THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. A Thesis. The effect of Teaching strategies and Students’ self-efficacy on Students’ achievement in reading Comprehension At Grade VIII of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate Program State University of Medan 2013.
ABSTRAK
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. Thesis. Pengaruh Strategi Mengajar dan Self-efficacy Terhadap Hasil Belajar Reading Comprehension Pada Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Program studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer would like to express a very grateful to Jesus Christ who has granted his blessings, mercy, health and luck that had been continuously poured to the writer, so that this thesis could be finished. This thesis is intended to fulfill a part of requirements to get degree of Master Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan.
The completion of this thesis would have never been possible without the assistance of many people that give suggestions, comments and guidance. For this the writer express a special note of thankful to those that support this thesis.
Firstly, The writer would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., as a Head of English Applied Linguistics Program, and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., as the Secretary of Head of English Applied Linguistics Program for their special care, attention, encouragement full support give to his until he can complete this thesis.
Secondly , he would like to say his sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd and Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed., TESP as his first and second adviser. Thanks for your excellent suggestion, comments, encouragement and valuable time spent for consulting in the process of completing this thesis. For Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M. Pd., Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd., as his reviewers and examiners for their valuable suggestions and corrections of the draft of the thesis during seminars and examination.
His profound and sincere gratitude are directed to his beloved Mom, Rosdelina Saragih, his lovely sisters Ida darli, Septi Dewi, Nenny Friani and his brother Darwin, Renhard Purba, who have patiently given pray and never anding spiritual and material support.
She also thanks to all his friends in XX Executive Class for their friendship and cooperation, in addition to his beloved friends Wannie Harahap, Merry Sinaga, Lambok Sitompul, Deska Harahap, Ewin Sitijak, Lino naiborhu. Thank you for being a great friends.
The Writer,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.2 Students’ achievement in Reading Comprehension... …. 14
2.1.3 Reading Process ………….………... 16
2.1.4 The Levels of Reading Comprehension ………... 19
2.1.5 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension...………... 21
2.1.6 Narrative Text ... 23
2.2 Teaching Strategy …………... 24
2.2.1 Metacognitive Strategy ………….……….. 25
2.2.1.1 The Nature of Metacognitive Strategy... 25
2.4.1 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension
That taught by using metacognitive and strategic instruction model.. 51
2.4.2 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension That have high and low self-efficacy ……….. 52
2.4.3 The interaction between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy On students’ achievement in reading comprehension ……… 53
2.5 Hypothesis of study ………. 55
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 56
3.4.2.1 The Internal Validity ……… 73
3.4.2.2 The External Validity ……… 76
3.4.3 Try Out Test ……….. 84
3.5 The technique of Analyzing Data ………. 84
3.6 Statistical Hypothesis………... 87
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 The Data ……….. 88
4.2 Data Analysis ………. 89
4.3 Requirement of Data Analysis ……… 102
4.4 Testing Hypothesis ……….. 105
4.5 Research Findings ………. 111
4.6 Discussion ……….. 113
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ………. 118
5.2 Implications ………. 119
5.2 Suggestions ………. 121 References
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1 The mean of Students’ score in Reading Comprehensionat SMP GKPS 3
Pematangsiantar... 4
Table 2 The characteristic of Self- Efficacy Levels………... 50
Table 3 Factorial Research Design 2x2... 56
Table 4 Table of Specification for Reading comprehension... 61
Table 5 Students’ Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Indicators …………... 68
Table 6 The Procedures of The Treatment in Metacognitive Strategy ...…... 56
Table 7 The Procedures of the treatment in SIM ... 78
Table 8 Table of Two Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) ……... .. 84
Table 9 The Descriptive Data... 89
Table 10 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy High Self-Efficacy... 90
Table 11 Descriptive Statistic of Low Self-efficacy Low Self-Efficacy... 92
Table 12 Descriptive Statistic of Metacognitive Strategy Metacognitive…... 93
Table 14 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Metacognitive strategy………... 96
Table 15 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using Strategic Instruction Model... 98
Table 16 Low Self-Efficacy & Metacognitive………... 99
Table 17 Low Self-Efficacy & SIM... 101
Table 18 Normality Test………... 103
Table 19 Homogeneity Test... 104
Table 20 Testing Hypothesis ………... 104
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with High Self-efficacy…... 91
Figure 4.2 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy………... 93 Figure 4.3 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Metacognitive strategy………... 95 Figure 4.4 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Strategic Instruction Model... 96
Figure 4.5 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension with High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Metacognitive strategy………... 98 Figure 4.6 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Strategic Instruction Model... 99
