THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND LEARNING STYLES ON THE STUDENTS’ 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
TEGUH SATRIA AMIN Registration Number: 809112041
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
Teguh Satria Amin. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Learning Styles on the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School of State University of Medan, 2013
ii ABSTRAK
Teguh Satria Amin. Pengaruh Strategi Pengajaran dan Gaya Belajar terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca. Thesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2013
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim…
Alhamdulillah, praise is to Allah SWT, Who gives the writer blessing,
knowledge, health, power to finish this study. The writer’s deepest gratitude is
only for Him, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful. Moreover, he would like
to express gratitude to his prophet, Muhammad SAW, his family, and companions
for being the role model in his life.
In the process of writing this thesis, the writer would like to extend his
sincere and special thanks. His gratitude is intended for his dearest parents, Ayah
(H. Muhammad Aminnullah) and Ibu (Hj. Nurhayati Br. Pohan) for their
endless love, prays, and supports.
His enormous gratitude and best appreciation are expressed to
Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed, TESP and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, his brilliant advisers, who have spent precious time in giving suggestions,
encouragement, guidance, advices until this thesis comes to its due time.
He would like to thank his whole-hearted gratitude to the reviewers and
examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd,
and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum, for their valuable inputs for completion
of this thesis. He also wishes to express thanks to all lecturers 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. In
iv
The Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
MM, the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program.
Then, He thanks to the headmaster of SMA Swasta Harapan Mandiri,
H. Ramli J. Marpaung, SH, S.Pd, MM, who permited him to conduct the research in the school; teachers (Anna Elyruspika Sipayung, S.Pd and Lyamnah Munthe, S.Pdi) who helped in conducting the treatment in his research. And those teachers and students of SMA Swasta Harapan Mandiri who
gave supports to this study should deserve his sincere for their cooperative attitude
and work during the research.
He is also deeply grateful to his old brothers (Agus Muhardi Amin, SE,
M. Si; M. Taufik Amin, SE; Ganda Syahputra Amin, ST; Maradona Harahap, Amd), his old sisters (Sundari, S.Sos; Fitriyani, S.Pd; Marleni, Amd and Rina Annisa Amin, SE), and family. He also gives his appreciation and gratitude to Desi Yunita, S.Pd and her family who never gave up supporting him
in accomplishing this thesis and assisting him indeed.
Furthermore, he would like to express his gratitude to Primagama English Johor Team that gave him support in finishing this thesis. And the last, he would like to express his gratitude to his friends’ intake XVII (Kak Rahma, Kak Yenita, Dhawi, Eva, etc) for sharing ideas and developing friendship.
Medan, January 09th, 2014
The writer,
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……….. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………...v
LIST OF TABLE……….x
LIST OF FIGURES………xi
LIST OF APPENDICES………...xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ………1
1.1 The Background of the Study ………...1
1.2 The Identification of the Study ...5
1.3 The Problem of the Study….. ………...6
1.4 The Objective of the Study… ………...6
1.5 The Scope of the Study……. ………...7
1.6 The Significance of the Study……... ………...7
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8
2.1 Theoretical Framework... 8
2.1.1 The Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension ...8
2.1.2 Reading Comprehension ...9
2.1.3 Genre… …...11
2.1.4 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension………..15
2.1.5 Teaching Strategy ...16
2.1.5.1 Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)...17
vi
2.1.5.2 Know, What to learn, and Learned (KWL)...20
2.1.6 Learning Style ...24
2.1.6.1 Impulsive Learning Style ...27
2.1.6.2 Reflective learning Style...28
2.1.6.3 The Comparison of Impulsive and Reflective Learning Styles…………...29
2.2 Relevant Studies………30
2.3 Conceptual Framework ...32
2.3.1 The Effect of Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) on Reading Comprehension ………...32
2.3.2 The Effect of Impulsive and Reflective Learning Styles in Reading Comprehension ...35
2.3.3 Interaction between Impulsive and Reflective Learning Styles and DR-TA and KWL ...36
2.4 Research Hypothesis ...37
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...38
3.1 Research Design ...38
3.2 The Population and Sample ...39
