THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND
SELF-
EFFICACY ON THE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN
READING COMPREHENSION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
FITRI AYUNISA
Registration Number: 8106112006
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah SWT, the most gracious and merciful, all praise for
His mercy, guidance and loving care which have been given to the writer, so this thesis entitled “The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on Students‟ Achievement in Reading comprehension” could be completed. Blessing and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought human being from uneducated become civilized and educated in terms of science and technology.
In the process of writing this thesis, the writer would like to extend her sincere and special thanks. Her gratitude is intended for her beloved parents,
Sumardi, S.Pd and Rosnelli, S.Pd. for their endless love, prays, and supports both moral and material before, during and after her academic years at Postgraduate School Program of State University of Medan and special thanks also for her
beloved Husband, dr. Faizal Muslim, and her cute boy, Afif Khalfani Azzam who always give love, prays, motivation, support and also patience in assisting the writer in finishing this thesis.
On this special occasion, the writer would like to extend her sincere appreciation to her brilliant advisers, Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and Prof.
Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., who has given their precious time in giving the encouragement, guidance, suggestion, advices and valuable knowledge until this thesis appears in its present form.
The writer would like to give her special thanks to her reviewers and examiners Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd., Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum., and Dr. Rahmad
ii
In particular, her enormous appreciation is addressed to the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Pd., the secretary Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and administration staff Farid Ma‟ruf Harahap, for the suggestions and administrative assistance during the completing of this thesis and also all lectures who have given very valuable knowledge and
science during her study at English Applied Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School of State University of Medan.
Special thanks is extended to Drs. H. Umar Bakri, the headmaster of SMA
Swasta YAPIM Simpang Kawat who has given a golden opportunity for her to conduct the research in the school. Thanks to the English teacher, Mr. Sugianto
Sinaga, S.Pd. who helps her in conducting the treatment in the classroom. To all students of SMA Swasta YAPIM Simpang Kawat, thanks for the cooperative attitude and work during the research.
Last but always forever, very special thanks to all her lovely friends in the executive class B LTBI XVIII as well and especially for her best friends Mam Delfina, Luhetri Muhdalifa Manalu, Julia Ratih, Hestika Ginting, K‟ Eka Dessy, Anastasia T Sibuea, Mam Hairani and the group members of line for their love, encouragement, supports, and unforgettable experiences in this thesis
iii
to her closest friends, Miss. Elvida Wahyuni, S.Pd, M.Hum and Prianda Febri, M.Pd, who have given more than one friendship colors and have been good motivators and good listeners, for every questions and complaints in any
discussions in this thesis accomplishment. For that, the writer can only say „thanks for the most precious friendship‟.
May Allah SWT bless you all...
Medan, February 2016 The writer,
iv ABSTRACT
Ayunisa, Fitri. Registration Number : 8106112006. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Program. State University of Medan, January 2016.
v ABSTRAK
Fitri Ayunisa. Nomor Registrasi : 8106112006. Pengaruh Strategi Pengajaran dan Keyakinan Diri Siswa Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca. Thesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016.
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Categories of Questions ... 27
Table 2.2 The Strengths and Weaknesses between PLAN strategy and QAR Strategy ... 30
Table 3.1 Factorial Research Design 2x2 ... 45
Table 3.2 The Treatment ... 47
Table 3.3 Students’ Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Indicators ... 50
Table 4.1 Summary of Research Data Description ... 62
Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using PLAN Strategy 63 Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using QAR Strategy 64 Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy ... 66
Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy ... 66
Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-EfficacyTaught by Using PLAN Strategy ... 69
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using PLAN Strategy ... 70
Table 4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using QAR Strategy ... 72
Table 4.9 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using QAR Strategy ... 73
Table 4.10 Summary on the Result of Normality Test ... 75
Table 4.11 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Teaching Strategies ... 76
Table 4.12 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Self-Efficacy 77 Table 4.13 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Interaction ... 77
Table 4.14 Result of Homogeneity Test on Each Group... 77
Table 4.15 Two-Way ANOVA with Factorial Design 2x2 ... 78
Table 4.16 Summary on the Calculation of Two-Way ANOVA ... 79
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 4.1 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension Taught by Using PLAN Strategy ... 64
Figure 4.2 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension Taught by Using QAR Strategy ... 65
Figure 4.3 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy ... 67
Figure 4.4 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy ... 68
Figure 4.5 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by