Figure 4.7 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Using Metacognitive Strategy………... 101 Figure 4.8 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix A Reading Comprehension Test..………... 130
Appendix B Learning Style Questionnaire………... 139
Appendix C The Computation of Validity, Reliability Index, and Discrimination of Questionnaire & Reading Comprehension Test ………..… 141
Appendix D Description of Students’Achievement in Each group... 147
Appendix E The Descriptive Data ………... 148
Appendix F Statistic Description Of Normality and Homogeneity of Questionnaire And Reading Comprehension ...………….. 149
Appendix G Calculation of Two Way Anova... 155
Appendix H Calculation of Two Way Anova Manually... 157
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
In Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985), Anderson, R., Hiebert, Scott, and Wilkinson stated that the basic life skill of reading is a cornerstone for success in both school and life. They further state that without the ability to read well, people will lose opportunities for personal fulfillment and job successes. Without the ability to read, a person might not be able to cure cancer, invent the next technological breakthrough, or fix a complex piece of machinery. That’s why learning a language is very important for students. For instance English. Since English has been used as a international language, that used as a medium to communicate with others from various countries. In preparing for an information era, it makes the language users should be upgrade their ability in reading, for so many information presented on a text. This consideration will happen by mastering it means one can access information and technology easily. By learning English one would be able to express his/her ideas and feelings in the international aspects in English language.
2 comprehending and actively responding to what is read. Two of the most widely cited and agreed-upon definitions of reading are the following: Reading is the process of constructing meaning from written texts. It is a complex skill requiring the ordination of a number of interrelated sources of information. Anderson et al., (1985). Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among: (1) the reader's existing knowledge; (2) the information suggested by the text being read; and (3) the context of the reading situation. Wixson, Peters, Weber, & Roeber, (1987) citing the new definition of reading for Michigan). Older, mechanistic definitions of reading as the translation of printed symbols into oral language equivalents are incomplete, given the progress made in understanding the nature of the reading process.
3 meaning vocabulary, unlocking the pronunciation leads to the word's meaning. If a printed word is not in a reader's meaning vocabulary, word-identification skills may allow access to the word's pronunciation, but not its meaning. Being able to arrive at the pronunciation of a printed word constitutes word identification in the most minimal sense; however, if the reader is unable to attach meaning to the word, then he or she has not read the word, since reading must end in meaning construction.
4 This phenomenon also happened in teaching learning process in SMP GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Most of them got low score in reading comprehension based on data taken from that school. It can be seen as follows:
Table 1.1. The Mean of Students’ Score in
Reading Comprehension at SMP GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar
NO Academic
Based on the criteria standard based (KKM) of reading of students of SMP GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar grade eight of the year 2013/2014 found that only 28 percent of the students passed 67 grade in reading comprehension. It means that the teaching reading comprehension has not been successful; therefore this teaching should be improved in order to achieve the criteria standard based.
5 among grade eighth students. And found one potential reason for poor reading comprehension that has been largely overlooked by research and the recent scholarly literature, however, is that of the relationship between teaching strategy and self-efficacy and the impact that this relationship may have on reading comprehension. The teacher reads the text first then followed by students to repeat then asked students to the repeated material into Indonesian, discussed the content, finally asked them to answer some question given based on the text. Most of them have difficulties in searching the meaning for most of them didn’t bring dictionary. So the students just waiting for the teacher’s information and explanation about the subject material. In addition they also have some difficulties in finding the main idea and to answer the question given.
6 strategic instruction model (SIM). For in metacognitive gives the freely condition to the students to think/ predict what they are thinking about while in the reading process takes place.
Moreover students who have high self-efficacy are believed can tackle difficult texts and are confident that their efforts will be beneficial to them. Students with low self-efficacy will state that they can not do this, when confronted with a text that appears lengthy, complex, or cognitive challenging. Lack of belief in their capacity to comprehend undermines their initiation and use of whatever comprehension skills they posses.
1.2 Identification of the Problems
7 efficacy. (8) The students improve their achievement by knowing their efficacy. (9) The students’ background knowledge affect the students’ self-efficacy and achievement. (10) The students’ characteristics as one of the variables of learning condition affect the students’ achievement.
1.3 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the problem of this study is formulated as the following.
1. Is the students’ achievement on reading comprehension taught by using metacognitive is higher than taught by using strategic instruction model (SIM)?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that has high self-efficacy higher than that has low self-efficacy?