3.2.1 Population ...39
3.2.2 Sample ...39
3.3 Instruments for Collecting Data ...39
3.4 The Procedure of Data Collection ...42
3.4.1 Procedure of the Treatment...42
vii
3.5 Control of Internal and External Validity………44
3.5.1 Internal Validity………..44
3.5.2 External Validity………...45
3.6 Calibration of Instrument ...46
3.6.1 Validity...46
3.6.1.1 Test...46
3.6.1.2 Questionnaire...47
3.6.2 Reliability ...48
3.6.2.1 Test ...48
3.6.2.2 Questionnaire ...49
3.6.3 Difficulty Index ...50
3.6.4 Discrimination Index ...50
3.7 The Technique of Analyzing the Data ...51
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION…..53
4.1 The Data Description………53
4.1.1 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught by Using DRTA……..54
4.1.2 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using KWL Strategy………..55
4.1.3 Impulsive Learning Style Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension...57
4.1.4 Reflective Learning Style Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension………58
viii
4.1.6 Reflective Learning Style Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
taught by using DRTA Strategy………..61
4.1.7 Impulsive Learning Style Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using KWL Strategy……….62
4.1.8 Reflective Learning Style Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using KWL Strategy……….63
4.2 Requirements of Data Analysis……….65
4.2.1 Normality Test……….65
4.2.2 Testing of Homogeneity………66
4.2.2.1 Group of Teaching Reading Strategies………..66
4.2.2.2 Group of Learning Styles……….66
4.2.2.3 Group of Interaction………67
4.3 Testing Hypothesis……….67
4.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension of Students Taught by Using DRTA Strategy is Higher than That of Taught by KWL Strategy……….68
4.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension of Students with Impulsive Learning Style is Higher than That of the Students with Reflective Learning Style……….69
4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: There is Interaction Between Teaching Strategies And Students’ Learning styles On Students’ Achievement In Reading Comprehension………..69
ix
4.4.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using DRTA
Strategy is Significantly Higher Than Those Taught by Using KWL Strategy…..72
4.4.2 The Effect of Impulsive Intrinsic and Reflective Learning styles of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension……….74
4.4.3 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Learning Styles on Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension……….75
4.5 The Limitation of the Research……….77
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS………..79
5.1 Conclusions……….79
5.2 Implications……….79
5.3 Suggestions……….80
x Table 18. Frequency Distribution of the Scores of Impulsive Learning Style Students 57
Tbale 19. Frequency Distribution of the Scores of Reflective Learning Style Students 58
Table 20. Frequency Distribution of the Scores of Impulsive Learning Style Students 60
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Bar on Students’ Reading Comprehension Taught by 55 Using DRTA Strategy.
Figure 2. Bar on Students’ Reading Comprehension Taught by Using KWL Strategy 56 Figure 3. Bar on Impulsive Learning Style Students’ Achievement in 58 Reading Comprehension
Figure 4. Bar on Reflective Learning styles Students’ Achievement in 59 Reading Comprehension
Figure 5. Bar on Impulsive Learning Style Students’ Achievement in 60 Reading Comprehension taught by DRTA Strategy
Figure 6. Bar on Reflective Learning Style Students’ Achievement in 62 Reading Comprehension taught by DRTA Strategy
Figure 7. Bar on Impulsive Learning Style Students’ Achievement in 63 Reading Comprehension taught by KWL Strategy
Figure 8. Bar on Reflective Learning Style Students’ Achievement in 64 Reading Comprehension taught by KWL Strategy
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A. Question Sheet and Answer Key 85
Appendix B. Questionnaire 94
Appendix C. The Output of Validity Reading Comprehension Test 95 Appendix D. The Valadity Test Result and Reliability of Reading Comprehenion Test 98 Appendix E. The Output of Validity Questionnaire 101 Appendix F. The Valadity Test Result and Reliability of Questionnaire 103 Appendix G. Description of Students’ Score 105 Appendix H. Summary Of Research Data 107 Appendix I. Calculation Analysis of Variance Two Ways (ANAVA) 109
Appendix J. Scheffe Test 110
ϭ CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.The Background of the Study
Reading is an essential skill for all students at all levels and it has a large portion in
teaching and learning curricullum. And then the development of knowledge and technology
demands the students to be eager to study. The effective of study can be done by reading. The
students who like reading will get knowledge and new insight which improve their
intelligence so that they are more ready to face life challenge in the future.