Using PLAN Strategy ... 70
Figure 4.6 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by
Using PLAN Strategy ... 71
Figure 4.7 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by
Using QAR Strategy ... 73
Figure 4.8 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by
Using QAR Strategy ... 74
Figure 4.9 Interaction between Teaching Strategies and
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Lesson Plan ... 100
Appendix B 1. Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 109
2. Reading Comprehension Test... 111
Appendix C 1. Computation of Validity of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 123
2. Reliability of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 124
Appendix D 1. Computation of Validity of Reading Comprehension Test ... 125
2. Computation of Reliability of Reading Comprehension Test ... 126
Appendix E The Calculation of Self-efficacy Questionnaire ... 128
Appendix F Description of Students’ Score on Self-efficacy Questionnaire ... 129
Appendix G The Description of Students’ Score ... 131
Appendix H Description of Research Data ... 133
Appendix I Normality Test ... 148
Appendix J Homogeneity Test ... 157
Appendix K Hypotheses Testing ... 159
1
BAB I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of Study
In Indonesia, one of the objectives of TEFL is to develop the students’
reading skill. Only through reading the students acquire the speed, gaining a large
information about the world which is considered as knowledge of the world, and
understanding it from the written words. Reading as one of the four language
skills, as receptive skill besides listening is a complex, cognitive process, a whole
complex system of skills and knowledge, knowledge and activities in visually
recognizing individual printed words are useless in and of themselves (
Smith,2004 : 4). It means that reading as one of the four basic language skills that
must be mastered in language learning, especially in English learning.
The awareness of the importance of reading comprehension have
encouraged the Indonesia government to make a policy in educational system;
Reading is a subject that must be taught from Primary until Senior High School.
The students are expected to be able to comprehend the written text they read well
through teaching and learning. This is the line with the objectives of reading
instruction in Senior High School is to develop the students’ reading skill so that
the students can read, comprehend English text, summarize, and represent the text
with their own words effectively and efficiently (Curriculum, 2013).
Although reading comprehension is very important, but reading is not an
easy thing to do for the students. Nasution (2007 : 64) stated that Senior High
School students are able to read without understanding the meaning. It was added
2
that apart from the internal problem the failure of teaching and learning program,
students sometimes struggle in building their comprehension because of some
external problems, such as their home circumstance, parental and family support,
and their attitude toward reading. Referred to the previous evidence, the success
or the failure of learning including reading lies on the strategies or techniques
used and the personality of the learners themselves.
In fact, a research on reading skill in Indonesia has revealed that the
students’ skills particularly in reading comprehension are far from satisfactory. It
is as reported in Kompas, a daily newspaper, (2007) that around 37,6% of 15
years-old students are merely able to read the texts without understanding the
meaning carried by the text. Only 24,8% out of them are able to correlate the tests
with their prior knowledge. It means that many students still have insufficient
ability to comprehend the text.
The same problem is also happened to the students of SMA Swasta
YAPIM Simpang Kawat, the second grade students at SMA Swasta YAPIM
Simpang Kawat during the first and the second semester in 2013/2014 academic
year. It is found that from 109 students, there were 40 students got score 75 to 90
in the first semester and 48 students got score 75 to 90 in the second semester.
Score 75 is a KKMstandard of English subject of the second grade. It means that
it is only 37% students in the first semester and 44 % students in the second
semester that got high score in reading comprehension. From the fact, the data
should be used as a referencein enhancing students' reading skills, particularly in
reading comprehension. One of possible reasons that the majority of the second
3
they do not learn the language effectively. So it is very difficultt to understand
some English text without having the prior knowledge and certain strategy.
Furthermore, the application of the strategy used during the teaching-learning
process used by the teacher in conveying the reading materials to the students
might be causing problem. In order to get the optimum result of teaching reading,
the strategy used must facilitate the students to be active while reading and make
them interact more with the text
In enhancing reading comprehension, the students need to learn particular
strategies for reading so that they can be actively engaged in the text and get the
meaning of the text. Teachers must instruct students in valid and accurate
comprehension strategies in order to enhance reading comprehension. In general,
most of the second year students of Senior High School can not master a certain
text totally because inappropriate strategy of teaching learning process,
particularly in teaching reading of English subject.
By having some facts related to reading comprehension, the researcher
conclude that they need strategies in order to overcome their lack desire of reading
comprehension. There are many strategies can be used in increasing students’
reading comprehension. Two of them are PLANstrategy and QAR strategy. By
having those strategies, students’ are expected to achieve good comprehension in
reading.