3. Is there any interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
1.4 Objectives of Study
8 1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that was taught by metacognitive is significantly higher than strategic instruction model (SIM).
2. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension that have high self-efficacy higher than that have low self-efficacy.
3. To find out whether there is interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy significantly affect to reading comprehension.
1.5 The Scope of the Study
There are various teaching strategies on reading comprehension. In this study the writer focuses on two teaching strategies, they are metacognitive and strategic instruction model (SIM). In relation to these strategies, students’ self-efficacy has the relationship to reading comprehension in terms of accomplishing the task (e.g. to find main idea, detailed information, vocabulary meaning, inferences, implied meaning, the writer purpose or draw conclusion and paraphrasing). The teaching strategies hoped increase the students competence in gaining the reading comprehension. And students’ self-efficacy hoped can increase the students’ competence in continuing advancement on reading comprehension.
9 (KTSP: Kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan). And the writer constructed the reading comprehension test based on the topics in the syllabus and taxonomy of reading in order to identify the behavioral outcomes. The writer expected the students went with the literal and inferential levels. In literal comprehension, the students were expected to identify the main idea, detailed information, and vocabulary meaning. Furthermore, in inferential comprehension level, the students were expected to identify reference, communicative purpose, and implied meaning.
1.6 The Significance of the Study
118 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and the discussion, the conclusion can be drawn as follows:
1. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension that taught by Metacognitive strategy is higher than taught by Strategic instruction Model.
2. There is a significant effect of self-efficacy on students’ reading comprehension achievement. Showing that students’ achievement that have high self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy students.
119 significant effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using Strategic Instruction Model.
5.2 Implications
Based on study found that the findings give implication to English teachers and students in upgrading their achievement in reading comprehension. There are two teaching strategies were done in this study, they are metacognitive strategy and strategic instruction model. They were applied on students’ high and low self-efficacy in order to know which teaching strategies are suitable for them in improving reading comprehension.
The first result of this study showed that students’ achievement taught by using Metacognitive strategy is higher than students taught by using strategic instruction model because in metacognitive strategy students know what to do when they don’t know what to do, moreover, metacognitive strategies are ordered processes used to control one’s own cognitive activities to ensure that a cognitive goal has been met.
120 essential that students develop a strong sense of their efficacy for reading for them to be engaged in reading.
The third result of this study showed that there is a significant interaction between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. It gives implication that teaching strategies applied by teachers should relate to students’ self-efficacy. Metacognitive provides high and low self-efficacy with the tools they need to become good readers. On one hand, the high self-efficacy students will have a challenge and get better skills in terms of reading comprehension. On the other hand, the low self-efficacy will improve their self-efficacy in terms of accomplishing the task and participating in the class by using metacognitive strategy.
121 5.3 Suggestion
In line with conclusion, there are four suggestions as follows:
1. To the teachers:
a. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy and Strategic Instruction Model since these two teaching strategies can improve students’ achievement on reading comprehension.
b. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy in the class of which is dominated by low self-efficacy students.
c. English teachers are recommended using Strategic Instruction Model in the class of which by low self-efficacy.
d. English teachers should encourage low self-efficacy students to participate in studying English in term of getting better achievement on reading comprehension.
2. Other researchers:
122
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R., and Lebiere, Ch. (1998). The atomic components of thought. N. J.: Erlbaum
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Alexander, M.J.1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in Reading. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum
Allison, Davis, 2011Building Comprehension strategy. Eleanor Curtain Publishing Level 1, Suite 3 102 Toorak Road South Yarra, VIC 3141 Australia Alderson, J.C., 2000
Ary, D., Chaesar, L.J., & Rajaviah, A. 1979. Introduction to research in education. New York: Holt, Renehart and Winston
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy of Control. New York: Freeman
123 Bloom,B. 1982. Taxonomy of education objectives, handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay.
Brasell, D. 2008. Comprehension That Works Taking Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Shell Education Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of education Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitivedomain. New yorkDavid McKay
Bremer, D.Christine ., Ann T. Clapper, and Donald D. Deshler.(2002).Improving Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Strategies. Vol. 1, Issue 4
Brown, D. H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference ability and its relation to
comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489– 503.
Campbell, D.T & Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research
Chumpavan, S. (2000). A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies used by Thai students in second language academic reading. SLLT, 9, 62-77.
Clark, H.H. & Clark, E.V. 1997. Psychology and Language; An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New Jersey: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
124 Coutinbo, S.A.(2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and
academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39- 47.
