students are expected
to read information which are mostly written in English, reading dominates the
2
In the guideline of School Based Curriculum, KTSP (Depdiknas, 2006:297), It is
stated that there are several objectives of teaching reading for the first grade of
Senior High School, They are:
1.
The students are able to identify the main idea of the whole texts or in each
paragraph of reading texts.
2.
The students are able to identify the vocabularies of reading texts
3.
The students are able to identify some specific information of reading
texts.
According to th
e writer’s experience when he
did the field practice program, it
was found that most of students could not achieve those mentioned objectives as
they were supposed to be. This condition may be due to a number of factors such
as lack of vocabulary, inappropriate use of media, ineffective strategy used by the
teacher, and the minimum availability of learning facilities. Those factors are
dependent on each other and affect the process of reading. Due to this condition,
the researcher focused on one of those factors i.e., the strategy. As it was found
that the teachers in the school do not teach reading comprehension using an
appropriate strategy to help the students understand reading comprehension easier.
Based on KTSP, there are many kinds of English texts. In this research, the
researcher will focus on narrative text because narrative text is one of reading text
that is mostly used in the reading test. This is a simple text but many students in
the first year of senior high school do not really comprehend this sort of text. They
still have difficulty to find the main idea and specific information of narrative text.
As a matter of fact, reading can be taught through collaborative strategic reading.
This Strategy was firstly introduced by Klingner & Vaughn (1999). Teacher can
3
this strategy, the students will be brought into an interesting situation and
enjoyable situation so that the students will be easier to comprehend the meaning
and find out the main idea of the text.
In the same line with collaborative strategic reading, self-questioning strategy also
has been widely accepted as one of the strategy that can be applied to present
materials in classroom. With this strategy, the students are supposed to be able to
read a reading passage in the target language into the students’ native language.
Considering the two strategies above that can be used for teaching reading, the
writer want to see the difference by comparing
Collaborative stategic reading
and
Self-Questioning Strategy
for teaching reading.
1.2
Identification of the Problems
Based on the background above, the researcher identifies the problem on SMAN 8
Bandar Lampung as follows:
1.
The students get difficulties in comprehending the reading text. They get
difficulties in getting information from the text, finding the main idea,
finding the details, answering to the questions based on the text and
making inference from the text. As the results the students got difficulties
in retelling or in transferring the information from the text.
2.
The students are not aware of the appropriate technique of reading which
are needed to be applied in various types of text they interact. The result is
4
3.
The students’ motivations in learning English are still low. So it is difficult
to improve their English ability well.
4.
The students have no good self confidence in learning English. So it is
difficult for them to learn English well because they regard that English is
difficult to be learnt well.
5.
The teachers use inappropriate technique in teaching English. So it is
difficult in helping students understand reading comprehension.
1.3 Limitation of the Problem
In line with the identification of the problems, the researcher realizes his
capability in doing his research. Therefore, he will focus his study only on the
students’ difficulties in comprehending the reading text because of inappr
opriate
strategy in reading.
1.4 Formulation of the Problem
Based on the limitation of the problem above, the researcher formulates the
problems as follows:
1.
Is there any difference of reading comprehension achievement between the
students who are taught through
Collaborative stategic reading
and those
who are taught through
Self-questioning Strategy
at the first year of
SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung?
2.
Which strategy is more effective to help students improve their reading
5
1.5 Objectives of the Research
In relation to the research problem above, the objectives of this research are:
1.
to investigate whether there is any difference of reading comprehension
achievement between the students who are taught through
Collaborative
stategic reading
and those who are taught through
Self-Questioning
Strategy
at the first year of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung.
2.
to determine which strategy that is more effective to help students improve
their reading comprehension between the two techniques.
1.6 Significances of the Research
The results of this study are expected to be beneficial both theoretically and
practically as follows:
1.
Theoretically
The results of the research are expected to support previous theories
dealing with
Collaborative Strategic Reading
and
Self-Questioning
Strategy.
2.
Practically
The results of this research are expected to give information to the English
teachers, especially of senior high school in order to select the most
suitable technique in teaching reading comprehension.
1.7 Scope of the Research
This research was
conducted to increase the students’ reading comprehension of
6
research were
collaborative strategic reading
in experimental class one and
self-questioning strategy
in experimental class two. The classes as the sample were
selected using simple random sampling. The classes were selected randomly by
using lottery, since the first year students in SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung was not
stratified class. The researcher focused on narrative text. The materials are taken
from English Book based on the School Based Curriculum (KTSP) of SMA.
To
find
out the improvement of students’ reading comprehension, the re
searcher
measured the score of a set of pre-test and post-test.
1.8 Definition of Terms
There are some terms used by the writer and to make it clear, the writer will gave
some definitions as follow:
1.