PLAN is an acronymfor four distinct steps of Predict, Locate, Add, and
Note. This strategy is involved before, during and after reading activities.The PLAN strategy is defined as a great strategy intended to start with an evaluation of
4
PLAN as a great strategy could help the students read informational texts
actively and strategically (Caverly et.al. 1995). This strategy begins by first
activating students’ prior knowledge, the students skim the assigned reading for
main headings and then predict the content of the text (Predict), and then the
students place the check marks next to topics that are known and question marks
by topics are unknown (Locate). After that, they should explore the text and
record the key words and phrases that applied to the topic (Add), and the last one
the students must demonstrate reading comprehension by revising the concept
map, writing a summary, or completing some other relevant tasks (Note). This
step is important because students use their comprehension to complete the
learning task. Through these steps, the students are pushed to use a number of
strategies such as relating prior knowledge, predicting, questioning, summarizing,
using imagery, and setting a purpose for reading.
There are several contributions of using PLAN in teaching reading.
Seagrave (2006) found 5 contributions when use the PLAN strategy in teaching
reading. First, PLAN strategy facilitates active reading. It means that the students
interact more with the text they read while creating their predictions into a map.
Then, it engages students’ background knowledge of the topic that simultaneously
build their interest and motivation to read. This strategy also encourages students
to take responsibility of their comprehension by requiring concrete evidence of
their reading. Creating concept map helps the students to visualize the ideas in the
text that will monitor their comprehension. It is also helps the students to
5
Another strategy that can be applied in teaching reading is QAR strategy.
Question Answer Relationship strategy (QAR) is one of the strategies in
contextual teaching and learning that provide some question in order to demand
the students know well about the text. QAR creates a way of thinking about the
types of questions that are most appropriate for different points in guiding
students through a text.
Raphael divides QAR strategy in to two categories the QAR strategy
divides questions into two broad categories; "In the Book" (Right There and
Think and Search) questions and "In My Head" (Author & You and On My Own)
questions. Through the types of questions of QAR, the students will be able to
search for key words and phrases to locate the appropriate information whether or
not information is present in the text and, if not, that is necessary to read “between
or beyond the lines” to answer questions. Furthermore, the Question Answer
Relationship (QAR) strategy presents a three-way relationship among questions,
text content, and the student’s knowledge about text.
The researcher is interested in these kinds of reading strategies under the
considerations that PLAN provides strategies in which the students comprehend
the text by activating their background knowledge and experiences while learning.
Furthermore, PLAN strategy encourages the students to self-assess what they
know about a topic and provides them with an opportunity to organize and
summarize what already know or have learned through their reading. In contrary,
the QAR provides strategies in which the students must comprehend kinds of
6
words, this strategy invites the students to think more before answering the
question.
Guthrie (2004:56) stated that there must be serious attention from the
teacher to see the personal behavior of the learners to read to activate their
motivation. To give motivation to the students, it is not enough by applying the
teaching strategies, to improve the quality of teaching process in the classroom it
is important to include the students’ internal factors, in this study the researcher
will discuss about self-efficacy.
According to Pajares (1996), self-efficacy as a persons’ confidence to
perform a specific task successfully and is linked closely to initial task
engagement, persistence, and achievement. In other word, self-efficacy is the
belief and confidence that students have about their capacity to accomplish
meaningful tasks and produce a desired result in academic setting. To improve the
quality of teaching process in the classroom, it is also important to know the
students’ internal factors, such as efficacy.By knowing the students’
self-efficacy, it is hoped that the teacher can exercise their students to control over
events that are likely to affect their lives, and their beliefs in their capabilities to
put together the motivation.Students with high self-efficacy are more engaged and
motivated than students with low self-efficacy in learning, especially in teaching
reading comprehension.
Therefore, in this study the researcher is going todiscover the effect of
Predict, Locate, add, Note (PLAN) strategy and Question Answer Relationship
(QAR) strategy in improving the students’ reading comprehension for those who
7
1.2 Problems of the study
The problems of this study are formulated in question form as follows :
1) Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using
PLAN strategy significantly higher than that taught by using QAR
strategy?
2) Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high
self-efficacy significantly higher than that low self-self-efficacy?
3) Is there any significant interaction between teaching strategies and
self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
1.3 Objectives of the study
In carrying out the research, it is necessary to state the objectives of the
study clearly. So, the objectives of this study are:
1) to find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension
taught by using PLAN strategy is significantly higher than that taught by
QAR strategy;
2) to find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension
with high self-efficacy is significantly higher than that low self-efficacy;
3) to find out whether there is significant interaction between teaching
strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading
8
1.4 Scope of the Study
Reading comprehension is influenced by many factors such as attitudes,
motivation towards reading, self-efficacy, language uses, background of
knowledge, reading purpose, reading strategy, thinking abilities and text variables.
