THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND LEARNING STYLE
ON S
TUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
IN READING COMPREHENSION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
FITRI AYU
Registration Number: 8106112033
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND LEARNING STYLE
ON S
TUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
IN READING COMPREHENSION
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
FITRI AYU
Registration Number: 8106112033
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
Fitri Ayu. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Learning Styles on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. Medan: Postgraduate School Program of State University of Medan, March 2013.
ABSTRAK
Fitri Ayu. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar Siswa terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, Maret 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, it is thankfull for Allah SWT who had given his blessing, health and luck so that thw writer is able to finish her studies and this piece of academic master piece. By the time, the writer also would like to say special mention for people whose contributed in the process of finishing this research. It is a pleasure to convey my gratitude to them all in her humble acknowledgement.
Then, she would like to say her sincere gratitude to Prof.Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd. as her first adviser for his his suggest, advice, and guidance from the early stage of this research as well as giving her extraordinary experience through this work. Above all and the most needed, she provided her inflinching encouragement and support in such an excellent way.
She also would like to acknowldge gratefully Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.M. as her second adviser. It is because she had also given her advice and guidance in finishing this research.
Many thanks go in particular to Dr. Iwayan Dirgayasa Tangkas, M.Hum., Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd., and Dr. Anni holila Pulungan, M.Hum., as her reviewers and examiners for the valuable inputs to be inserted in this thesis.
Finally, she conveys special acknowledgement for her beloved parents and family (brothers and sisters) for their understanding, caring and support. In deep, special acknowledgement is also conveyed for Farid Ma’ruf Harahap for his kind
in helping the writer as long as the process.
March, 28th 2013 The writer
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension in
SMA Kartika I-1 Medan... 3
Table 2. Domains in Instructional Teaching Strategies………. 27
Table 3. The procedure of advance organizer……….. . 34
Table 4. The procedure of reciprocal……… 39
Table 5. Research design……….. 53
Table 6. The relationship among the independent variables, moderator variable, and dependent variable is known by using Winer’s model………. 54
Table 7. Procedure of advance organizer and reciprocal strategies…. 57 Table 8. The Indicator of students’ learning style in questionnaire…. 63 Table 9. The level of comprehension in reading test……….. 65
Table 10. Data description of mean, median, mode, standard deviation, variance, range, maximum and minimum score……… 71
Table 11. Students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy 73 Table 12. Students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy……… 74
Table 13. Students’ achievement with visual learning style…………. 75
Table 14. Students’ achievement with verbal learning style…………. 76
Table 15. Visual students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy 77 Table 16. Verbal students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy 78 Table 17. Visual students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy... 79
Table 18. Verbal students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy… 80
Table 19. The result of One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test……... 81
Table 20. Homogeneity test……… 82
Table 21. Homogeneity test between interactions……….. 83
Table 22. The total data description with factorial design………. 84
Table 23. The calculation of two- way ANOVA………... 85
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Cause- effect structure in expository text... . 17
Figure 2 Comparison and contrast structure in expository text... 17
Figure 3 Time order structure in expository text... 18
Figure 4 Problem and solution structure in expository text... . 18
Figure 5 Simple- listing structure in expository text... . 19
Figure 6 Instructional teaching model by Dick and Carey………... 24
Figure 7 Learning style based on 8 multiple intelligences ... 43
Figure 8 Students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy.. 73
Figure 9 Students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy………... 74
Figure 10 Students’ achievement with visual learning style………. 75
Figure 11 Students’ achievement with verbal learning style……… 76
Figure 12 Visual students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy 77 Figure 13 Verbal students’ achievement taught by advance organizer strategy 78 Figure 14 Visual students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy….. 79
Figure 15 Verbal students’ achievement taught by reciprocal strategy…. 80
i
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1. Reading Comprehension Test……….. . 108
2. Learning Styles questionnaire………... 118
3. The Computation of Validity Test……… 120
4. The Computation of Reliability Test……… 121
5. The computation of Difficulty Index……… 122
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Reading is one of the four language skills in language learning. Its role is realized as very substantial not only for the language competency mastery but also for the knowledge mastery. By giving reading activity in the language learning, teacher actually has opened students’ schemata or horizon. In further condition, the knowledge they got from reading will give big impact for other language skills such as writing and speaking. If the students have limited knowledge, they automatically will not be able to write something or speak something even though they had mastered the structure of English well.
Thus, knowledge is actually the product of doing reading in the language learning which does not come suddenly without any processes at the previous. The processes are started by the interaction between the readers and the text such as looking the print, deciphering in some sense the marks on page. Then, the readers try to think what they are reading. Next, they think what is meant to them, how it relates to other things they have read, and how they connect it with their prior knowledge so that they are able to gather the new knowledge from the text.
