Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Brawijaya Jalan Veteran, Malang
Principal Contact
Alies Poetri Lintangsari, M.Li
Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Brawijaya
Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Brawijaya Jalan Veteran, Malang, 65145, INDONESIA
Phone : 0818 0510 3887 Fax : (0341) 575 875 Email : educafl@ub.ac.id
Support Contact Pebasis FIB
Phone: 0813 3438 4294
Email: pebasis_fib@ub.ac.id (with underscore)
language teaching and learning. The main focus is on addressing critical issues and current trends and research in the ELT practices and Intercultural competence, Inclusive Education and ICT based approach in teaching and learning.
The anticipated audience will be pre-service and in-service teachers and administrators, university faculties and students, educators, researchers and others interested in language learning research.
All papers are reviewed equally according to standard peer review processes.
The journal covers a variety of topics (subject to change), including:
• Adult language learners
• Assessment and evaluation
• Intercultural communication
• Curriculum, syllabus, and/or material design
• Educational linguistics
• Educational psychology in language learning
• English for academic and/or specific purposes
• ICT and instructional media
• Inclusive education practices in ELT
• Language planning and policies
• Literature in English language teaching
• Methodologies and teaching approaches
• Reflective language teaching and learning
• Second language acquisition
• Social issues in language learning
• Teaching English for young learners
• Teacher education and professional
development
1. Mrs. Alies Poetri Lintangsari, M.Li, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
Associate Editors:
1. Mrs. Pratnyawati Nuridi Suwarso, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia 2. Miss Irene Nany Kusumawardani, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia 3. Dian Inayati, Universitas Brawijaya
4. Mrs Peptia Asrining Tyas, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
Editorial Board
1. Dr. Fazri Nur Yusuf (Scopus ID: 57196021567), UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA, Indonesia
2. Prof. Dr. I Nyoman Sudana Degeng, M.Pd, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia, Indonesia
3. Prof. Dr. Rusman Roni, M.Pd, Universitas Tridinanti Palembang, Indonesia 4. Dr. Dian Danayanti Degeng, Universitas Brawijaya Malang
5. Dr. Ive Emaliana, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
6. Mrs Madina Karsakpayeva, PhD-Candidate in Inclusive Education, ELTE University, Budapest, Hungary., Hungary
7. Dr. Sugeng Susilo Adi, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia 8. Dr. Widya caterine perdhani, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
9. Dr. Esti Junining, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
10. Dr. Mohammad Hasbullah Isnaini, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
Vol 3, No 1 (2020)
Pronunciation Problems of Indonesian EFL Learners in Pronouncing /g/ Sound Febby Dwi Adeline ... 1
Autonomous Online Reading using PQRST to enhance the students’ Reading Skill in Recount Text
Enik Evi Indahwati ... 18
An Analysis on The Atambua Students’ Multicultural Background and Their English Oral Proficiency
Graciela D B Do Nacimento ... 26
A Survey on English Language Learning Reading Strategies of The Indonesian Senior High School Students
Haryodhimas Fathir Akbar, Sugeng Susilo Adi ... 36
Developing G-Smartive (Getting Smart in Narrative) Multimedia as an Aid to Learn Reading of Narrative Text for Tenth Graders of Vocational High School
Putri Ika Ayundha Ningtyas ... 47
Enhancing The Students Vocabulary Mastery by Using Riddles Game at Smp Ar-Rohmah Putri Dau
Imroatin Octaviarnis ... 55
ISSN: 2450-7775
Doi: 10.21776/ub.educafl.2020.003.01.1
Pronunciation Problems of Indonesian EFL Learners in Pronouncing /g/ Sound
Febby Dwi Adeline SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Sidoarjo
adeline.dee77@gmail.com Indonesia
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Apr 4, 2020 Revised Apr 9, 2020 Accepted Apr 20, 2020
Pronunciation is essential in delivering speech. However, pronouncing English word is difficult since the students speak Indonesian as their native language. The common problems might be caused by the differences between sound systems of the languages, especially in /g/ sound. This study objective to find how well the students’ mastery in pronouncing /g/ sound and common problems faced by them. This study highlighting two research problems; (1) how well the fourth semester students do in pronouncing /g/ sound and (2) what problems are faced by them in pronouncing /g/ sound. It is a descriptive qualitative study using triangulation data involving twenty-five students of fourth semester students of English Language Education Program Faculty of Cultural Studies Universitas Brawijaya. The instruments were adapted and adopted from [1] and developed by the researcher. The instruments are pronunciation test, recorder, assessment rubric, and questionnaire. Data analysis were done statistically and descriptively. The result of this study were (1) mostly the students’ mastery in pronouncing /g/ sound in all positions are good (81.5%) with the following details; excellent (pronouncing silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, soft /g/ sound); good (pronouncing silent /g/ before /n/
at the beginning of a word and hard /g/ sound); average (pronouncing the exception); and poor (pronouncing silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable and words with /gh/ sound), (2) problems faced by the fourth semester students are the differences of sound systems between their native language and their foreign language and students’ motivation in pronouncing /g/ sound correctly (such as checking pronunciation or phonetic transcription in dictionary).