Reading Comprehension
is defined as an active cognitive process of
interacting with print and monitoring comprehension to establish the
meaning.
2.
Collaborative Strategic Reading
is a collaborative technique that teaches
students to use comprehension strategies while working cooperatively
including previewing the text; giving ongoing feedback by deciding "click" (I
get it) or "clunk" (I don't get it) at the end of each paragraph; "getting the
gist" of the most important parts of the text; and "wrapping up" key ideas.
3.
Self-questioning
is a set of steps that students follow to generate, think about,
predict, investigate, and answer the questions that satisfy curiosity from what
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses introduction of the research which deals several points. i.e.,
background of the problem, identification of problems, limitation of the
problems, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, significances of
the research, and scope of the research.
1.1
Background of the Problem
English, as an international language, is used in many fields all over the world. It
is also a fact that English is widely needed by people, for example to transfer new
modern science, technology, and information. Transferring new modern science,
technology, and information can be done through reading process. Based on these
facts the writer considers that reading is a very important skill to increase our
knowledge and way of thinking. Regarding its importance, the government of
Indonesia decided to put English as a compulsory subject because english is
considered as the first foreign language.
There are four language skills to be mastered in learning English, i.e. listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. Based on the reason that the students are expected
to read information which are mostly written in English, reading dominates the
2
In the guideline of School Based Curriculum, KTSP (Depdiknas, 2006:297), It is
stated that there are several objectives of teaching reading for the first grade of
Senior High School, They are:
1.
The students are able to identify the main idea of the whole texts or in each
paragraph of reading texts.
2.
The students are able to identify the vocabularies of reading texts
3.
The students are able to identify some specific information of reading
texts.
According to th
e writer’s experience when he
did the field practice program, it
was found that most of students could not achieve those mentioned objectives as
they were supposed to be. This condition may be due to a number of factors such
as lack of vocabulary, inappropriate use of media, ineffective strategy used by the
teacher, and the minimum availability of learning facilities. Those factors are
dependent on each other and affect the process of reading. Due to this condition,
the researcher focused on one of those factors i.e., the strategy. As it was found
that the teachers in the school do not teach reading comprehension using an
appropriate strategy to help the students understand reading comprehension easier.
Based on KTSP, there are many kinds of English texts. In this research, the
researcher will focus on narrative text because narrative text is one of reading text
that is mostly used in the reading test. This is a simple text but many students in
the first year of senior high school do not really comprehend this sort of text. They
still have difficulty to find the main idea and specific information of narrative text.
As a matter of fact, reading can be taught through collaborative strategic reading.
This Strategy was firstly introduced by Klingner & Vaughn (1999). Teacher can
3
this strategy, the students will be brought into an interesting situation and
enjoyable situation so that the students will be easier to comprehend the meaning
and find out the main idea of the text.
In the same line with collaborative strategic reading, self-questioning strategy also
has been widely accepted as one of the strategy that can be applied to present
materials in classroom. With this strategy, the students are supposed to be able to
read a reading passage in the target language into the students’ native language.
Considering the two strategies above that can be used for teaching reading, the
writer want to see the difference by comparing
Collaborative stategic reading
and
Self-Questioning Strategy
for teaching reading.
1.2
Identification of the Problems
Based on the background above, the researcher identifies the problem on SMAN 8
Bandar Lampung as follows:
1.
The students get difficulties in comprehending the reading text. They get
difficulties in getting information from the text, finding the main idea,
finding the details, answering to the questions based on the text and
making inference from the text. As the results the students got difficulties
in retelling or in transferring the information from the text.
2.
The students are not aware of the appropriate technique of reading which
are needed to be applied in various types of text they interact. The result is
4
3.
The students’ motivations in learning English are still low. So it is difficult
to improve their English ability well.
4.
The students have no good self confidence in learning English. So it is
difficult for them to learn English well because they regard that English is
difficult to be learnt well.
5.
The teachers use inappropriate technique in teaching English. So it is
difficult in helping students understand reading comprehension.
1.3 Limitation of the Problem
In line with the identification of the problems, the researcher realizes his
capability in doing his research. Therefore, he will focus his study only on the
students’ difficulties in comprehending the reading text because of inappr
opriate
strategy in reading.
1.4 Formulation of the Problem
Based on the limitation of the problem above, the researcher formulates the
problems as follows:
1.
Is there any difference of reading comprehension achievement between the
students who are taught through
Collaborative stategic reading
and those
who are taught through
Self-questioning Strategy
at the first year of
SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung?
2.
Which strategy is more effective to help students improve their reading
5
1.5 Objectives of the Research
In relation to the research problem above, the objectives of this research are:
1.
to investigate whether there is any difference of reading comprehension
achievement between the students who are taught through
Collaborative
stategic reading
and those who are taught through
Self-Questioning
Strategy
at the first year of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung.
