THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION METHOD
IN TEACHING READING
(A quasi-experimental research in second grade students of one of public Junior High Schools in Bandung)
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted to English Department of FPBS UPI Bandung as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requierements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
CECEP AHMAD S (0608432)
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION METHOD
IN TEACHING READING
(A quasi-experimental research in second grade students of one of public Junior High Schools in Bandung)
Oleh
Cecep Ahmad S
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
© Cecep Ahmad S 2013
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Agustus 2013
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian,
PAGE OF APPROVAL
The Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading
(An Experimental Research in Eight Grade Students of one of Junior High Schools
in Bandung)
By:
Cecep Ahmad S
0608432
Approved by:
First Supervisor, Second Supervisor,
Drs. Deddy Suryana, M.A M. Handi Gunawan, M.Pd
NIP. 196212101990031004 NIP. 197301132009121002
Head of the Department of English Education
Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M. Ed.
The Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading (A Quasi-Expreimental Research in Second Grade Students of One Of Public
Junior High School)
ABSTRAK
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
2.1. Reading... ...
2.1.1. Definition of Reading...
2.1.2. Types of Reading...
2.1.3. The Importance of Teaching Reading...
2.2. Small Group Discussion Method. ……...
2.2.1. Conducting Small Group Discussion Method...
2.2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Group Discussion...
2.3. Research on The Use of Small Group Discussion in Teaching
Reading...
CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
3.1. Statement of Problems...………...
3.7. Data Analysis...
3.7.1. Scoring...
3.7.2. Tryout Test Analysis...
3.7.3. Pretest and Posttest Data Analysis...
3.7.4 Questionnaire Data analysis...
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Research Findings ………...
4.1.1 Try Out Test score Analysis .………...
4.1.1.1. The Validity Test ………...
4.1.1.2. The Difficulty Test ………...
4.1.1.3. Discrimination Index………...
4.1.1.4. The Reliability Test ………...
4.1.2 Pre-test Score Analysis ………...………...
4.1.2.1. Normality Distribution of Test in Pretest……...
4.1.2.2. The Homogeneity of Variance Test in Pretest ………...
4.1.2.3. The Independent T test in Posttest………...
4.1.3 Post-test score Analysis …….……...…..………...
4.1.3.1Normality Distribution of Test in Posttest………...
4.1.3.2. The Homogeneity of Variance Test in Posttest…………...
4.1.3.3. The Independent T test in Posttest..………...
4.1.3.4. The Calculation of Effect size ………...
4.1.4 Questionnaire Data Analysis ………...
4.1.4.2. The Negative response on Small Group Discussion
Method...
4.2. Discussions.………..………...
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions.………...
5.2. Suggestions …....……..………...
REFERENCES ...………...
APPENDICES
54
55
59
60
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides general outline of this study. It covers background of
study, statement of problems, aims of study, scope of study, significances of study,
hypothesis, research methodology, data collection, data analysis, and also the
organizations of paper.
1.1 Background of Study
In teaching English, there are four skills that should be mastered such as
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Reading, however, is one of the important
skills because it provides many useful information, knowledge, experience and
culture to the reader through the text. (Clarke and and Silberstein: 1997 as cited
inBrown:2001). In addition, Harmer (2007:99) states that many people read the text
either for their careers, for study purposes or just for pleasure.According to
Mikulecky and Linda (2004:2), the best way to become a better reader is by
reading a lot.
Unfortunately, most teachers are not aware of the importance of reading.
Some of them still use conventional teaching method to teach reading. They only
ask the students to read without making sure that their students comprehend the
text or not. Therefore, it makes the students are difficult to find the main idea of the
A research conducted by AVKO Educational research foundation (1974)
showed that teaching reading conventionally was failed because of two following
reasons: The first reason is the method of reading from left to right was too simple.
The second reason is teaching alphabet first before teaching reading which will not
help students to read fast.For that reason, it seems likely that a good method is
needed by teachers to help the students able to comprehend the text easily and to
achieve the goal of learning. Gillies and Adrian (2003) said that:
“When young children first come to a structured educational setting, their fledgling social and emotional skills and understandings are challenged in new and more complex ways. They will need to interact and negotiate with a large number of unfamiliar peers with different levels of social and emotional competencies, interests, cognitive abilities and interaction styles.”