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. (4th ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.
Danielle S. McNamara. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies. Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. University of Memphis.
Desher, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. J. (2002). The Strategic Intervention Model. The University of Kansas Center for research on leaning: Lawrence, KS. In Cromly, J.G. Chapter 7. Retrieved on Thrusday, April 18, 2013. http //www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/SIMRP
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, and M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 391-411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved on Sunday, June 16, 2013. ht t p:/ / w w w.ncset .org/ publicat ions/ view desc.asp?id=720
Elizabeth, L. (2009). Reading Comprehension in Success. In 2o Minutes A Day. New York: Learning Express
125 Fisher, P. M., and Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, Text Variables, and the Control of Text Comprehension and Recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L and Trabasso, T., Learning and Comprehension of Text. (213-250). Hillsdale, New Jersey., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Flavell, J.H.: 1976. Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In: The Nature of Intelligence. Resnick, Lauren B (ed.) p.233 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Flavell, J. (1979). "Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. " American Psycholoqist 34: 906-9
Flavell, J. H., &Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Vail, & J. W. Hagen, (Eds. ), Perspectives on the development of memo[y and cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ, L. Erlbaurn.
Fusco, E., & Fountain, G. (1992). Reflective teacher, reflective learner. In A. Costa, J. Bellanca, & R. Fogarty (Eds.) If minds matter : A foreword to the future (Vol. 1, pp. 238-255)
Goodman SI, Stein DE, Schlesinger S, Christensen E, Schwartz M, Greenberg CR, Elpeleg ON. “Glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase mutations in glutaric acidemia (type I): Review and report of thirty novel mutations,” Hum Mutat 1998; 12: 141-144.
126 Gutrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & P Perencevich, K.C. 2004. Motivating Reading Comprehension Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Harmer, Jeremy. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition completely revised and updated. Malaysia: Pearson education Limited
Harris, T. L. & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Hartman, H.J. (ed.): 2001. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory , Research and Practice. Chapter 8 Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 149-169
Harvey, S. & Goudis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse
Horowitz, S. H. 2005. Strategic Instruction Model: How to teach, How to Learn.
Retrieved Saturday March, 30 2013. http :// www.ncld.org/.../strategic- instruction -model-sim-how-to-teach-how-to-learn
Ibe, Helen Ngozi. (2009). Metacognitive Strategies on Classroom Participation and Student Achievement in Senior Secondary School Science
Classrooms. Science Education International. Vol.20, No.1/2, December 2009, 25-31
127 Johnson , P. Andrew . 2008. Teaching reading and writing. Washington D.C:
Rowman and Littlefield Education
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–26). Oxford: Blackwell.
Koechlin, Carol, and Sandi Zwaan. 2006. Q tasks: How to empower students to ask questions and care about answers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149-158, 163.
Lenz, Keit. (2001). Strategic Instruction Model: New Horozing For Learners.
Retrieved on Sunday June
16,2013.ht t p:/ / educat ion.jhu.edu/ PD/ new horizons/ strat egies/ t opics/ Graphic %20Tools%20for%20Learning/ lenz.ht m
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2006). s.v. “perceive.” Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary
128 Niemi, D. (1999, February). Assessment models for aligning standards and classroom practice. UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Center for the Study of Evaluation. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Conference of The American Association of School Administrators.
Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in Foreign Language. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Pearson, P. D. & Dole, J. A. (1987). "Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of the research and a new conceptualisation of instruction. " The ElementarvSchool Journal 88: 153-167.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1998, September). Science achievement: What we have learned from two alternative assessments. Paper presented at conference CRESST.
Ruddell, B. R., & Ruddell, M. R. (1995). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an influential teacher. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and self-making inb methematics. En D. Grouws, ed.,
Handbook for research on Mathematics teaching and learning. N. Y.: MacMillan
129 Setiawan, Otong D. 2007. Mengerti Bahasa Inggris SMA/Ma. Margahayu
Permai, Bandung, Yrama Widya
Smith, R.J., & Barret, T.C. 1979. Teaching reading in the Middle Grade.
Virginia, USA: Addition-Wesley Pub.Co
Steinberg, D.D.1982. Pscholinguistics: Language, Mind and World. New York: Longman
Wixson, K., Peters, C., Weber, E., & Roeber, I. (1987)."New directions in statewide reading assessment."The Reading Teacher,40, 749-755. Yopp, H. K. (1992).
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In J. Willis &