2.
to determine which strategy that is more effective to help students improve
their reading comprehension between the two techniques.
1.6 Significances of the Research
The results of this study are expected to be beneficial both theoretically and
practically as follows:
1.
Theoretically
The results of the research are expected to support previous theories
dealing with
Collaborative Strategic Reading
and
Self-Questioning
Strategy.
2.
Practically
The results of this research are expected to give information to the English
teachers, especially of senior high school in order to select the most
suitable technique in teaching reading comprehension.
1.7 Scope of the Research
This research was
conducted to increase the students’ reading comprehension of
6
research were
collaborative strategic reading
in experimental class one and
self-questioning strategy
in experimental class two. The classes as the sample were
selected using simple random sampling. The classes were selected randomly by
using lottery, since the first year students in SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung was not
stratified class. The researcher focused on narrative text. The materials are taken
from English Book based on the School Based Curriculum (KTSP) of SMA.
To
find
out the improvement of students’ reading comprehension, the re
searcher
measured the score of a set of pre-test and post-test.
1.8 Definition of Terms
There are some terms used by the writer and to make it clear, the writer will gave
some definitions as follow:
1.
Reading Comprehension
is defined as an active cognitive process of
interacting with print and monitoring comprehension to establish the
meaning.
2.
Collaborative Strategic Reading
is a collaborative technique that teaches
students to use comprehension strategies while working cooperatively
including previewing the text; giving ongoing feedback by deciding "click" (I
get it) or "clunk" (I don't get it) at the end of each paragraph; "getting the
gist" of the most important parts of the text; and "wrapping up" key ideas.
3.
Self-questioning
is a set of steps that students follow to generate, think about,
predict, investigate, and answer the questions that satisfy curiosity from what
7
II. FRAME OF THEORIES
This chapter discusses frame of theories that deals with several points. i.e., review of
the previous research, concept of reading, concept of teaching reading, concept of
Collaborative Strategic Reading, procedure of teaching reading through
Collaborative Strategic Reading, concept of Self-Questioning Strategy, procedure of
teaching reading through Self-Questioning Strategy, theoretical assumption, and
hypothesis.
2.1 Review of Previous Research
There had been several studies proving that collaborative strategic reading is an
effective strategy for reading comprehension. Klingner & Vaughn (1999) conducted
a series of studies to determine the effectiveness of collaborative strategic reading. In
their experiment, the improvements were reflected in the regular classroom as the
experimental students' percentile rankings and also yielded positive outcomes for
average and high average achieving students.
Another research relating to collaborative strategic reading was done by Nisa (2009).
The aim of her study was to find out the students’ reading comprehension
achievement after learning reading using collaborative strategic reading. One class of
second year students of SMPN 1 Punggur was chosen as the sample. Three times
treatment using collaborative strategic reading was given to the chosen class in three
8
employed to obtain the data. Based on the calculation of the t-test, the result shows
that there is a significant increase on students’ reading comprehension achievement
after learning reading using collaborative strategic reading (p<.05, p=.000).
Meanwhile, There also had been several studies proving that self-questioning
strategy can improve students reading comprehension. One of it had been done by
Fetrisia (2011) at MA Ma’Arif 4 Kalirejo
, she made an experiment using
self-questioning strategy
to investigate whether it might increase students’ reading
comprehension.
She found the students’
mean scores within experimental class
increased significantly. She convinces that self-questioning strategy carries benefits
toward students’ reading comprehension.
In conclusion based on the explanation above, the researcher would like to propose
the research by comparing the two techniques that had been proven can increase
students reading comprehension achievements. Moreover this research was intended
to find out which one of the two techniques or strategy that is more effective and
relevant to be applied in teaching reading at senior high school.
2.2 Concept of Reading
Reading is the process of constructing meaning from text. The goal of all reading
instruction is ultimately targeted at helping a reader comprehend text. Reading
comprehension involves at least two people: the reader and the writer. The process of
comprehending involves decoding the writer's words and then using background
9
Smith (1982) says that reading certainly implies comprehension, and reading is
something that makes sense to the reader. The readers try to understand and get the
meaning and information in the written texts in form of symbols, letters, graphs, etc.
Thus, they grasp the writers’ messages from the texts.
Meanwhile Nuttal (1985) defines reading as the meaningful interpretation of printed
or written symbols. It means that reading is a result of the interaction between the
perception of graphic symbols that represent language and the reader’s language
skills, cognitive skills and the knowledge of the world. In this process, the reader
tries to recreate the meaning intended by the writer.
In addition, Howart (2006) says that reading is just as communicative as any other
form of language. It means that in reading there is an interaction between the writer
and the readers through the texts. The writer tries to encode the messages to the
readers. Then the readers try to decode the messages that sent by the writer.