All of the factors are affected in successful reading.
Considering the fact that reading comprehension is influenced by many
factors, so the writer only focuses her research on the students’ self-efficacy. In
this case, the students’ self-efficacy in learning English especially in reading
activity. Besides, there are many strategies that teacher can use in enhancing
students achievement in English especially in reading comprehension. This study
is focused on the application of PLAN strategy and QAR strategy which is
assumed can help students in reading comprehension.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful for teachers of English in
overcoming the students’ problem in reading comprehension. Theoritically, it is
hoped that the result of the study will add what has been found in the era of
teaching English as a foreign language.Meanwhile, practically the result of this
study will inform The English teachers in their attempts to decide which of the
best strategies in helping the students or learners to read comprehensively.
This study is also expected to be useful as a trigger and as the grounds for
further research in conducting a research related to the improvement of the
92
92 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and discussion, it can be concluded that:
1. The students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using PLAN
strategy is higher than that taught by using QAR strategy. Hence PLAN
strategy is more effective to be used in teaching reading than QAR strategy in
improving the students’ achievement.
2. High and low self-efficacy give different influence to the students’
achievement in reading comprehension. The students’ achievement in reading
comprehension with high self-efficacy is higher than that low self-efficacy;
and
3. There is significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy
on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. The students’
achievement in reading comprehension is influenced by teaching strategies
and self-efficacy. The high self-efficacy students showed significant effect on
their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using PLAN
while low self-efficacy students showed significant effect on their reading
93
5.2. Implications
Based on the previous findings, It can be known that PLAN is more effective
to be used in teaching reading comprehension than QAR strategy. In this research, the
researcher has tested the two teaching strategies in reading comprehension, they are
applied on high and low self-efficacy students in order to know which the teaching
strategies are appropriate for the students in improving their achievement in reading
comprehension. Based on this research, It can be seen that the students’ achievement
in reading comprehension taught by using PLAN strategy is higher than taught by
using QAR strategy.
Furthermore, in this research the strategies had attempted to be matched with
the students’ self-efficacy. Although the conclusion from data analysis, research
findings and discussions indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using
PLAN strategy is higher than by using QAR strategy especially when it is taught for
the students with high self-efficacy. It is because the students with high self-efficacy
are more curious and have deeper interest in learning something new through what
they have known about the text, what they want to know about the text and listing
what they have learned after read the text so that they feel challenged when they are
asked to make their own knowledge. In this case, the students will be as creative as
possible in getting new information which contains all the information in the text
through some key words or paraphrase.
However, it does not mean the QAR strategy is not as good as PLAN strategy.
It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by QAR strategy can also achieve
94
the way of comprehending a text suited for students with low self-efficacy is through
questions word in some phases such as predicting, clarifying, questioning, and
summarizing. That is why QAR strategy is suitable to be applied for students with
low self-efficacy.
Finally, the fact explained above also proves that actually the students who
have high or low self-efficacy had been able to achieve satisfactory score. Therefore,
as the teachers should pay more attention to their students, always try to find eligible
strategy for the students who have high or low self-efficacy so that they can obtain
good motivation and better learning achievement, especially in reading
comprehension.
5.3 Suggestions
In connection to the conclusions, there are some suggestions staged as the
following:
1. The English teachers are recommended using PLAN strategy in teaching
reading comprehension in improving the students’ achievement in reading
comprehension.
2. The English teacher should identify their students self-efficacy level before
doing the teaching process and match the teaching strategy used with the
identified levels so that they can obtain good motivation and better learning
achievement, especially in reading comprehension. . It is suggested for the
95
with high self-efficacy, and for the class dominated by the students with low
self-efficacy the English teacher are suggested using QAR strategy.
3. Other researchers can develop further study in the area of PLAN strategy and
QAR strategy in order to improve the students’ achievement in reading
96
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta:Rineka Cipta.
Ary, D. And Rajaviah, A. 1979. Introduction to Research in Edication. New
York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ary, D., et al. 2010.Introduction to research in Education. Wadsworth, Cengange
Learning.
Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research Education (Eight edition).
USA: Wadsworth.
Asmin and Mansyur, Abdil. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan
Analisis Klasik dan Modern. Medan: UNIMED.