Keywords:
Pronunciation, Pronunciation Problems, The Fourth Semester Students
Corresponding Author:
Febby Dwi Adeline adeline.dee77@gmail.com
SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Sidoarjo, Jl. KH. Samanhudi 81 Jasem Bulusidokare Sidoarjo, Indonesia
1. Research Background
Pronouncing English words is quite difficult since Indonesian students have different ways to speak in their mother tongue. Some students have a poor pronunciation, they tend to pronounce words as the way it is spelled, especially for consonants. The common problem of learning English pronunciation might be caused by the difference in the sound systems between Indonesian and English. There are some sounds in English which do not exist in Indonesian. Indonesian and English engage different consonant. All of Indonesian consonant should be pronounced clearly [2], while English not. There are some consonant letters in English that should be pronounced silently. For example, /b/ sound in the words limb, comb, climb; /c/ sound in the words scissor, scenario, fascinate; /k/ sound in the words knot, knife, knight; /n/
sound in the words autumn, column, solemn; /t/ sound in the words castle, listen, often; and /w/ sound in the words wrap, write, wrong. Those letters are silent in each word. However, this research focused on /g/ sound. Based on the researcher’s observation, there is phenomenon of pronunciation of /g/ sound.
There are some words with /g/ letter should be pronounced by using hard and soft /g/ sound. Hard /g/
sound is used when the word should be pronounced by clear /g/ sound, while soft /g/ sound is used when the word should be pronounced as /dӡ/ sound. For example in the word triangle, the /g/ sound is pronounced as hard /g/;/ˈtraɪ.æŋ.gl/, while in the word tragedy, the /g/ sound is pronounced as soft /dӡ/;
/ˈtrædʒ.ə.di/. Furthermore, as stated previously, some words with /g/ letter should not be pronounced or silent. For example, in the word gnash and great. /g/ sound in the word gnash is silent while /g/ sound in the word great is pronounced. Therefore, this research highlighting how well do the students’
pronunciation, especially in /g/ sound. The theories used are about pronunciation by [3] and also by [4]
who explain some problems that may affect pronunciation.
2. Methods
It is a descriptive qualitative research which purpose was to define the level of students’ pronunciation in pronouncing /g/ sound and the problems that might come within them. In order to understanding the phenomenon, this research was written descriptively. Data collections cover 25 students’ who have pronunciation test and questionnaire as well. The data of the research was the result of pronunciation test that had been given to the participants. The test consists of 40 sentences with various /g/ sound. The source of data came from participants’ pronunciation which gathered though test. The research participant was fourth semester students of English Language Education Program of Universitas Brawijaya in academic year 2016/2017. The researcher used simple random sampling as the sampling technique. Whereas, there are five classes available. The researcher randomly took five students from each class and therefore the sample were 25 students in total. It was represented 20% out of 127 students.