Carver (1990) defines reading as a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols
for the intention of deriving meaning (reading comprehension) and/or constructing
meaning. Reading is also a means of language acquisition, of communication, and of
sharing information.
According to Doyle (2004), comprehension is a progressive skill in attaching
meaning beginning at the same level and proceeding to attaching meaning to an
entire reading selection. All comprehension revolves around the reader’s ability in
10
From all the theories, it can be concluded that reading is an active process of getting
meaning or information from printed or written language transferred by the writer
whereas reading comprehension is the level of passage or text understanding while
reading. Comprehension occurs when readers are able to understand, remember,
retell and discuss with others about what they have read.
2.3 Concept of Teaching Reading
The aim of teaching reading is to develop students’ skills
so that they can read
English texts effectively. To be able to do so the readers should have particular
purposes in their mind before they interact with the texts. Effective and efficient
reading is always purposeful and tends to focus mainly on the purpose of the activity.
Then the purpose of reading is implemented into the development of different
reading techniques. These can be achieved when the students read and interact with
various types of texts, i.e. functional and monologue texts.
In term of teaching reading Alyousef (2005: 143) says that in reading, contemporary
reading tasks, unlike the traditional materials, involve three-phase procedures: pre-,
while-, and last-reading stages. The pre-reading stage helps in activating the relevant
schema. For example, the teachers can ask students questions that arouse theirs
interest while previewing the text. The aim of while-reading stage (or interactive
process) is to develop students’ ability in tackling texts by developing their linguistic
and schematic knowledge. The last-reading includes activities, which enhance
learning comprehension using exercises, cloze exercises, cut-up sentences, and
11
One aspect that becomes essential in students’ reading is the reading technique. It has
d
irect “link” in comprehension and strategy or technique. The writer assumes that
reading comprehension is students’ competence in comprehending the specific
information, words and surface meaning in texts is described by students’ score with
an appropriate technique.
In short, in teaching reading the teacher should provide strategy to the students with
purpose for reading to anticipate different type of reading texts. Therefore, reading
technique should be matched to reading purpose to read efficiently and effectively.
As Suparman (2005) states that there are two major reasons for reading (1) reading
for pleasure; (2) reading for information (in order to find out something or in order to
do something with the information readers get). The researcher assumed that in
teaching reading, appropriate and possible strategy should be applied based on the
purpose of reading in order to get the comprehension. They use reading strategy to
make their reading efficient and effective.
2.4 Concept of Collaborative Strategic Reading
Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) is a technique that isfirstly proposed by
Klingner & Vaughn in 1999. They say that to help students to master the reading
skill a teacher may use CSR in teaching reading because this method is considered
effective to be implemented. This technique emphasizes in making the students have
the skill to comprehend the text clearly and quickly. They can try to use some steps
in this technique such as, preview, click and cluck, get the gist and wrap up. It means
that to help the students in reading process, the teacher may offer this technique by
12
CSR teaches students to work collaboratively and learn different viewpoints of
reading content from fellow students. By working together students of different
reading abilities are given the opportunity to contribute to their group. The students
may also strengthen their self-esteem through participation of the discussions. It is
important for students to learn from one another. Studies have shown that social
development is directly correlated with academic progress
.
As students work
together, they are offered the benefit of understanding a topic on a level more suited
to their aptitude of understanding. Students are assigned roles in CSR lessons that
they must fulfill together. Roles are an important aspect of CSR strategy because
cooperative learning seems to work best when all group members have been assigned
in a meaningful task. Studies in CSR have shown that students that work together in
collaborative groups are more successful in their reading comprehension. Students
are also encouraged to promote a more positive classroom environment as regular
education students and special education students socially interact with one another.
Although CSR is designed to be used with expository text, it can also be used with
narrative text. The goals of CSR are to improve reading comprehension and increase
conceptual learning in ways that maximize students' involvement. CSR has also
yielded positive outcomes for average and high average achieving students
(Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1999. Theoretically, Collaborative Strategic
Reading (CSR) itself can build the students’ interest and motivation before students
13
2.5 Procedures of Teaching Reading through CSR
CSR can be implemented in two phases: (a) teaching the strategies, and (b)
cooperative learning group activity or student pairing. The implementation steps
described below were developed through a series of studies (Klingner, 1998).
A.
Phase 1: Teaching the Strategies
Students learn four strategies: preview, click and clunk, get the gist, and wrap up.
Preview is used before reading the entire text for the lesson, and wrap up is used after
reading the entire text for the lesson. The other two strategies, click and clunk and
get the gist, are used multiple times while reading the text, after each paragraph.
a.