In fact, the knowledge will not be reached by students if they lack of comprehending a text. It is because the reading is not only as the process of communication between the reader and the writer through written symbol in the
2
text but also as an activity which must enable the students as the readers to grasp the information implied in the text by activating their thinking process so that the reading comprehension is earned.
It is as what is argued by Light and McNaughton (2012). They uttered that the reading comprehension is require the learner to decode or recognize by sight the words in the written text, understand the meaning of the words / sentences, relate the meaning of the sentence(s) to the rest of the text, activate prior knowledge and experience about the topic, use this prior knowledge to infer meaning and support understanding, monitor understanding of the text continually.
In fact, the significance of reading comprehension is really realized by government so that in the state- examination (UN), the government inserts some questions which are based on reading comprehension activities from text. Even, the reading comprehension takes dominant point among the other kinds of questions starting from number sixteen until forty.
Those all the effort done by government expects that students will read many texts as their preparation before facing the national examination. In further effect, it will train students about how to gather knowledge from a text. This activity must be started from the daily teaching- learning process. So in hope, the students will not have difficulties in comprehending the text when they are in national examination.
3
what they are reading about. It is because they do not apply the way they use when reading in their native language to reading in foreign language they are learning. They just spent their time to earn the meaning word by word, then consult the unknown vocabularies, continue with the meaning of each sentences. Actually, what it is done by them just touch the linguistic knowledge. This is actually the phenomenon teacher faced in the class included in SMA Kartika I-1 Medan. The phenomenon is seen in the table 1.1.
Table1. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension in SMA Kartika I-1Medan
Semester Means of students’ achievement in language learning Reading Speaking Listening Writing I 55 74 70 72 II 58 76 80 78
4
However, not all teaching strategies are applicable for reading comprehension. The teaching strategies needed are those are able to connect the students’ prior knowledge with the new information in given text. Here, there are
two simple strategies which are selected in this study. They are advance organizer and reciprocal strategy.
The advance organizer is chosen as the strategy used in this research because it is so challenging and meaningful in learning by touching some concern in reading a text such as how knowledge is organized, how the mind works to process new material with the previous one. Research findings have provided evidence of the superior effects of various types of advance organizers used to facilitate reading comprehension (Lin and Chen, 2007). The findings also prove that reading is not passive activity because there are some processes happened when one is reading a text. While, the reciprocal involves explicit instruction by the teacher in the students’ use of the strategies, such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing, to develop their reading comprehension. As the students become more familiar with the use of the strategies, the teacher plays a less prominent role and the students develop the ability to work co-operatively with their peers (Wisaijorn, 2010).
5
knowing the learning styles which the students have, teacher easily will find the appropriate way to teach them so that the students will also enjoy the teaching- learning process.
In addition, Morrison (2001:53) stated that within each from intelligence, people are also who exhibit different learning style. There is a number of learning styles, which have been identified and can serve as a basis for the design of case. There are students who like to do an exploration directly and less theory in their styles while there are also students who like to sum up the material at first, in order to master the theory. The fact means that the learning styles are as important ways to be considered by the teacher before s/he starts to design strategies for teaching a material in classroom. It is because the more eligible a strategy with students’ need is, the more significant the knowledge got by the students.
So, realizing the condition, the learning styles are also considered as interesting one to be researched in order to see the effect of advance organizer and reciprocal strategies in reading comprehension for students who have different learning styles.
6
However, all the learning styles have their own way in learning something. It is not fair to say a learning style is better than others because it comes naturally in the students’ personality. Therefore, the very basic purpose of this research is
not to argue a strategy is better than others but to know the better result if a strategy is paired with a learning style.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The problems of this study are identified by the researcher after she observed SMA Kartika I-1 Medan. From the observation, it is known that the students’ score in reading is the lowest one if it is compared with other language
skills such as writing, listening and speaking. In addition, the students also stated that they felt difficult in grasping the meaning eventough they had known the meaning of each vocabulary. By those analyzing, it is identified that the problem which is the most important to be solved is the problem related with reading comprehension so that they are able not only to know the meaning of each words but also to communicate with the text and activate their schemata with the text they are reading.
7
1. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using advance organizer strategy significantly higher than taught by using reciprocal strategy?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension for those students with visual learning style is higher than those students with verbal learning style?
3. Is there any significant effect between teaching strategies of reading and learning styles?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the objectives are intended:
1. to investigate whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using advance organizer strategy is significantly higher than taught by using reciprocal strategy;
2. to investigate whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension with visual learning style is significantly higher than with verbal learning style;
8
1.4 The Scope of the Study
There are many strategies which are probably used by teacher for improving the students’ achievement in teaching reading comprehension but in
this case, the scope of study is intended to discuss only on advance organizer and reciprocal strategies on expository text contained predominant meta-level or top- level structures that organize the information and idea on students’ learning styles
whether visual or verbal.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
First of all, findings are expected to be useful for development of theory and practice. Theoretically, it is able to give positive contribution for teaching in overcoming problem in reading through value finding in the area of teaching reading. Moreover, the students also use this finding to another subject. Even, they probably also apply this strategy when reading whatever books in order to gather the comprehension from their reading. It means that it is very useful not only for English but also for another subject in which the key of enhancing the knowledge is reading.
99
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analysis and research findings at the previous chapter, it is concluded that:
1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension text by using advance organizer strategy is higher than that taught by using reciprocal strategy; 2) in reading comprehension, the achievement of students with visual
learning style is higher than students with verbal learning style;
3) there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. On the other
words, it can be said that the students’ achievement in reading
comprehension is influenced by teaching strategy and students’ learning
style.
5.2 Implications
It is known that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension
taught by using advance organizer strategy is higher than taught by using reciprocal strategy. It emphasis that actually whatever the strategy chosen by teachers is good if it is based on the students’ need, style and background so that
100
it is highly matching. It is because every strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses.
In this research, the strategies had attempted to be matched with students’
learning styles. Although the conclusion from data analysis, research findings and discussions indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using advance
organizer strategy is higher than by using reciprocal strategy especially when it is taught for students with visual style. It is because students with visual style are more curious in learning something through picture, structure, or organizer so that they feel challenged when they are asked to make their own organizer. In this case, the students will be as creative as possible in creating a new organizer of information which contains all the information in the text through some key words or paraphrase.
However, it does not mean the reciprocal strategy is not as good as advance organizer. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by reciprocal
strategy can also achieve satisfactory score when it is taught for students with verbal style. It is because the way of comprehending a text suited for students with verbal style is through questions word in some phases such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing. That is why reciprocal strategy is suitable to be applied for students with verbal style.
101
done is how to find eligible strategy for the learning styles so that their ability can be explored maximally.
5.3 Suggestions
There are some suggestions related with conclusions and implication at the previous. The suggestions are:
1. It is highly recommended for teachers to use advance organizer and reciprocal strategy since these two strategies are able to improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
2. It is highly recommended for teachers to use advance organizer strategy for class dominated by students with visual style while for class dominated by students with verbal style, teachers is recommended to use reciprocal strategy.
102
REFERENCES
Al- Makhzoomi, Khalaf and Freihat Saleh. 2012. The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) on Enhancing EFL Students' Reading Comprehension Behavior in a University Setting. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 (5),pp 280- 291.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Ausubel, D.P. 1968. Educational Psychology A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ary, D. 2011. Introduction to Research in Education. 8th edition. United State of America: Wardsworth.
Asmin and Mansyur, Abdil. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern. Medan: UNIMED.
Barkley, Stephen. G. 2007. What is students’ achievement?. New York :PLS. Baxendell, B. W. 2003. Consistent, coherent, creative: The 3 C's of graphic
organizers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3), pp 46-53. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from Wilson Web database.
Bond, Guy. L, et all. 1984. Reading Difficulties (Their Diagnosis and Correction). New Jersy: Prentice- Hall.
Boyle, J. R., & Yeager, N. 1997. Blueprints for learning: Using cognitive frameworks for understanding. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol 29(4),pp 26-31.
Brassel, Danny and Rasinsky, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works (Taking Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding To Deep Comprehension). Huntington Beach: Corinne Burton.
Brown, H. Douglas. 20007. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Edition). London: Longman.
Brown, H.Douglas. 2004. Teaching by Principle (3rd Edition). London: Longman.
103
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principle (5th Edition). London: Longman. Brown and Palincar, Ann- Marie. 1984. Cognitive and Instruction. London:
Lawrence Ellbaum Associates, Inc.
Burn, et all. 1984. Reading Comprehension. Pressley : Lysynchuk.
Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7.
Campbell, William.G and Stephen, V. Ballou. 1974. Form and Style: Theses, Reports, Term Papers ( 4th Edition). Boston. Houghton Mifflin.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carnine, Douglas; Silbert, Jerry; Kameenui, Edward.J. 1990. Direct Instruction reading (Second Edition). New York: Merill Publishing.
Carter. 2011. Learning Styles and Strategies. Carolina: Carolina State University. Charles, Alderson, J. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Clark, Eve. 1995. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Coldwell, Jo Anne Schudut. 2008. Comprehension Assessment. London: The
Fuilford Press.
Coper, Timothy and Greive, Cedric. 2009. The Effectiveness of the Methods of Reciprocal Teaching. Education Papers and Journals Articles. Vol 1 (3), pp 45-52.
Day, Richard. R and Park, Jeong-suk. 2005. Developing reading comprehension questions. Journal of Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 17 ( 1) pp 60- 73.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O., (2001). The systematic design of instruction
(5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley, Longman.
104
Faw, H. W., & Waller, T. G. (1976). Mathemagenic behaviors and efficiency in learning from prose. Review of Educational Research,Vol 46, pp 691-720.
Felder,Richard. M and Henriques, Eunice. R. 1995. Learning and Teaching Styles In Foreign and Second Language Education. Journal of Foreign Language Annals.Vol 28 (1), pp 21- 31.
Fleming, Neil.D. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. Language Reading). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Hamid. 2012. Reciprocal and Learning Styles. Jakarta: Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Hacker, D.J., & Tenent, A. 2002. Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 94(4), 699–718.
Haggart, W. 2003. Discipline and leaning styles: An educator’s guide. Cadiz, KY: Performance Learning Systems.
Hari, I Made Sukrawan. 2012.The Effect of Reciprocal Strategy and Learning Style on Reading Comprehension of the 10th Grade Students of SMAN 3 Amlapura. Ganesha: Ganesha University of Education.
Harris, Karen. R and Graham, Steve. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to students with Learning Difficulties. New York : The Gilford.
Hashey, J. M., & Connors, D. J. 2003. Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching action research. The Reading Teacher, Vol 57, 224-232.
105
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. 1971. Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego: EdITS.
Joyce, B., & Wsil, M. 1972. Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Knight. 1994. Genre in Language Learning. New York : The Gilford.
Lin, Huifen. 2005. The Effect of Verbal Advance Organizers in Complementing Animated Instruction. Journal of Visual Literacy, Vol 25 (2), 237-248. Light, Janice and McNaughton, David. 2012. Literacy Instruction for Individuals
with Autism cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania State University.
Linksman, Ricki. 1996. How to Learn Anything Quickly. Canada: A Catidel. Lin, Huifen and Chen Suiping. 2007. Reading Authentic EFL Text Using
Visualization and Advance Organizers in Multimedia Learning Environment. Journal of Language Learning and Technology, Vol 11 (3), pp 88-106.
Litzinger, Thomas. A, et all. 2007. A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles. Pennyslvania: Pennyslvania State university.
McNeil, John.D. 1992. Reading Comprhension (New direction for Classroom Practice: Third Edition). New York: HarperCollins.
Miller, L. & Perkins, K. 1990. ESL reading comprehension instruction. RELC Journal, Vol 21 (1), pp 79-94.
Moore, P. J. 1988. Reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension: A review. Journal of Research in Reading, VOL 11, pp 3-14.
Morrison, Terrence. 2001. Actionable Learning (A Hand book for Capacity Building through Case Based Learning). Tokyo: Asian Development Institute.
Neufeld, Paul. 2005. Comprehension instruction in content area classes. Journals of International Reading Association. Vol 1, pp 301- 312.
Nurliza. 2011. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar terhadap Hasil Belajar IPA Siswa SD Negeri 101798 Delitua. Medan: UNIMED.
106
Palisoa, Napsin. 2012. Strategi Advance Organizer dalam Pembelajaran Kimia. Ambon: Universitas Pattimura.
Paik, S. J. 2003. Ten strategies that improve learning. Educational Horizons, 81, 83-5. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from Wilson Web database.
Reid, Gavin. 2005. Learning Style and Inclusions. London: Paul Chapman. Robinson, D. H.1998. Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research
and Instruction, Vol 37,pp 85-105. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from
Expanded Academic ASAP database.
Ruddell, R., & Unrau, N. 1994. Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. Newark: International Reading Association.
Scarcella, Robin.C. and Oxford, Rebecca.L. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning (The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. New York : Heinle& Heinle.
Shannon, Steven. V. 2008. Using Metacognitive Strategies and Learning Styles to Create Self-Directed Learners. Journal of Learning Style, Vol 1, pp 14- 29. Shihusa, Hudson and Keraro, Fred. N. 2009. Using Advance Organizers to
Enhance Students’ Motivation in Learning Biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,Vol 5(4), pp 413-420.
Snowman, et all. 2009. Advance Organizer for Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Tanya. 2003. From Reciprocal Teaching At Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension. International Reading Association.
Townsend, Michael. A. R and Clarihew, Anne. 1989. Facilitating Children’s Comprehension through The Use of Advance Organizers. Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol 21(1), pp 1- 22.
107