The procedures of the research conducted as follow:
1. Determining the design and method of the research. As stated previously, this research used qualitative as the research design and had been written descriptively as the research method. Since this research aimed to find out the phenomena faced by fourth semester students of English Language Education Program in pronouncing /g/ sound, the researcher determined descriptive qualitative as the design.
2. Establishing the instruments. There are five instruments used in this research. The first is the researcher herself, as the key instrument. The second is the pronunciation test. The third is recorder for recording the test. The fourth is assessment rubric and the last is questionnaire. Each instrument explained further on the next subchapter: research instrument.
3. Validating the instruments. In order to get valid and reliable instruments, the researcher validated the instruments made by herself to the expert. The validated instruments are pronunciation test which consists of 40 items and questionnaire which consists of 12 items. The instruments distributed to the students.
4. Collecting the data. The researcher collected the data as follow:
1) Inviting the students to come at scheduled time.
The researcher invited the students at one time which has been scheduled before. It was outside of their class time so they did not get any distraction.
2) Explaining the students about the test and how to do it.
The researcher explained about the pronunciation test and how they have to done with that. The pronunciation test covers 40 sentences which consist of various /g/ sound. The students read it one by one.
3) Asking the students to enter the room one by one.
One student entered the room to get the test while others were waiting outside.
4) Giving them the test paper in the room.
The student was given the test paper when they entered the room.
5) Asking them to read aloud the test and record it at the same time.
The researcher asked the student to read the sentences out loud and recording it at the same time.
6) Taking the result
After all of the students got the test, the researcher took the result to be analyzed.
5. Analyzing the data. First, the data collected from the pronunciation test were transcribed into phonetic transcription. It was determined whether it was correct or incorrect using assessment rubric.
Then the result of the test will be calculated. The researcher adopted the calculation way from [5] to calculate the data. Finally, the findings were analyzed descriptively by the researcher.
The researcher would like to highlight that this research focused on the phoneme. This research collected the data found based on the pronunciation test and then transcribe it into phonetic transcription to be analyzed. The data collected by giving a test contains of 40 sentences with various /g/ sound. Each student read the following sentences while the researcher recorded them.
The data analyzed as follow:
1. Transcribing
First, the data were transcribed from the recording of students’ pronunciation into phonetic transcription.
Then the selection is focused on /g/ sound whether it is correct or incorrect. The researcher used statistic to analyze the recorded test, adapted from [5]. Percentages from the data collected were computed.
2. Calculating
The correct and incorrect answers of the test were calculated. For example, in the test of hard /g/ sound the whole numbers of the students are 25, the number of students with correct pronunciation is 11, and the number of incorrect students is 14. So, to calculate the students with correct pronunciation of hard /g/
sound is following the process:
No. of students with correct pronunciation = 11
25 x 100 = 44%
The calculation indicates that only 44% from the whole numbers of students that are able to pronounce hard /g/ sound correctly. On the other hand, to calculate the students with incorrect pronunciation of hard /g/ sound, the process is:
No. of students with incorrect pronunciation = 14
25 x 100 = 56%
The calculation shows that 56% from the whole subjects are not able to pronounced hard /g/ sound correctly.
3. Analyzing descriptively
In general, the data collected were analyzed descriptively and statistically. All the sounds from recording test were written down using tables to put each sample of pronunciation from the student who pronounced it, in form of phonetic transcription to showed whether it belongs to correct or incorrect pronunciation.
4. Analyzing the result of the questionnaire
The next step was analyzing the result of the questionnaire. Each questionnaire from each student were analyzed then the result presented in tables.
Data triangulation were used in this study since the data collection taken from more than one instrument.
Besides the test, this research also employs the questionnaire to the research participant as the secondary data to support primary data. In order to gain a reliable study, the instruments used in this study which are the pronunciation test and also the questionnaire, were validated by expert named Ms. Frida Unsiah, M.Pd. She is one of active lecturers in Faculty of Cultural Studies and also expert in phonetics.