Previewing
Preview is the first step. It means that before reading, students look through the
whole text. When students preview before reading, they should look at headings;
words that are bolded or underlined; and pictures, tables, graphs, and other key
information to help them do two things: brainstorming what they know about the
topic and predicting what they will learn about the topic. Just as in preview, students
are provided minimal time to generate their ideas and their predictions
b.
Clicking and Clunking
The second step is Click and Clunk. In this step, the students learn to monitor their
understanding during reading. Clicks refer to portions of the text that make sense to
the reader . In other word comprehension clicks into place as the reader proceeds
14
down, for example when students find words or word parts that were hard to
understand.
A sequence of "fix-up strategies" was used to decode the "clunk." The strategies are:
(a) re-reading the sentence for key ideas, (b) looking for context clues in the sentences before and after,
(c) looking for prefixes or suffixes, and
(d) breaking the word apart to find smaller words.
c. Getting the gist
The next step is Get the gist. In this step, students identify the most important idea in
a section of text (usually a paragraph). The goal of getting the gist is to teach students
to re-state in their own words. The most important point as a way of making sure
they have understood what they have read. Get the gist can be taught by focusing on
one paragraph at a time. While students read the paragraph, the teacher asks them to
identify the most important person, place, or thing. Then the teacher asks students to
tell what is most important about the person, place, or thing. Finally, the teacher
teaches students to put it all together in a sentence containing ten words or less.
d. Wrapping up
The last step is Wrap up. After reading, students construct their own questions to
check for understanding of the passage, answer the questions, and summarize what
has been learned. The goals are to improve students' knowledge, understanding, and
memory of what was read. Wrap up is a strategy that teaches students to generate
questions and to review important ideas in the text they have read. Wrap up consists
of two activities: (a) generating questions, and (b) reviewing. A teacher initially
15
think of questions they would ask on a test. The teacher suggests the following
question starters: who, what, when, where, why, and how. The teacher also
encourages students to generate some questions that require an answer involving
higher-lever thinking skills, rather than literal recall.
B.
Phase 2: Cooperative Learning Group or Student Pairing
Once students have learned the four strategies (
preview, click and clunk, get the gist,
and
wrap up
) and have developed proficiency applying them in teacher-led activities,
they are supposed to apply CSR in their peer-led cooperative learning groups. Some
teachers find it easier to have students work in pairs, and that has also proven to be a
successful practice. Procedures for using these strategies with groups are outlined
below.
a.
Setting the stage
First, the teacher assigns students to groups. Each group should include about four
students of varying ability. Then, the teacher assigns roles to students. Roles should
rotate on a regular basis so that students can experience a variety of roles. Possible
roles include the following:
1.
Leader
: Tells the group what to read next and what strategy to use next.
2.
Clunk Expert
: Uses clunk cards to remind the group of the steps to follow when
trying to figure out the meaning of their clunk(s).
3.
Gist Expert
: Guides the group toward getting the gist and determines that the gist
contains the most important idea(s) but no unnecessary details.
16
b.
Process
The basic steps to apply CSR in a cooperative learning group are as follows:
1.
Step 1: Whole class introduction. The teacher introduces the topic, teaches key
vocabulary, and provides instructions.
2.
Step 2: Cooperative group activity during preview, click and clunk, get the gist,
and wrap up.
3.
Step 3: Whole class wrap up strategy. A teacher discusses the day’s reading
passage, reviews clunks, answers questions, or shares some review ideas.
c.
Role of the teacher
During the cooperative group activity
the teacher’s role is to circulate among the
groups, clarifying clunks, modeling strategy usage, modeling cooperative learning
techniques, redirecting students to remain on-task, and providing assistance.
Based on the stages mentioned above, the researcher took the general procedure of
teaching reading comprehension using CSR during her research. The researcher runs
each treatment through the following steps:
1.
Before reading
a.
Previewing
1.
Brainstorm: What do we already know about the topic?
2.
Predict: What do we think we will learn about the topic when we read?
2. During reading
b.
Clicking and Clunking
1.
Were there any parts that were hard to understand (clunk)?
2.
How can the clunk be fixed?
17
a.
Reread the sentence and look for key ideas to help you understand the word.
b.
Reread the sentence with the clunk and the sentence before and after the
clunk. Look for clues.
c.
Look for prefix and suffix in the word.
d.
Break the word apart and look for smaller word.
c.
Getting the Gist
1.
What is the most important person, place, or thing?
2.
What is the most important idea about person, place, or thing?
3.
After reading
d.
Wrapping Up
1.
Ask questions: What question would show we understand the most
important information? What are the answers to these questions?
2.
Review: What did we learn?