The purpose of reading is to connect ideas in the page to what you’ve already known.
By reading the students are able to gain information and to improve their knowledge. And
then by reading, they can get the informations again if they forget next time than they just
listen to them. The main goal of reading process is comprehension. According to Kurikulum
Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) about the standard competence in reading, it refers to
enable the learners to comprehend the meaning (intention) of both interpersonal and
transactional written text formally in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure, descriptive,
and report in the context of daily life. It is supported by the data from Balitbang, "English as
a formal subject is given to Senior High School (SMA) level, which the goals are translated
as follows: "The goals of teaching and learning English for this level are improving the four
English skills. They are the mastery of the receptive skills (reading and listening) and the
mastery of the productive skills (speaking and writing), within a specified word level and
relevant grammatical structures and notions, in the context of the specified themes which are
enclosed for Senior High School (SMA) students" (Balitbang Depdiknas, 2002).
English has always been one subject tested in National Examination, which is
supported by Government Regulation No. 19/2005 about Standards of National Education
Ϯ Competence Standard for National Examination (Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Ujian
Nasional/SKLUN) which is the form of the intersection between main/sub main part of 1994
curriculum, Competence Standard, Content Standard and Basic Competence in 2004
curriculum. Since the school year 2003/2004 the English National Examination (Ujian
Nasional Bahasa Inggris) in Indonesia has included listening and reading skills with number
of the problems were 15 listening questions and 45 reading questions. The time allotted to do
the exam was 120 minutes. It means that there are more reading comprehension test. Even in
the SNMPTN test, the English section has more reading comprehension test form. Therefore
the Senior School Students must have a good skill in reading comprehension.
The fact shows that the result of teaching learning English is still low. Sukyadi, et., al
(2003:2) stated that research on reading skill in Indonesian students, particularly in reading
comprehension are still far from satisfactory. Sixty nine percent (69%) of 15-year-old
Indonesian students have worst reading performance internationally; and around 37.6% of
them only afford to read the texts without understanding the meaning of it. Only 24.8% out of
them are able to correlate the texts with their prior knowledge. The finding indicated the
students have an ability in reading comprehension.
Another fact, reading is not as a people think. It is difficult to have an ability to draw
meaning from the passage and interpret the information appropriately. It is also reported in
Kompas, a daily newspaper in Jakarta (2007) that around 37.6% of 15-year-old students are
merely able to read texts without understanding the meaning carried by the text. Only 24.8%
out of them are able to correlate the texts with their prior knowledge. It means that many
students still have insufficient ability to comprehend the texts.
The same problem also happened to the students of SMA Harapan Mandiri Medan. It
is revealed by reading comprehension score test of students grade eleven (XI) during
ϯ
Table 1. The Reading Comprehension Score Test of Students Grade XI of SMA Harapan Mandiri in 2012/2013 Academic Year
Semester Score of Reading Comprehension Test
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
First 2 13 20 35 18 50 37 12 2 -
Second 1 12 18 38 21 46 35 15 3 -
From the data above it can be seen that out of 189 students, first, there were only 51
students got score 70 to 90. It means that it is only 27% students that got high score in
reading comprehension. And second, there were only 53 students got score 70 to 90. It means
that it is only 28% students got high score in reading comprehension.