From the explanation above, it can be assumed that learning in a group can
be a way to overcome the students’ problem in teaching and learning process.
According to Brown (2001:177), there are three kinds of group such as group in
pair, small group and large group. In this study, the writer choose small group as a
method to teach reading.
Small group discussion is a group which consists of six or fewer students
who are assigned a task that involves collaboration (Brown, 2001:177). Meanwhile,
McCrorie(2006) stated that small group discussion is a group consist of three to six
learners facilitated by a teacher.
A previous study conducted by Ria (2007), entiled “The Implementation of
Small Group Discussion in Teaching Reading”, in her study about the teaching of
experimental group got the higher score in the posttest than the control group after
they got small group discussion teaching strategy. Besides, some experts argue that
peers could be trained to facilitate academic accomplishments, reduce incidents of
deviant and disruptive behavior, increase work and study skills, and teach social
interactional skills ( Brownet al. 1971;Cloward 1967; Epstein 1978; Gartner et al.
1971; Lane et al. 1972) as cited in (Damon 1984;Greenwood and Hops 1981).
Regarding the explanation above, this study aims at investigating how
effective the use of small group discussion methodin teaching reading. Besides, this
study also provides the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group
discussion methodin teaching reading.
1.2 Statement ofProblems
Related to the background of this study ,the problems to be examined in the
present study are formulated as follows.
1. Is the small groupdiscussionmethodeffective in teaching reading?
2. What are the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group
discussion methodin teaching reading?
1.3Aims of Study
In general, the purpose of the study is about to find out the influence
ofsmall groupdiscussion as a methodin teaching reading English. Particularly this
1. To find out the effectiveness of small groupdiscussionmethodin teaching
reading.
2. To find out the students responses towards the use ofsmall group
discussionin teaching reading.
1.4Scope of Study
Based on the earlierproblems mentioned, this study focuses on investigating
the effectiveness of using small group discussion method in teaching reading in
eight grade Junior High School student. In addition, this study is also conducted to
find out the students’responses towards the use ofsmall group discussionin teaching
reading.
1.5Significances of Study
The result of this study hopefully will be able to give a new contribution for
teachers, especially in helping them to overcome the difficulties in teaching reading
which make students improve their reading skill. Besides, this present study
hopefully will also be able to give some contributions for the next researchers who
want to conduct study in the similar field.
1.6 Hypothesis
According to Nazir (2005), a hypothesis is a prediction, an explanation of
the research outcome which is expected by the researcher.Regarding to Coolidge
Ho: µ1 = µ2 = there are no significantly differences between the two population’s
means.
Ha: µ1 ≠ µ2 = there are significantly differences between the two population’s
means.
Specifically, this study used alternative hypothesis (Ha),which means that
there are significant differences between students who were taught by using small
group discussion with students who did not.
1.7 Research methodology
1.7.1 Research Design
The purposes of this studyareto find out the effectiveness of small group
discussion method in teaching reading and to investigate the students’ responses
towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading.Therefore, this
studyused quasi experimental design.According to Hatch & Farhady (1982:24),
quasi experimental design are practical compromises between true experimentation
Since the population of the study had been already assigned to several
classes, this study used nonequivalent group design. The study involved two
groups; experimental group and control group. The experimental group received
small group discussionmethod treatment while the control group receive
conventional method.
The experimental design in the research is described in the following table.
Table 1.1
Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experimental Xe 1 T Xe 2
Control Xc 1 - Xc 2
Xe 1 : Experimental group in pretest
Xc 1 : Control group in pretest
T : Small Group Discussion Method treatment
Xe 2 : Experimental group in posttest
Xc 2 : Control group in posttest
1.7.2 Population and Sample
This studywas conducted in one of public Junior High School in Bandung.
According to Arikunto (2002), population is a whole research subject. and the
population in this study was eighth graders in a junior high school in Bandung.
Moreover, Coolidge (2000) states that sample is a smaller group of scores
selected from the population. In this study the sample was two classes from seven
classes of eight grades; they were VIIIA as the experimental group and VIIIB as
the control group. The selection of the sample was not chosen randomly, since the
purposive technique was applied in this study.
1.8 Data Collection
In acquiring the data, this study involved four instruments. The instruments
used in this study as follows.