2.6 Concept of Self-Questioning Strategy
Self-questioning is simply a process in which students ask and answer questions
before, while and after reading. Strategically asking and answering questions before,
while and after reading helps students with difficulties engage with text in ways that
good readers do naturally, thus “improving their active processing of text and their
comprehension” (Natio
nal Reading Panel, 2003:51). Self-Questioning Strategy is
also to help focus their own attention on selecting appropriate information and to
monitor their own understanding. Good readers are actively involved in the reading
18
Self-questioning strategy focuses on knowledge acquisition and concept
comprehension by learner generating questions. This strategy slows down the
reading process, focuses students’ attention on details in the text, and makes them
aware of gaps in the story and/or breaches with their own expectation (Janssen,
2002). This strategy may promote students’ personal engagement in reading. By
generating questions, students actively and purposefully engage in the reading and
comprehending the text. Some general questions that can be asked as an example of
how self-
questioning is used are: “
What do I already to know?
”, this is a question
that would be asked before the task begins, “
Do I understand what is going on this
far?
”, this is effective to ensure comprehension during the task, and finally, “
What
new information did I learn?
”, this can be asked after the task is complete.
Meanwhile, according to Lenz (2005), self questioning requires a reader to look for
text clues that make them wonder, think about possible meanings, ask questions
about the meanings, make predictions about the answers, read to find the answers,
evaluate the answers and their predictions, and reconcile differences between their
questions, their predictions about answers, and the information actually provided by
the author in the text.
It seems that self-
questioning as an active strategy to increase the readers’ reading
ability; the active processing theory posits that since readers have to interact with the
text longer and more deeply, in order to formulate questions about it, they develop
deeper understanding and longer retention of the text (Singer, 1978).
Considering the statement above, it can be inferred that self-questioning is more than
19
textual clues that they found in the text. Then the students use their background
knowledge to generate questions and make predictions based on the clues.
2.7 Procedures of Teaching Reading through Self-Questioning Strategy
the steps of teaching reading through self-questioning strategy are:
a. Pre- Activity
1.
The procedure begins with the teacher motivates the students by asking them
about anecdote text e.g. “
Do you know about narrative text?
”, “
What do you
know about narrative text?
”, “
Have you ever read narrative text?
”. It
functions to activate their background knowledge of anecdote text.
2.
Before the teacher asks students to apply self-questioning strategy to a
passage, the teacher explains to the students the purpose of learning this
strategy. It is intended to introduce the students to self-questioning strategy
applied in the treatment.
3.
The teacher describes the strategy and makes a list of steps on the board, the
teacher gives the model of how the strategy is used in the text, and
meanwhile the students see and sometimes participate in following the steps.
The steps can be described as follows:
a)
The students must understand question “
what do you study this passage
for
?” with self
-reminder that he or she reads the passage in order to answer
questions about its content.
b)
The students locate all specific information in the passage underlines or
20
c)
For each specific information that the students have highlighted, he or she
generates a question. The students read through the passage again to
answer each question that she or he has generated by using
self-questioning strategy. Corder (1979: 26) mentions that the students are
taught to ask WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? WHY? HOW? For
example, “
Who is the main character in the story
?” “
What did the
character do in the story
?” Students answer the questions by paraphrasing
sentences in the first paragraph. They are taught to get the answer to these
questions in the opening paragraph, it is usually easy enough to see how
the questions are answered.
d)
The students underline events and actions they found in the text. This
helps them to make questions about specific information stated in the text.
e)
Students review the specific information, the questions and answers.
b. While- Activity
1.
Teacher breaks the students into groups consisting of five to six students
2.
Teacher distributes the text to all students and instructs them to write 5
questions based on the text.
3.
The teacher asks the students to go through the text in order to get an
overview of the whole text.
4.
Teacher teaches the students about how to make common questions that
usually found in the text by giving the example how to arrange a question.
5.
Next, the students underline the main idea they found in the text. They make
questions, for example, “
What is the main idea of the first paragraph?
”
21
7.
The students underline some of the specific information they found in the text
and make questions by using WHAT or WHO i.e. “
Who is the main character
in the story?
”, “
What is the character do in the text?”
8.
The students underline events they found in the text and make questions
based on them.
9.
The students make prediction about the answers of those questions and write
the answers on their own paper.
c. Post- Activity
1.
The students exchange their questions with their partner and answer each
other, and then they discuss their answer with their partner.
2.
The teacher administers students’ questions and let the students answer.
3.
The students submit their work to the teacher.
4.
Students try to express their problems in comprehending the text.
5.
Teacher summarizes the materials.
6.
Teacher gives homework to the students.
2.8 Theoretical Assumption
Based on the previous explanation, the researcher came to the assumption that
teaching reading through Collaborative Strategic Reading is more very likely to have
an effective and relevant
impact to increase students’ reading compre
hension
achievement instead of teaching reading through Self-Questioning Strategy.
CSR could encourage students actively to be engaged in constructing meaning from
22
knowledge and experience, information found in the text and broader social context
of learning.
It was because CSR emphasizes in making the students have the skill to comprehend
the text clearly and quickly by its few steps such as Preview, Click-Clunk, Get the
gist and Wrap up. Judging from the previous explanation, the researcher will assert
that the students will have more practice and try to say the idea what they will be
acquired in the text and by repeating them it will be useful as a stepping-stone to
another new form formula.
2.9 Hypothesis
Concerning with the theories and assumptions above, the researcher formulated the
hypotheses as follows:
1.
There is a significant difference in students’ reading comprehension
achievement between those taught through Collaborative Strategic Reading and
those taught through Self-Questioning Strategy.
2.
Collaborative Strategic Reading is more effective to increase
students’ reading
23
III. RESEARCH METHODS
This part discusses the design of this research and how to collect the data from the
samples. The writer encloses the data collecting technique and the procedures of
this research. The writer also gives the scoring system and how the data will be
analyzed.
3.1 Research Design
To conduct this research, the researcher used
Control
Group Pretest Posttest
Design
. This design belonged to true experimental designs. True experimental
designs have three basic characteristics: (1) a comparison group is present, (2)
The sample are randomly selected and assigned to the groups, and (3) a pretest is
administered to capture the initial differences between the groups (Hatch and
Farhady 1982:22).
The researcher used this design because he wanted to give special treatment to the
experimental class one using collaborative strategic reading in teaching reading
comprehension. There were two classes of this experimental study; experimental
class one which get treatment through collaborative strategic reading and another
as a experimental class two which get treatment through self-questioning strategy.
24
Experimental class two was needed for comparison purposes because it lets the
writer interpret his findings more confidently. Both of them got the same
materials.
Based on Hatch and Farhady (1982: 22), the researcher used the following design:
G1 : T1 X1 T2
G2 : T1 X2 T2
Notes:
G1 = experimental Group 1
G2 = experimental Group 2
T1 = the pretest
T2 = the posttest
X1 = treatment by the researcher (Teaching through collaborative strategic reading)
X2 = treatment by the teacher (Teaching through self-questioning strategy)
3.2 Population and Sample
3.2.1 Population
The population of the research was the first year students of SMAN 8 Bandar
Lampung. The researcher chose the first year students in the second semester of
academic year 2011/2012. There were eight classes of the first year students and
25
3.2.2 Sample
Based on the population above, two classes were taken as the sample of this
research, as experimental class one and experimental class two. The two sample
classes of this research were selected using simple random sampling. Those
classes were selected randomly by using lottery, since the first year students in
SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung was not stratified class. There was no priority class. It
was applied based on consideration that every class in the population had the
same chance to be chosen and in order to avoid the subjectivity in the research.
Next, to determine which class is as the experimental class one and experimental
class two, the researcher used coin by flipping it.
3.3 Data Collecting Technique
In collecting the data, the writer used the following steps:
1.
Administering the Pre-test
The pre-test was given before the treatment, in order to find out how far the
competence of the students in reading comprehension or their input before the
treatment and to find out t
he experimental class’ reading
comprehension
achievement, the test was multiple choices that consist of 25 items. The
materials tested was related to the curriculum used in the school and suitable
with their level.
2.
Administering the Post-test
Post-test was given after the treatment in order to find out whether there was
any increase of students’ reading
comprehension achievement. The test was
26
pre-test. The materials tested, were related to the curriculum used in the
school and suitable with their level. The post-test was done after three
meetings of the treatments. The result of the post-test of the participant class
was analyzed.
3.4 Research Procedures
There are some procedures that will be applied for taking the data:
1.
Determining the population and the sample.
The researcher took two classes to determine the experimental class one and
experimental class two.
2.
Administering try-out.
The try-out test had been conducted before the pre-test was administered.
This was expected to measure the validity and reliability of pretest and
posttest, to ensure the data used by the researcher was valid and reliable to
use as a research instruments. This test was multiple choice tests and was
conducted in 80 minutes. There were 35 items of multiple choices with four
options and one of them was as the correct answer, the test items could be
reduced or kept depends on its reliability and validity. The aim of try -out
was to determine the quality of the test used as the instrument of the
research, and to determine which item should be revised for the pre-test and
the post-test. This research used the result of the try-out test to measure the
level of difficulty and discrimination power, to find out the validity and
27
Criteria of Good Test
Whenever a test or other measuring device is used as part of the data
collection process, there are four criteria of a good test should be met:
validity, reliability, reliability, level of difficulty, and discrimination power.
1.
Validity of the Instrument
A test can be said valid if the test measures the object to be measured and
suitable with the criteria (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 250). According to
Hatch and Farhady (1982: 251), there are four basic types of validity: face
validity, content validity, construct validity and empirical or
criterion-related validity. To measure whether the test has good validity, the
researcher used content and construct validity since the other two were
considered be less needed. Face validity only concerns with the layout of
the test. Criterion-related validity concerns with measuring the success in
the future, as in replacement test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:251). The two
types used in this research were:
a.