Many students failed in reading because they are lack of vocabularies, they still
seldom read English text, and they are not taught reading well by the teacher. More teachers
focus on teaching "reading" not "understanding". They just ask the students to read the text
one by one. Moreover, many teachers do not employ effective and efficient teaching reading
strategies, as the consequence, it seems hard for the students to comprehend the reading text.
And the students are still difficult in answering the reading comprehension test by
themselves.
It will not happen like the condition above, if teachers want to teach by appliying
some reading comprehension strategies. So it is necessary to apply strategies for helping
students in reading. The objective is to create the reading itself to be meaningful and
interesting. The National reading panel (2000) identified seven strategies to enhance reading
comprehension. One of them is Directed Reading-Thinking Activity and Know, What to
Learn, Learned (KWL).
Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) is a teaching strategy that guides
ϰ predictions. This strategy encourages students to be active and thoughtful readers, enhancing
their comprehension. Most students require explicit instruction in reading comprehension
strategies (Tierney 1982). Good readers make predictions and verify or refute them as they
read. They also make adjustments to what they think will come next based on the text. DR
-TA is a strategy that explicitly teaches students to good reading habits.
Another strategy in teaching reading is KWL. KWL is an instructional reading
strategy used to guide students through a text. Students begin by brainstorming everything
they know about a topic. This information is recorded in the K column of a KWL table.
Students then generate a list of questions about what they Want to Learn about the topic.
These questions are listed in the W column of the table. During or after reading, students
answer the questions that are in the W column. This new information that they have learned is
recorded in the L column of the KWL table.
KWL table help students to be active thinkers while they read, giving them specific
things to look for and having them reflect on what they learned when they are finished
reading. Students' prior knowledge is activated by asking them what they already know, then
students set goals focusing on what they want to learn, and after reading, students write what
they have studied. Students apply higher-order thinking strategies which assist them to build
meaning from what they read and help them examine their progress toward their goals. A
worksheet is given to every student that includes columns for each of these activities.
Not only strategies that are needed in reading comprehension but also learning styles.
A learning style is a preference for the way a person learns and remembers what he or she has
learned (Wayman, 2003). Human development and cultural experiences of home, school, and
society form learning style, a composite of psychological, affective, and cognitive behaviors,
which is a relatively reliable indicator of how a person responds to, interacts with, and
perceives the learning environment. A person's learning style creates ways of thinking and of
ϱ tend to draw conclusion quickly by their personal judgment, while reflective learning style
tends to be more accurate but rather time consuming by considering anything related to new
information and the prior knowledge. Students who are reflective tend to make fewer errors
in reading, but impulsive students eventually read faster than reflective students. Reflective
students benefit more from inductive learning situations. Reflective students are slower but
more accurate than impulsive students. Impulsive students contribute more to class
discussions and are more likely to be quick with answers. Reflective students need more time
to respond.
With reference to the findings, the writer would like to conduct a study on the use of
the two strategies and students' learning styles in teaching reading and to find out the effect of
the two strategies and students' learning styles on the students' reading comprehension of
SMA Harapan Mandiri Medan.
1.2.The Identification of Problems
Based on the background above, it is identified that the present study evolves a large
area as specified in as the following.
(1) Does Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) significantly affect on the students’
reading achievement? (2) Does Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) significantly affect on
the students’ reading achievement? (3) Does learning style significantly affect on the
students’ reading achievement? (4) How is the students’ reading achievement taught by using
Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA)? (5) How is the students’ reading achievement
taught by using Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL)? (6) Is the students’ reading
achievement taught by using Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) higher than that
of the students taught by Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL)? (7) Is the students’ reading
achievement with impulsive learning style higher than that of the students with reflective
ϲ taught by DR-TA? (9) How is the students’ reading achievement with impulsive learning
style taught by KWL? (10) Do the teaching strategies and learning styles significantly affect
on the students’ reading achievement? (11) What are the factors which influence the students’
reading achievement? (12) Is there any interaction between Directed Reading-Thinking
Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) and students’ learning styles to
students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
1.3. The Problems of the Study
Based on the above background, the problems of the study can be stated as follows:
1) Is the students' reading comprehension achievement taught by using Directed
Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy significantly higher than that taught by
using Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) strategy?
2) Is the students' achievement in reading comprehension with impulsive learning style
higher than reflective learning style?
3) Is there any significant interaction between Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR
-TA) and Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) and learning styles to students'
achievement in reading comprehension?
1.4. The Objectives of the Study
On the basis of the above problems, the objectives of this study are to find out:
1) Whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using
DRTA strategy is higher than that of taught by using KWL strategy,
2) Whether reading comprehension achievement of impulsive learning style is
higher than reading comprehension achievement of reflective learning style, and
3) Whether there is interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on
ϳ 1.5.The Scope of the Study
There are many reading strategies used in teaching reading comprehension. This study
is focused on the use of Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA). In addition the Know,
What to Learn, Learned (KWL) as the other strategies are involved. In this study the writer
only chooses Cognitive style which are sub-group impulsive and reflective learning style as
they are clearly different in the process of interpreting the idea through written or spoken
information.
In addition, the comprehension covered in this reaearch is the comprehension of
narrative, report, exposition and description texts since the four text are the most text types
taught in senior high school.
1.6. The Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically.
Theoretically the findings are expected
1) to be the input for the teachers and educational institutions to teach reading
comprehension.
2) to enrich readers understanding in research specifically related to English teaching
strategy in Senior High School, and
3) to help the students to enrich their practical knowledge about learning strategies
especially reading strategy. And to be more fun in learning English,
Practically the findings will be of some use
1) to assist the English teachers in improving students' reading achievement, especilally,
because it can be used as an alternative in varying the English teaching related with
reading comprehension.
2) to be able to change paradigm saying that reading is boring activity. Hopefully, by
ϳϵ
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following.
1) The students’ reading achievement taught by using Direct Reading - Thinking Activity is
significantly higher than that of taught by using Know, What to Learn, and Learned.
2) The students’ reading achievement with impulsive learning style is not significantly
higher than that of the students with reflective learning style.
3) There is interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on the students’
achievement in reading comprehension.
5.2 Implications
The findings of this study give implication to English teachers and students who want
to improve their achievement in reading comprehension. This study has tested reading
comprehension teaching strategies namely Direct Reading - Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and
Know, What to Learn, and Learned (KWL) strategies. They are applied on impulsive and
reflective learning styles students in order to know which of the two strategies significantly
affect the students’ reading achievement.
The first finding of this research reveals that the students’ reading achievement taught
by DR-TA is higher than that of the students taught by KWL. Thus, it implies English teacher
to apply DR-TA.
The second finding reveals that students’ reading achievement with impulsive
learning style is not higher than that of the students with reflective learning style. It gives
implication to English teacher that they should be aware of their students’ learning styles in
ϴϬ
learning styles of students are good. Either impulsive or reflective styles had been able to
achieve satisfactory score. Therefore, it can not be argued that a learning style is better than
others because it comes naturally in the students’ selves. What should be done is how to find
eligible strategy for the learning styles so that that their ability can be explored maximally.
Finally, the third finding is there is significant interaction between teaching strategies
and students’ learning style on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. It reveals
that the implication of teaching strategies relate to the students’ learning style. By knowing
their learning style, the teachers can help their students to improve their achievement.
5.3 Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the following.