Tryout test :Tryout test was used to validate the test and to know
the reliability of the test. Besides, difficulty of each item and
discrimination index were also analyzed in this study.
Pretest : Pretest was administrated to both groups;
experimental group and control group after tryout test in order to find
out the students’ initial ability before conducting the treatments to the
experimental class.
Posttest : Posttest was used in last program of this study after
used to find out whether the method is effective or not. This test was
also given to both groups.
Questioners :To find out the students responses towards the use of
small group discussion method in teaching reading.It was given only to
experimental group after treatment.
1.9 Data analysis
In accordance with the design of this study, that is experimental design, the
data gained from pretest and posttestwere analyzed by using independent t-test
formula to determinewhether or not significance difference between experimental
group and control groups’ means. The data of pretest and posttest of the
studywereanalyzed by using computer of statistics product and service solution
(SPSS 16 for windows).
In the last process of data analysis,the formula of percentage was used to
analyze the questionnaire data. Then, the data were interpreted based on the
frequency of students’ answer.
1.10 Organization of the paper
This study will be represented into five chapters:
Chapter I:Introduction. This chapter provides background of study, statement of
problems, aims of study, scope of study, significances of study, hypothesis,
research methodology, data collection, data analysis, and also the organizations of
Chapter II:Theoretical Foundation. This chapter consists of theories and literature
related to the study
Chapter III: Research methodology. This chapter discusses the process of
investigation. This chapter will present a discussion on methodology employed in
conducting the research.
Chapter IV: Findings and Discussion.This chapter consistsof findings and
discussion of this study
Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions.This chapter consists of conclusion and
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides a discussion on the methodology employed in the
study, covering statements of problems, research design, hypothesis, clarification
of terms, data collection, procedures of study, data analysis.
3.1 Statement of Problems
As it is stated in the previous chapter, the problems to be examined in the
present study are formulated as follows.
1. Is the small group discussion method effective in teaching reading?
2. What are the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group
discussionin teaching reading?
3.2 Research Design
To find out the effectiveness of small group discussion method in teaching
reading and to investigate the students’ responses towards the use of small group
discussion in teaching reading,this studyused quasi experimental design.
According to Hatch & Farhady (1982: 24), quasi experimental design are
practical compromises between true experimentation and the nature of human
Since the population of the study had been already assigned to several
classes, this study used nonequivalent group design. The study involved two
groups; experimental group and control group. The experimental group received
small group discussionmethod treatment while the control group received
conventional method. The experimental design in the research is described in the
following table.
Table 3.1
The nonequivalent group design
Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experimental Xe 1 T Xe 2
Control Xc 1 - Xc 2
Xe 1 : Experimental group in pretest
Xc 1 : Control group in pretest
T : Small group discussion method treatment
Xe 2 : Experimental group in posttest
Xc 2 : Control group in posttest
(Hatch and Farhady: 1982)
Nunan (1992) stated that the variable which the experimenter expects to
influence the other is called the independent variable, in this study it was small
variable is the acting is called dependent variable or the students’ score in
reading.
3.3 Research Hypothesis
According to Nazir (2005), a hypothesis is a prediction, an explanation of
the research outcome which is expected by the researcher.
Regarding to Coolidge (2000) hypothesis isan educated guess about some
states of affairs. There are two hypotheses;the first is null Hypothesis (H0) which
states that there is no significant difference in total mean score between
experimental group and control group (Kranzler and Moursund, 1999). The
notation of null hypothesis is as follows:
H0: μ1=μ2
H0: Null hypothesis
μ1: Control group
μ2: Experimental group
The second hypothesis is alternative hypothesis (Ha) which states that
there is significant difference in total mean score between experimental and
control groups (Kranzler and Moursund, 1999). The notation of alternative
hypothesis is as follows:
Ha: μ1 ≠ μ2
Ha: Alternative hypothesis
μ1: Control group
Based on the statement above, this study used alternative hypothesis
(Ha),which means that there are significantly difference between students who
were taught by using small group discussion with students who received
conventional method.
3.4 Clarification of Terms
In order to avoid unnecessary misinterpretation, some terms are classified as
below.
1. Small group discussion refers to a group which consists of six or fewer students
who are assigned a task that involves collaboration (Brown, 2001:177 and
McCrorie:2006).