Content validity
Content validity refers to the extent to which a test measures a
representative sample the subject matter contents, the focus of the
content validity is adequate of the sample and simply on the
appearance of the test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:251). To know
whether the test is good reflection of what will be taught and of the
knowledge which the teacher wants the students to know, the
researcher compares this test with table of specification. If the table
28
from that point of view. A table of specification is an instrument that
helps the test constructor plans the test.
Table 3.1 Table specification of try out
No Objectives Item Numbers Total
Items Percentage 1 Identify the main idea 1, 9, 15, 19, 26,27 6 18 % 2 Vocabulary
6, 7, 17, 18, 24, 25, 33, 35
8 22 % 3 Specific information 4, 10, 12 ,13, 14, 21, 23, 28,30, 32 10 28 %
4 Inference 2, 3, 11, 20, 22, 29, 31 7 20 %
5 Reference 5, 8, 16, 34 4 12 %
TOTAL 35 100%
b.
Construct Validity
Construct validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line
with the theory of what reading comprehension means. To know the
test was true reflection of the theory in reading comprehension, the
researcher examined whether the test questions actually reflected the
means of reading comprehension or not.
2.
Reliability of the Instrument
Reliability refers to the extent to which the text is consistent in its score,
and gives us an indication of how accurate the test score are (Hatch and
Farhady, 1982: 244). To test the reliability of the instruments, the writer
used
split-half
method in which the reading tests were divided into halves
(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 246). By splitting the test into two equal parts
(first half and second half); it is made as if the whole tests have been
29
were number 1. until 18. The second half contained passage 3 and 5
involving question number 19. until 35. Moreover, by arranging the tests
into first half and second half allowed the writer to measure the test
reliability by having
split half method
.
To measure the coefficient of the reliability between the first and the
second half, Pearson Product Moment was used, which was formulated
as follows:
�
=
� ∑
− ∑
∑
√� ∑
2
− ∑
2
� ∑
2
− ∑
2
Where,
n
= number of students
r
= coefficient reliability between first and second half
= total number of first half
= total number of second half
= square of
= square of
∑
= total score of first half items
∑
= total score of second half items
(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 222)
Then to know the coefficient correlation of the whole items, Spearman
Brown’s Pharophecy Formula was used. The formula was as follows:
�� =
+��
��
Where:
rk
= the reliability of full test
rl
=the reliability of half test
The criteria of reliability are:
0.90- 1.00 = high
30
3.
Level of Difficulty
To see the index of difficulty, the writer used the following formula:
�� =
�
�
Where,
LD = level of difficulty
R
= the number of the students who answer correctly
N = the total number of the students
The criteria are:
< 0.30
= Difficult
0.30- 0.70 = Average
> 0.70
= Easy
(Heaton, 1975: 182)
4.
Discrimination Power
The discrimination power (DP) was the proportion of the high group
students getting the items correct minus the proportion of the low-level
students who getting the items correct. In calculating the discrimination
power of each item, the following formula was used:
�� =
� ������ �� − � ������ ��
⁄ �
Where,
DP
= Discrimination Power
U
= Number of upper group who answer correctly
L
= Number of lower group who answer correctly
N
= Total number of the students.
The criteria are:
DP: 0.00-0.19
= Poor
DP: 0.20-0.39
= Satisfactory
DP: 0.40-0.69
= Good
DP: 0.70-1.00
= Excellent
31
5.
Administering the pretest
The test aim wa
s to know the input or the state of students’ ability in
reading
comprehension before they were given the treatment. The test was used by
the researcher was multiple choice questions with four alternative answers for
each question. One was the key answer and the last three were distracters.
6.
Giving the treatment
There were three times treatments in this research. The narrative text was
used as the media in teaching reading to the students by using collaborative
strategic reading in experimental class one and self-questioning strategy in
experimental class two.
7.
Administering the post test
The next step were administered the post test to the both classes. The type of
the test was similar to the pretest. The urgency of giving the test was to find
out whether there was any
increase of the students’
reading comprehension
achievement.
8.
Analyzing the result of both pretest and post test
The next step of the research analyzed the data. Drawing conclusion from the
tabulated results of the pre-test and post-test administered.
3.5 Scoring System
In scoring the result of stu
dents’ test, the researcher
used Percentage Correct
(Lyman, 1971:95). The percentage correct score was used in reporting the result
32
The researcher will calculate the average of the pre-test and post test by using this
formula:
T R X%c 100
(Lyman, 1971: 95)
Where:
X%c = percentage of correct score
R = number of right answers T = total number of items on test
3.7 Data Analysis