1) Teachers:
a) Direct Reading - Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to Learn, and
Learned (KWL) can be applied in teaching English especially for teachers who
want to improve their students’ reading achievement. It is caused by apllying
these strategies can make students more active and ineterested in reading
comprehension.
b) It is highly recommended for teachers to use Direct Reading – Thinking Activity
strategy for class dominated by students with impulsive learning style while for
class dominated by students with reflective learning style. Teacher is
recommanded to use Know, What to Learn, and Learned strategy.
c) Teachers should realizethe students’ charactheristics such as their learning styles
before choosing teaching strategies. Thus, the strategies applied are matched with
what they need. As the result, their achievements are able to be explored
ϴϭ
2) Students:
a) Students can probably apply these strategies when they are having reading
comprehension test so they can have good score.
b) Based on this research, the students can also know about their learning styles. It
can help them to choose what strategies in reading comprehension are suitable for
them.
3) Researchers:
a) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of DRTA and KWL
82
82 REFERENCES
Abraham, R. (1981). The relationship of cognitive style to the use of grammatical rules by
spanish-speaking ESL students in editing written English. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Champaign-Urbana, University of Illinois.
Aruan, D. M. 2007. Penafsiran Skor Tes. Unpublished. Medan: State University of Medan.
Ary, D. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. 8th edition. United State of America:
Wardsworth.
Best, John W & James Khan. 2002. Research in Education (7th ed). New Delhi: Prentice Hall
of India
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive
Domain. New York: David McKay
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. "Styles and Strategies." Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth edition. New York: Longman.
Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7.
__________. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman.
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
Doron, S. (1973). Reflectivity-impulsivity and their influence on reading for inference for
adult students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
Gerrot, Linda., and Wignell Peter. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Goodman, K. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell
(Eds), Theoretical models and process of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Grabe, W & F Stoller. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed). Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive style of reflection/impulsivity and field independence and
ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76, 491-501.
Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child
Development, 36, 609-628.
83
VA: National Association of secondary School Principals.
Knapp, Peter., and Megan Watkins. 2005. Genre, Text and Grammar. Sidney: University of
New South Wales.
Krathwohl, D.R., bloom, B.S., and Maria, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives,
the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David Mckay
McKenna, M. 2002 Help for struggling readers: strategies for grades 3-8. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Mc. Neil J. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension. New Direction for Classroom Practice (3rd ed).
Los Angeles: Harper Collons Publisher
Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language Teaching and learning. Boston: Heile and Heinle
Publisher
Ogle, D.M. 1986. K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of text. Reading
Teacher, 39, 564-570
Putri, Rini Fadillah. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Intrinsic Motivation on the
Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study. Post Graduate Program. UNIMED.2011
Reutzel, Ray D. & Robert B. Cooter, Jr. 1992. Teaching Children to Read: From Basals to Books. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Richards, Jack C & Theodore S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Strategys in Language
Teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press
Riley. D. (2006). The Effect of Directed Reading Thinking Activity on low reading
Achievement First Grade Students. Dissertation International Abstracts.32 (4) ,259-262.
Rubin, Joan & Thompson, Irene. 1982. How to Be a More Successful Language Learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Second Edition, 1994.
Scarcella, Robin C. & Oxford, Rebecca L. 1992. "Characteristics of Individual Learners." The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sigiro, Albert. 2010. The Effect of Reading Methods and Learning Styles on Reading
Comprehension. Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study. Post Graduate Program. UNIMED.2010
Simpson E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor
Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individula differences in Second Language Learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298
Stahl, Dougherty K.A. (2004). Proof practice and promise: Comprehension strategy
84
Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York: Harper & Row
Suharsimi, Arikunto. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. 5th ed. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta
Suherman. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Intrinsic Motivation on the Students’
Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study. Post Graduate Program. UNIMED.2012
Vockell, Edward. 1983. Educational Research. An introduction. New York: Longman
Williams. 1984. Reading in the Language Classroom. London: Macmillan.
Willis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task Based Learning. London: Longman
Finocchiario, Mary. Teaching English as Second Language in Elementary and Secondary