2. Reading refers to a complex process of getting information from written text in
which a reader uses his previous knowledge to recognize and to decode the
words and to interpret the meaning (Michigan Reading Association: 1985;
S.Pang: 1994; Byrne: 2004; Kenneth: 1967).
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Population and Sample
This study was conducted in one of public Junior High School in
Bandung. According to McMillan and Schumacher (1989), population is the
sample consisting of individuals selected from a larger group of person. The
According to Coolidge (2000), sample is a smaller group of scores
selected from the population. In this study the sample was two classes from seven
classes of eight grades; they were VIIIA as the experimental group and VIIIB as
the control group. The selection of the sample was not chosen randomly, since the
purposive technique was applied in this study.
3.5.2 Research Instruments
Research instruments are the tools used to measure something that we
observe in order to obtain the data and answer the research problems (Sugiono,
2011). The instruments that were used in this study are pre-test, post-test, and
questionnaire.
In this study, there were three instruments that used in collecting the data;
pretest, posttest, and questionnaire. Firstly, pretest was administrated to both
groups; experimental group and control group after tryout test was conducted in
order to find out the students’ initial ability before conducting the treatments to
the experimental class. Secondly, post-test was used in last program of this study
after giving some treatments to experimental groups in period of time. It was used
to find out whether the method is effective or not. This test was also given to both
groups.The last, questionnaire was administered to know the students’ responses
towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading.It was given only to
3.6 Procedures of Study
3.6.1 Administering Tryout Test
Tryout test were adiministered before pretest given to experimental group
and control group. The purpose of administering tryout was to measure the
validity and reliability of the instrument. The tryout was administered in other
classes which were not involved in the study as the control group and the
experimental group.
The tryout test was administered to class VIII-F of one of Junior High
School in Bandung. Students were given 90 minutes in doing test. The test
consisted of 50 items; all of questions were multiple choices and consisted of
recount text, narative text and descriptive text. After scoring the result of the
tryout, the writer made an analysis to find out the validity and reliability of the
item of the tryout. All of them were used to decide which items should be used in
making instrument.
3.6.2 Pretest
After conducted data analysis on tryout test, the next step was pretest. It
was used to find out the students’ ability before treatment. The test was
administered to both experimental and control group in their classroom during
3.6.3 Treatment
In this study, the writer used small group discussion method in teaching
reading as a treatment to increase students’ reading comprehension. The
experimental group was given the treatment for six meetings. Therefore, the
experimental group was taught by small group discussion method, while the
control group was taught by the conventional teaching method.Moreover, the
lesson plan of both groups is presented bellow.
a. Teaching procedure in experimental group
Teaching procedure in experimental group was implemented small group
discussion method in teaching learning reading . Firstly, the teacher was divided
the students into small groups. Each group consisted of 4 to 5 students. After that,
teacher gave a passage which consists of some paragraphs. And then, students in
group discussed together what the paragraph told about and made same perception
of what they have discussed. To make sure that all of the students comprehended
all of the passage, teacher asked a student in each group to explain the main idea
of several paragraphs and what the passage told about. Besides, at the end of the
session, teacher gave a quiz which related to the passage.
In this study, the researcher arranged a small group discussion based on
Duplass’s theory (2005). In pre discussion activities, the researcher gave
discuss; in whilst discussion activities, the researcher let the students did the small
group discussion, reported their own discussion, and presented the result of their
discussion to other groups or general discussion; and in post discussion activities,
the researcher gave feedbacks, in form of comment, correction, clarification on
the text discussed.
b. Teaching procedure in control group
Teaching procedure in control group was constructed through conventional
teaching in learning process. Firstly, each student was given a passage which was
same as experimental group. After giving a passage, teacher asked students to
read and analyze the passage individually. Then teacher asked students to
summarize the passage that they have read. To measure students’ comprehension,
teacher asked students to present their summary that they have made one by one.