Axford, Beverley. 2009. Scaffolding literacy : an integrated and sequential approach
to teaching reading, spelling and writing. Victoria : ACER Press.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitivetheory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
____.1994. Self-Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (vol. 4, p. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
____.1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freemen
Beacon.2013. Question Answer Relationship. Reading Educator. Retrieved onApril
12th, 2013/08:02:09. From
(http://www.readingeducator.com/strategies/qar.htm).
Bloom, B. S. ed. et al. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1,
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Brassel, Danny & Rasinski, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works. CA:
Huntington Beach.
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practises. New
York:Longman.
Burns and Betty, P. Ross. 1984. Teaching English in Today Elementary School. 3rd
97
Cain, K., & Okhill, J. 2006. Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension
difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,4,683-696.
Campbell, D.T and Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
designs for Research. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.
Caverly, et.al. 1995. PLAN : A study reading strategy for Informational Texts.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. Retrivied on 5 April, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40015675.
Cohen, Vicki L and John Edwin Cowen. 2008. Literacy for Children in an
Informational Age: Teaching Reading, writing and Thinking. Belmant: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Cook, T.D and Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis
Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Natalia, Deasy. 2013. Enhancing Students’ Reading Comprehension by the Use of QAR ( Question-Answer Relationship) Strategy. Retrivied from Internet. Web : Academia.edu.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan
(KTSP) SLTP/MTs SLTA/MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Khairani, Elfi. 2014. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-efficacy on the
Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Unimed
Fisher, D., and Frey, N, 2004. Improving Adolescent Literacy: Strategies at Work.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gregory, R. J. 2000. Psychological Testing (3rd ed.) Needham Heights, MA : Allyn &
Bacon
Guthrie, John T, et.al. 2004. Motivating Reading Comprehension : Concept Oriented
Reading Instruction. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hummel, S. 2000. Develoving comprehension skills of secondary students with
specific learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties,
5,4,22-27.
Kemple, J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S., & Drummond, K.
2008. The Enhanced Reading Opportunities study: Early impact and
98
Kinniburgh, Leah. 2010. Question Answer Relationships in the Primary Grades:
Laying the Foundation for Reading Comprehension. International Journal of
Early Childhood Special Education, II (1) 1-14
Kompas 2007. Kemampuan Membaca Anak Indonesia Masih Rendah.[online].
Tersedia : http://indonesiabuku.com/?p=2285. [13 maret 2012].
Latief, M. 28 Oktober, 2009. Kemampuan Membaca Anak Indonesia Masih Rendah. Kompas (Online), (http://kompas.com, diakses 09 November 2012).
Muzammil, S. 2009. Employing Question-Answer Relationship (QAR) to enhance
Students’ Reading Comprehension ( A Classroom Action Research at the Eleventh Year of SMA Negeri 2 Sukoharjo in 2009/2010 Academic Year).
Retrivied from Internet Journal Web: www.readingrecovery.org
Myers, L., & Botting, N. 2008. Literacy in the mainstream inner-city school: Its
relationship to spoken language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,
24,1,95-114.
Nasution, Azizah Hanim. 2007. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris Pasca
sarjana UNIMED, vol.4, vol.2, November 2007, Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan.
Natalia, Deasy. 2013. Enhancing Students’ Reading Comprehension by the Use of QAR ( Question-Answer Relationship) strategy. Retrivied from Internet Web: www.academia.edu.
National Reading Panel. 2004. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Pajares, F. 2003. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading& writing Quarterly,19 (2), 139-158.
Pearson, P.D. & Hamm, D. N. 2005. The Assessment of Reading Comprehension: A
review of practices-past, present, and future (p.13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assiciates Publishers.
Pressley, M. 2006. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching
(3rd ed.) New York: Guilford.
Raphael, T. 1986. Teaching Question-Answer Relationships. The Reading Teacher,
99
Tabor. Sarah. 2013. Textbook Reading Strategies in the Middle School Science
Classroom. Montana State University.
Seagrave, Lindy J. 2006. The Implementation of the PLAN Reading Strategy in a
Secondary Science Classroom. Defiance College.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and
Rogers, R.W. 1982. The self-efficacy scale : Construction and validation.
Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671
Smith. F. 2004. Understanding Reading, 2nd ed. New York : Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Spear-Swerling, L. 2004. Fourth-graders' performance on a state-mandated
assessment involving two different measures of reading comprehension.
Reading Psychology,25, 121-148.
Westwood, Peter. 2001. What teachers know about reading and writing difficulties.
Australia:ACER Press.
_____. 2008. What Teachers know about Reading and Writing Difficulties. Australia:
