THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND SYNTACTIC
MASTERY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING
COMPREHENSION
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
BY
LIS SUPIATMAN
Registration Number: 082188330126
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRAK
Lis Supiatman. NIM.: 082188330126. Pengaruh Metode Mengajar dan Kemampuan Sintaksis pada Hasil Pemahaman Bacaan Siswa. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2012.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui: 1) perbedaan hasil pemahaman bacaan siswa MAN Kisaran yang diajar dengan jigsaw dan direct instruction. 2) perbedaan hasil pemahaman bacaan siswa MAN Kisaran bagi yang mempunyai kemampuan sintaksis yang tinggi dan rendah, 3) hubungan diantara metode mengajar dengan kemampuan sintaksis pada hasil pemahaman bacaan siswa MAN Kisaran.
Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah quasi experimen dengan rancangan Faktorial 2 x 2. Variabel bebas penelitian ini adalah metode mengajar dan kemampuan sintaksis , dan variable terikat adalah hasil pemahaman bacaan.
Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah kelas XI IPA MAN Kisaran. Sampel diambil dari dua kelas denagn menggunakan multistage cluster random sampling . Kelas pertama (XI IPA-1) diajar dengan jigsaw dan kelas ke dua (XI IPA-3) diajar dengan direct instruction. Instrumen yang digunakan untuk mengumpul data adalah: 1) tes pemahaman bacaan yang berbentuk multiple choices yang terdiri dari 30 soal dan memiliki nilai reliabilitas 0.748 dengan menggunakan rumus Spearman Brown 2) test kemampuan sintaksis terdiri dari 40 soal. Data yang terkumpul dianalisa dengan menggunakan ANOVA 2 x 2.
ABSTRACT
Lis Supiatman. Registration Number: 082188330126. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Syntactic Mastery on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School, State University of Medan. 2012.
The aims of this research are to investigate: 1) the difference of students of MAN Kisaran’s achievement in reading comprehension taught by jigsaw and direct instruction. 2) the difference of students of MAN Kisaran’s achievement in reading comprehension for those who have high and low syntactic mastery. 3) the interaction between teaching methods and syntactic mastery on students’ of MAN Kisaran’s achievement in reading comprehension. The method of this research is a quasi experimental with 2 x 2 factorial design. The independent variables of this research are teaching methods and syntactic mastery, and the dependent variable is reading comprehension achievement.
The population of this research was XI IPA of MAN Kisaran. The samples were taken from two classes (60 students) by using multistage cluster random sampling . The first class (XI IPA-1) was taught by jigsaw and the second class (XI IPA-3) was taught by direct instruction. The instruments used to collect the data are: 1) reading comprehension test was multiple choices consisting of 30 items and has 0.748 for reliability by using Spearman Brown formula. 2) syntactic mastery test consists of 40 items. The collected data was analyzed by two ways analysis of variance (ANOVA).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer’s endless gratitude is primarily expressed to Allah SWT for His forever
Blessings and Mercy that has enabled him to finish writing this piece of academic work. In
the process of writing this thesis, the writer has to confess that many people have given him
the care, attention, and bright ideas. In this connection, he would like to express his very
special gratitude to Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd. being his First Adviser and Prof. Dr. Lince
Sihombing, M.Pd. being his Second Adviser, his excellent advisers, their understanding
efforts in sharing their valuable time especially for comments, advice, correcting, and
suggestions.
He would like to thank his whole-hearted gratitude to the reviewers and examiners,
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Dian Armanto, M.Sc., Ph.D., Dr.Anni Holila
Pulungan, M.Hum., and for their valuable inputs for completion of this thesis. He also hopes
to express thanks to all lectures who have given him the valuable knowledge and science
during his study at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program of Postgraduate School,
State University of Medan.
Then, he would like to express his sincere appreciation and love to his parents, his
family, especially his beloved wife, Sukaseh, Am.Keb. and first daughter, Annisa Zhafirah,
who have given motivation due to their existence. Next, he also thanks especially his
classmates in LTBI of State University of Medan, Yudi Setiawan, S.S. for a nice hand,
Suhermansyah, S.Pd., who has given motivation, spirit, and cooperation as well, and all that
can not be mentioned, who have supported him. He also thanks to Farid due to his good
assistance. He also thanks to Mr. Reza, Mr. Kusnin, and Mrs. Masdelina Hutasuhut for their
motivation and suggestion in accomplishing his thesis and also his friends in Asahan
He also thanks the headmaster of MAN Kisaran, Drs. Makmur Syukri, M.Pd., who
permits him to conduct the research in the school, Faujiah, S.Pd. and Sri Nilam, S.Pd., as the
teachers who have helped him in conducting the treatment in his research and the teachers and
the students of MAN Kisaran, who have given supports to this study should deserve his
sincere gratitude for their cooperative attitude and work during the research. Then, she also
thanks Mr. Taufik, S.Ag.,M.A., Yusriah, S.Pd., and Mestika, S.Pd.,who have given him full
assistance.
Finally, the writer must admit that the content of this thesis is still far from the
perfection. Therefore, he warmly welcomes some constructive ideas and critics that will
improve the quality of the thesis later on. He also expects this thesis would be useful for those
who read it, especially for English Department Students.
Medan, August 4, 2012
The writer
Lis Supiatman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.2 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension….………9
2.1.3 Assessment of Reading Comprehension………..10
2.1.4.2.5 Strengths and Weakness ……. ………... . ………...23 on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension…………..29
2.2.2 The Different Effect of High and Low STntactic MasterT on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension…………..31
2.2.3 The Interaction between Teaching Methods and STntactic MasterT on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension...33
2.3 HTpotheses……… ………..36
3.5.2.1 Conceptual Definition……….……….48
3.5.2.2 Operational Definition……….………48
3.7 The Techniques of AnalTzing Data………...50
3.8 Statistical HTpotheses……… ………50
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Data Description …………..………...52
4.1.1 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw………...52
4.1.2 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction………...53
4.1.3 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High STntactic MasterT………55
4.1.4 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low STntactic MasterT….………56
4.1.5 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw with High STntactic MasterT………58
4.1.6 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw with Low STntactic MasterT………59
4.1.7 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction with High STntactic MasterT………...61
4.1.8 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction with Low STntactic MasterT………...62
4.2 AnalTsis Requirements Testing………..……….64
4.2.1 NormalitT Testing………64
4.2.2 HomogeneitT Testing………...66
4.3 HTpothesis Testing………...………68
4.4 Research Discussion……….………...74
4.4.1 The Difference on Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw and Direct Instruction………….74
4.4.2 The Difference on Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension between the Students with High and Low STntactic MasterT………76
4.4.3 The Interaction between Teaching Methods and STntactic on Students’Achievement in Reading Comprehension…………....76
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions……….79
5.2 Implications……….80
5.3 Suggestions……… 81
REFERENCES………83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The Procedures of jigsaw………..16
2. The Procedures of Direct Instruction………23
3. The Histogram of the Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw………..52
4. The Histogram of the Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction………..………...53
5. The Histogram of the Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension with High STntactic MasterT………..55
6. The Histogram of the Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension with Low STntactic MasterT………...56
7. The Histogram of the Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw with High
STntactic MasterT……….58
8. The Histogram of the Result on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Jigsaw with Low
STntactic MasterT……….59
9. The Histogram of Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction
with High STntactic MasterT……….………..61
10. The Histogram of Results on Students' Achievement
in Reading Comprehension bT Using Direct Instruction
with Low STntactic MasterT…………..……….62
11. Diagram of Interaction between Teaching Methods and
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. STntactic MasterT Test……….84
B. The Answer KeT of STntactic MasterT Test………91
C. Reading Comprehension Test………..92
D. The Answer KeT of Reading Comprehension Test………105
E. Lesson Plan……….106
F. The AnalTsis of Reading Comprehension Test………..112
G. The Result of STntactic MasterT Test………127
H. The Result of Reading Comprehension Test……….129
I. The FrequencT Distribution of Research Data………138
J. Calculation of Basis Statistics……….140
K. NormalitT of the Data……….144
L. The HomogeneitT Test of Research Data………...151
M. The Calculation of AnalTsis of Variance (ANOVA) Two Line………156
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
In the 2006 English Curriculum for Senior High School, reading is regarded as the
backbone of other language skills. It is stated that through reading students are able to
develop the other language skills such as writing and speaking. Through reading a lot, the
reader gets more knowledge and various information, which, those can be idea to be
written. Similarly, the reader gets more idea to be spoken due to the information that he/she
gets from reading. Precisely, through reading, the skill in either writing or speaking can be
increased.
In reading, the students are really required to be able to comprehend what they read
because the comprehension is the essence of reading. Through comprehension, the students
can get the message or the meaning conveyed in the text by a writer. Without
comprehension, the students can not be said having successful reading although she/he
may have read the text carefully. It can be concluded that reading comprehension is very
important especially for the Senior High School students. According to 2007/2008 The
Competency Standard for Senior High School (Depdiknas, 2007: 2) the students should be
able to comprehend short functional text, dialogue, monologue text in form of narrative,
recount, news item, descriptive, report, exposition, explanation, and discussion and answer
some questions related to the text.
However, this expectation can not be fulfilled yet. In general, many students can
not read comprehensively yet all the materials given to them. It is proven particularly from
the students of MAN at Kisaran. The researcher got the students’ reading comprehension
Table 1
Students’ Reading Comprehension Average Scores
Science Class X11 X12 X13 X14
School Year
Semester
2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 2010/2011
1 70 64 62 66
11 68 65 63 62
Based on the data taken from students of MAN at Kisaran, most of them still failed
in reading comprehension because the standard score for reading comprehension is 70.
While, most of them got lower than 70.
There are many factors causing the low reading comprehension. They can be from
students’ internal factors and students’ external ones. The students’ internal factors are
motivation, intelligence, interest, attitudes, personality, habits, and including syntactic
mastery. Meanwhile, the students’ external factors are the reading material, the total
program of reading instruction, the environment outside their school, and including
teaching methods.
When the researcher observed and asked the English teachers of MAN Kisaran, the
method which is already being used is direct instruction. But, its’ application has not been
satisfying especially in reading skill. It is so since the students still failed to understand the
reading text comprehensively.
Therefore, to overcome the situation and problems explained previously, the
researcher is interested in recommending a teaching method namely, jigsaw. That is why
this study is conducted to know whether the students’ reading comprehension achievement
taught by jigsaw will be higher than that taught by direct instruction for those who have
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The problems of the study are presented as the following:
1. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using jigsaw
significantly higher than that taught by using direct instructionk
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high syntactic mastery
significantly higher than that with low syntactic masteryk
3. Is there any interaction between teaching methods and syntactic mastery on students’
achievement in reading comprehensionk
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study can be described as follows:
1. to investigate whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by
using jigsaw significantly higher than that taught by using direct instruction.
2. to investigate whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high
syntactic mastery significantly higher than that with low syntactic mastery.
3. to investigate whether there is a significant interaction between teaching methods and
syntactic mastery on students’ achievement in reading comprehension .
1.4 The Scope of the Study
Jigsaw and direct instruction are the scope of the study as part of teaching methods.
The syntactic mastery is divided into two levels: high and low to the students’ achievement
of MAN Kisaran in reading comprehension. There are some reading texts in English. They
are report, narrative, analytical exposition, spoof, hortatory exposition and so on. The
students’ comprehension levels, namely literal comprehension and inferential one. The
narrative text is chosen because based on the curriculum it is learned in the eleventh grade
and this kind of text is always used as items of the questions for National Examination test
(UN).
1.5 The Significances of the Study
The significance of the study can be theoretically and practically, namely:
Theoretically:
- The result of this study will enrich the theory of teaching how to comprehend the
reading through jigsaw and direct instruction.
- The teachers will get the input which can make the students’ reading
comprehension improved.
- The result of this research can be used as the references for those who want to
conduct a research in improving the reading comprehension.
Practically:
- Through the application of jigsaw and direct instruction, the students can use those
methods in developing their reading comprehension.
- These can also help teachers teach reading because by using jigsaw and direct
instruction, itwill be easy to motivate the students in solving their problems in
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analysis, some conclusions are derived from meaningful
interpretation of discussion of this study in the following.
1. Jigsaw and direct instruction give the different effect on students’achievement in reading
comprehension. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension at MAN Kisaran
taught by using jigsaw is higher than students’ achievement in reading comprehension
taught by using direct instruction.
2. The high syntactic mastery and the low syntactic one give the different effect on
students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Students’ achievement in reading
comprehension with high syntactic mastery is higher than students with low syntactic
mastery.
3. There is interaction between teaching methods and syntactic mastery on students’
achievement in reading comprehension. Based on the results of schefee test showing
that the average students' achievement in reading comprehension by using jigsaw and
have high syntactic mastery is higher than the average students' achievement in reading
comprehension by using jigsaw which has low syntactic mastery. The average students'
achievement in reading comprehension by using jigsaw and have high syntactic mastery
is higher than the average students' achievement in reading comprehension by using
direct instruction that have high syntactic mastery. The average students' achievement in
reading comprehension by using jigsaw and have high syntactic mastery is higher than
the average students' achievement in reading comprehension by using direct instruction
that have low syntactic mastery. The average students' achievement in reading
average students' achievement in reading comprehension by using jigsaw which has low
syntactic mastery. The average students' achievement in reading comprehension by
using direct instruction and high syntactic mastery is higher than the average students'
achievement in reading comprehension by using direct instruction that have low
syntactic mastery. The average students' achievement in reading comprehension by
using jigsaw and have low syntactic mastery is not different from the average students'
achievement in reading comprehension using direct instruction that have low syntactic
mastery.
5.2 Implications
Based on the obtained conclusion in this study, it can be found that generally jigsaw
is used more effectively in learning process which aims at increasing the students’
achievement in reading comprehension compared with direct instruction. The comparison
can be seen through the learning process conducted by the teachers in the classroom. By
jigsaw the student is able to increase their learning because it is less threatening for many
students, it increases the amount of student participation in the classroom, it reduces the
need for competitiveness, and it reduces the teacher’s dominance in the classroom. In
addition to, Jigsaw can successfully reduce students’ reluctance to participate in the
classroom activities and help create an active learner-centered atmosphere. Meanwhile in
direct instruction, the learning process occurs due to the teacher’s presence because the
students must wait for their explanation. Apart from that, the students are more passive
because of their dependence on their teacher, so that the students’ achievement in learning
especially in reading comprehension can not be maximally achieved. Thus, it is suggested
that the English teachers as the determiner for the students’ learning success can apply
Based on the research result, the role of syntactic mastery and teaching methods has
some effects in improving the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. But, the
result is so different because the students taught have different syntactic mastery level,
high and low syntactic mastery. Therefore, There must be a division which every class only
has a syntactic mastery level, so that the application of jigsaw and direct instruction can be
adapted with the class taught. As the result, the use of teaching methods designed can take
some advantages effectively.
Based on the research result, it can be said that this study gives implication in
learning process for improving the students’ achievement in reading comprehension,
which, there must be a class division based on the students’ syntactic mastery. The class of
which students have high syntactic mastery should be taught by jigsaw than by direct
instruction. Meanwhile, the class of which students have low syntactic mastery should be
taught by direct instruction than by jigsaw. The students’ achievement in reading
comprehension can not be maximal if the teacher regards that the students have same
syntactic mastery. Therefore, it should be consideration for the teacher in defining the
suitable teaching method in transferring the material.
5.3 Suggestions
Based on the conclusion and the implication above, some suggestions can be
recommended as follow:
1. It is suggested that teachers should try to implement jigsaw in teaching reading, so that
the students’ achievement in reading comprehension can be improved.
2. To know the students’ syntactic mastery, the teacher is suggested that she /he conducts
3. Teachers who already know the level of students’ syntactic mastery, it is recommended
to apply jigsaw to students who have high syntactic mastery and direct instruction for
students with low syntactic mastery.
4. Teachers should always strive to improve students’ syntactic mastery because syntactic
mastery significantly affects the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
5. It is suggested that Education Department of Asahan Regency facilitate the English
teachers who have accomplished their postgraduate school of LTBI to develop the
students’ ability in English. And it is also suggested to give assistance to the English
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (1982). The Role of Syntax in Reading Comprehension: A Study of Bilingual Readers, in Martohardjono et al, ed, Cohen (Eds), pp. 1522-1544.
Arikunto, S. (2ll2). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Jakarta: Aneka Cipt
Aronson, E. (2ll8). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved October 21, 2ll8, from
http://www.Jigsaw.net.
Ary, D. (1979). Introduction to Research in Education. United States of America: CBS College Publishing.
Aini. (2l11). The effect of teaching methods and vocabulary mastery on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Medan. Unpublished Thesis.
Barnett & Stubbs. (1983). Practical Guide to writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bentin, S., Deutsch, A. & Liberman, I. Y. (199l). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 147-172.
Connor, U. & Farmer, M. (199l). Second Language Writing. New York.
Cromer, W. & Wiener, M. (1966). Idiosyncratic response patterns among good and poor readers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 3l, 1-1l.
D’Angelo, F.J. (198l). Process and Thought in Composition. Boston: Winthrop.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2ll7/2ll8). The Competency of Senior High School, Jakarta: Direktorat PLB Ditjen Dikdasmen.
Fauziatul. (2ll7). The Effect of Methods of Teaching and Reading Ability on Students’ Achievement in reading Comprehension. Medan. Unpublihed Thesis.
Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Southwood Press.
Grellet, F. (199l) Developing Reading Skills: A Practical Guide to Reading Comprehension Excercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. (2ll1). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Heilman, et al. (1981) Principle and Practices of Teaching Reading, Ohio: Charles E. Merril.
Kavcar, Oguzkan & Sever. ( 1994). A descriptive study: Reading comprehension and cognitive awareness skills in Nilgun AKSAN et al. Journal of Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. no. 1 pp. 834–837
Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. (1998). Longman Group UK Limited.
Mengduo, Q. & Xiaoling, J. (2l1l). Jigsaw strategy as a Cooperative Learning Technique: Focusing on the Language Learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly), vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 113-125.
Payne, B. D. (1992). Basal Reader Instruction: Effects of Comprehension Monitoring Training on Reading Comprehension, Strategy Use and Attitude. Journal of Reading Research and Instruction, vol. 32, no.1, p. 29-38.
Popham, James, and Eva (2ll3). Teknik Mengajar Secara Sistematis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Purba, D., C. S. (2l1l). The effect of teaching strategies and learning style on studentds’ reading comprehension.Medan. Unpublished Thesis.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. In Harmer, London: Longman.
Sheng, H. J. (2lll). A Cognitive Model for Teaching Reading Conprehension. Journal of Forum, vol. 38 no. 4, pp. 12-16
Sudijono, A. (2ll3). Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Swanson, H. L. (2ll1). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34, 1–15. Retrieved May
Vogel, S. A. (1975). The Role of Syntax in Reading Comprehension: A Study of Bilingual Readers, in Martohardjono et al, Cohen (Eds.), pp. 1522-1544.
Weir, C.J. (199l). Communicative Language testing. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