3.6.4 Posttest
At the end of the treatment, the writer administered the post test. This test
was given to both group (control and experimental group) to find out the students’
reading comprehension after experimental group received the treatment. The test
3.6.5 Administering questionnaire to the experimental group.
According to Arikunto (2006), a questionnaire is a written test used to gain
the information from the respondent. There are two types of questionnaire,
namely closed questionnaire and open questionnaire. In closed questionnaire, a
number of possible answers of questions are given by the researcher, so that the
respondents only choose one of them. In open questionnaire, the respondents have
a freedom to answer the question based on their own words or opinions. The
advantageof using questionnaire is that the test can be given to a large number of
people in the same time, while the disadvantages are the unclear or ambiguous
questions cannot be clarified, and the respondents have no chance to expand or
react verbally to particular questions (Conoley and Kramer, 1989)
To investigate students’ responses towards the use of small group
discussion in teaching reading, questionnaire in the form of open and closed
ended were distributed to the students in the experimental group. There were 9
questions in the closed ended questionnaire in order to investigate the positive
responses which are given by students to the implementation of using small group
Table 3.2
The framework of closed-ended questionnaire
No. Aspects Item Number
1 Respond to students’ motivation in learning
reading by using small group discussion method
1,2,3
2 Respond to students’ participation in learning
reading by using small group discussion method
4,5,6
3 Respond to students’ responsibility in learning
reading by using small group discussion method
7,8,9
Furthermore, this study used also an open questionnaire which aims at
investigating the students’ obstacles (negative responses) in learning reading
through small group discussion method. The open question which was used in this
study is stated bellow.
Question:
Masalah apa yang kamu hadapi ketika belajar reading menggunakan metode
3.7 Data Analysis
The next step after collecting the data is analyzing the data. There are
some several steps taken in the data analysis, those are:
3.7.1 Scoring
Arikunto (2009) stated that there are two types of formulas that can be
used in the process of scoring and data previously obtained. The formulas were
formula with punishment and formula with no punishment. In the research, the
researcher used the formula with no punishment.
S: Score
R: Right Answer
3.7.2 Tryout Test Analysis
These are the steps taken in analyzing the items:
3.7.2.1 Validity
Validity refers to appropriateness, meaningfulness, correctness and
usefulness of the inferences that a researcher makes (Fraenkel&Wallen, 1990:
147). The purpose of conducting validity test is to see whether the test is valid or
not to be used in pre-test and post-test.
Coefficient Point Biserial correlation was applied to test the validity. The
data were calculated manually.
Before conducting pretest and posttest, the test items were analyzed
manually in the terms of its validity, difficulty, discrimination index and
reliability.
This study used 50 questions in the form of multiple choices, therefore the
formula of validity in tryout test is stated as follows.
γ
pbis = Coefficient of point biserial correlationMp = Mean score on the total of students who answered the item correctly
Mt = Mean of the total score
P = Number of students who answered the item correctly
Number of students
q
= Proportion of students who answered the item incorrectly (q = 1-P)
St = Standard deviation of the total score
(Arikunto, 2009:79)
After obtaining the score of each item, then the next step was comparing
the data from
r
obswithr
product moment (r
table) on the level significant 95%anddegree of freedom (df) = 50. The data becomes valid if
r
obs more thanr
table and thedata is not valid if
r
obs less thanr
table..3.7.2.2 Difficulty
Another requirement that needs to be considered as excellent instrument is
difficulty test.The formula employed to measure difficulty as follows.
P =
P = index of difficulty
B = the number of students who can answer the item correctly
JB = the number of students
B
After obtaining the score, then consulting the score to the criteria were used to
interpret the index of difficulty as follows:
Table 3.4
The difficulty level
Facility Value Interpretation
0.000 – 0.300 Difficult
0.300 – 0.700 Moderate
0.700 – 1.000 Easy
(Arikunto,2009:208)
3.7.2.3 Discrimination Index
The discrimination index was used to indicate how far a single test item
can differentiate the upper group from the lower group (Arikunto, 2009:211). The
formula is presented as follows:
D = The discriminationindex
BA = Number of upper group who answered the item correctly
BB = Number of lower group who answered the item incorrectly
JA = Number of upper group
PA = Proportion of upper group who answered the item correctly
BA
( PA = )
JA
PB = Proportion of upper group who answered the item correctly
BB
( PB = )
JB
(Arikunto, 2009 :213-214)
The next step was consulting the score ofeach item with the criteria of
discrimination index in the following table.
Table 3.5
The criteria of discrimination index
Coefficient Interval Interpretation
0,00-0,20 Poor
0,21-0,40 Satisfactory
0,41-0,70 Good
0,71-1.00 Excellent
Negative Throw away
……….
3.7.2.4 Reliability
Hatch and Farhady (1982) states that reliability is the extent which a test is
produced in constant result when administered under similar condition.In
computing the all items in estimating the reliability of the test, the writer used the
formula of KR-20.
r
11 = Reliability index of testP = Proportion of students who answered the item correctly
P = Number of students who answered the item correctly
Number of students
q
= Proportion of students who answered the item incorrectly (q = 1-P)
Σpq = Sum of the total result of the multiply p and q
K = Number of items
Vt = Variance of the total score
.(Arikunto, 2010 :231)
After obtaining the result (
r
11), then comparing with r product momentbecomes reliable if
r
11 more thanr
table and the test is not reliable ifr
11 less thanr
table.3.7.3 Pretest and PosttestData Analysis
Pre-test was administered at the beginning of the steps in the research after
tryout test in order to obtain the initial students’ ability of both groups.
Meanwhile, posttest was given to both groups at the end of the process. In
analyzing the datain pretest and posttest, the writer used the similar procedures as
bellow.
3.7.3.1 Normality distribution of test
In this study, the writer used Kolmogorov-Smirnov formula to analyze
normality distribution of test by using SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Moreover, there
are the steps taken to measure normality distribution of test:
1. Stating at the hypothesis
H0 = The distribution score of both groups in pretest is normally
distributed
Ha = The distribution score of both groups in pretest is not normally
distributed
2. Analyze the normality distribution of testusing kolmogrov-smirnov
3. Comparing level of significance to test hypothesis. If the result is more
than the level of significance (0.05), the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted.
In contrast, if the result is less than the level of significance (0.05), the
alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted.
3.7.3.2 Homogeneity variances of test
To analyze homogeneity variances of test, the writer used variance
formula in SPSS 17.0. These are the steps taken to analyze homogeneityvariances
of test, those are:
1. Stating the hypothesis
Ho : The variances of the experimental and the control group are
homogenous.
Ha : The variances of the experimental and the control group are not
homogenous.
2. Analyze the variance homogeneity using SPSS 17.0 for windows
3. Comparing the level of significance value to test hypothesis. If the result is
more than the level of significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted.
In contrast, if the result is less than the level of significance (0.05), the
3.7.3.3 The Independent t-test
There are some requirements of the data that must be considered before
conducting independent t-test. Firstly, the data should be homogenous or equal.
Secondly, the distribution data should be normaly distributed
(Coolidge,2000:143).
The procedures of independent t-test computation were as follows.
1. Stating the hypothesis
Ho : There are no significantly differences between students’ score of
experimental and control groups
Ha : There are significantly differences between students’ score of
experimental
and control groups.
2. Comparing the obtained level significance value (p) with the level of
significance for testing hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of
significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted. In contrast, if the result is
less than the level of significance (0.05), the alternative hypothesis is
accepted.
3.7.3.4 Calculation of effect size
In this study, the calculation of size effect was performed with aim
atverifying the influence of independent variable on the dependent variable and to
independent t test, a correlation coefficient of effect size can be derived as
presented below:
√
After obtaining the value of r, the score was matched with the following
scale to interpret the effect size.
Table 3.6
Effect size value
Effect Size R value
Small .100
Medium .243
Large .371
3.7.4 QuestionnaireData analyses
In answering the research question number 2, the writer used questionnaire
in order to collect the datato find out the students’ responses towards the use of
small group discussion method in teaching reading. The result of questionnaires
was put in percentage below:
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This last chapter concerns on conclusion and suggestion, which elaborates
the all findings based on the result of the study. This chapter is divided into two
sections, the first section is conclusion and the second is suggestion.
5.1 Conclusion
The purpose of the study was to find outthe effectiveness of small group
discussion method in teaching reading English and to investigate the students’
responses towards the use of small group discussion method in teaching reading.
As it is stated in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that the use of
small group discussion method is effective to improve students’ reading ability in
eight grade of junior high school. It can be assumed from the data in post-test
which showed that the probability value/level the asymp.sig (p) is lower than 0.05
(0.000<0.05) which indicates that the alternative hypothesis in this study is
accepted. In addition, the calculation result from the effect size also showed the
rvalue is 0.23 which means that small group discussion method gives medium
effect to the students’ achievement in reading.
Besides, the finding of questionnaire showed that there are three positive
method in teaching reading, those are: firstly, small group discussion method
supports students’ motivation in learning reading. Secondly, students are
participating actively during the small group discussion method treatments. The
last one, small group discussion method develops students’ responsibility in
completing the tasks given by teacher. Whereas, there are two negative responses
from the students towards the implementation of small group discussion method
namely: firstly, students are difficult to use English in stating or sharing their
ideaduring the treatment. They prefer choosing to use their mother language to
interact with other members in a group. Secondly, some of students prefer
working alone than doing the tasks in a group.
5.2 Suggestions
Having accomplished the study, there are some suggestions that maybe
useful for the next researchers in the similar field, those are:
Firstly, in the treatment process,it is suggested thatteacher has to put more
attention to mix some interesting activities with this method which may
cover all students with various learning styles so that they can participate
Second, during the teaching learning process it is better thatteacher guides
train the students step by step to speak up their idea in English.
Third, the small group discussion method in this study effectively
improved the students’reading ability. Regarding this, it is recommended
for the next researchers to apply this method in other language skills such
References
Arikunto, S. 2010. ProsedurPenelitian; SuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta: RinekaCipta.
Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Jakarta: BumiAksara.
Ashman, A.F. 1997.‘A learning experience’, Journal of Cognitive Education.England: Sharron Publishing Co.
Avko.(NY). 1974. Why traditional methods of teaching reading and writing fail to help most dyslexics to read and write. Retrieved on: http://www.avko.org/Research/why_traditional_methods_of_teach.htm (5th February 2011).
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, second edition. New York: Longman.
Byrne, K. 2004. Using authentic literary text with advance learners.Retrived on: www.depelopingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/autlip1_kathy.htm.(5Oc tober2011).
Coolidge, F.L. 2000.Statistics; A Gentle Introduction. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press Ltd.
Damon, W. 1984.Peer education: the untapped potential,Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 5: 331–43. Available on
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-15736-001.
Duplass, J.A. 2005. Middle and High School Teaching: Methods, Standards & Best Practices.Houghton: Mifflin Publishing Company
Emilia, Emi. 2008.MenulisTesisdanDisertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta
Fraenkel, Jack R and Wallen ,Normaen E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate
Gilliesdan Adrian F. 2003. Co-operative Learning; The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups.USA and Canada:RoutledgeFalmerTaylor &Francise Groups.
Grabe,W.1991.Teaching and Researching Reading.New York: Longman.
Greenwood, C. R., & Hops, H. 1981. Group-oriented contingencies and peer behavior change. In P. S. Strain (Ed.). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
Harmer, J. 2007.How to Teach English. China: Longman.
Hatch, E. and Hossein, F. 1982.Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publisher Inc.
Hedges,L.E.2003.Helping students develop thingking skill through the problem solving approach to teaching.The Ohio state university: Dr Lowell Hedges.
Kenneth, B. (1967).Reading Comprehension Skills.Retrieved
on”: http:esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplan1/a/reading-comprehension.htm. (22 February 2012)
Lewin, K. 1935.A Dynamic Theory of Personality, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martine,L. 2006. The Advantages and Disadvantages of using Small Group and Pair Work in the Classroom.Himeji Dokkyo University.
Mcroire,P .2006. Teaching and leading Small Groups.assosiation for the study of medical education. Edinbrugh.
Michigan reading association.1985. Reading as exploration.New york:Appeleton-Century.
Mikulecky and Linda, J. 2004. More Reading Power. USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Nazir, M. 2005. MetodePenelitian. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
Reiser, R.A and Walter, D. 1989. Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (second edition). USA: A Simon & Schuster Company.
Ria, Anteng Ananti.2007.Implementation of Small Group Discussion in TeachingReading.Universitas Negri Semarang.unpublished.
Shaw, M. 1932. A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rationalsolution of complex problems, American Journal of
Psychology.Retrieved on:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1415351?uid=3738224&uid=2129 &uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102492084267 (12th January 2013).
Sugiyono. 2011. MetodePenelitianPendidikan (PendekatanKuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta.
S.Pang, E. .1994.Teaching Reading.Retrived on: www.ibe.unesco.org/publication/pdf.(3 February 2011)