According to [6], the most important consideration in developing and evaluating a measuring instruments is validity. Since the study is about pronunciation problems in pronouncing /g/ sound, the test consists of 40 sentences containing various /g/ sound words to be pronounced.
3. Results
The result of this research can be stated as follows; it is poor in pronouncing /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable (52%), and words with /gh/ sound (58%), average in pronouncing special pronunciation (67%), good in pronouncing /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word (73%) and hard /g/ sound (84%), excellent in pronouncing /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word (100%); /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable (89%); /g/
followed by /e/ (89%); /g/ followed by /i/ (94%); and /g/ followed by /y/ (93%). It can be figure out that the average proportion of the correct pronunciation of /g/ sound is 81.5%. According to mastery level in curriculum of 2004, the average proportion of the students belong to good achievement.
Pronunciation Test
Data analysis done by only transcribing /g/ sound. The phonetic transcription of the data were stated in Appendix 6. After transcribing, the next step is scoring. The correct pronunciation was scored one (1), while the incorrect was score zero (0). The result of the analysis can be seen in Appendix 4. The last step is computing the data to find the percentage. The findings are elaborated according to each dimension, those are silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word, silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, soft /g/ followed by /e/, soft /g/ followed by /i/, soft /g/ followed by /y/, hard /g/, exceptions (/g/ with special pronunciation), and another form (words with /gh/).
Below the description of each dimension.
Silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable
There were three (3) words (paradigm, diaphragm, phlegm) containing pronunciation of /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable which were pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. It means there are seventyfive (75) utterances obtained from the test. From the whole numbers, there were thirtynine (39) correct pronunciations, while the rest (36) were incorrect. The percentage of the result can be seen in the diagram below.
Diagram 4.1 Percentage of pronunciation on silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable
In percentage, there were 52% of students who were able to pronounced /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable correctly, while the rest, 48% of students were pronounced incorrectly. The specific results are presented below.
▪ /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, in the word paradigm (item no.5 in the instrument, see Appendix 1)
There were fifteen (15) students who were able to pronouncing the word paradigm correctly as [ˈper.ə.daɪm]. The ten (10) others were pronounced it as [ˈper.ə.dɪgm], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, in the word diaphragm (item no.17)
There were only five (5) students pronouncing the word correctly as [ˈdaɪ.ə.fræm]. Nine (9) students were pronounced it as [ˈdaɪ.ə.græm], while eleven (11) others pronounced it as [ˈdaɪ.ə.frægm], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, in the word phlegm (item no.24) 52
48
correct pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
There were nineteen (19) students pronounced the word correctly as [flem], while six (6) others pronounced it as [flegm], with a clear /g/ sound.
Silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word
There were four (4) words (gnash, gnome, gnaw, gnat) containing pronunciation of /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word which were pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. There were hundred (100) utterances obtained from the test, seventythree (73) utterances were belong to correct pronunciation, while twentyseven (27) utterances were incorrect. The percentage are displayed in the diagram below.
Diagram 4.2 Percentage of pronunciation on silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word
The specific results are presented below.
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word, in the word gnash (item no.2)
There were nineteen (19) students who pronounced the word correctly as [næʃ]. Three (3) students pronounced it as [dʒnæʃ], with soft /g/ sound, and three (3) students pronounced it as [gnæʃ], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word, in the word gnome (item no.18)
There were eighteen (18) students who pronounced the word correctly as [noʊm]. Four (4) students were pronounced it as [dʒenoʊm], with soft /g/ sound at the beginning, and three (3) others pronounced it as [gnoʊm], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word, in the word gnaw (item no.30)
There were eighteen (18) students who pronounced the word correctly as [nɑː]. One (1) student pronounced it as [dʒenɑː], with soft /g/ sound while six (6) students pronounced it as [gnɑː], with a clear /g/ sound at the beginning of the word.
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word, in the word gnat (item no. 37)
There were eighteen (18) students who pronounced the word correctly as [næt]. Three (3) students pronounced it as [dʒenæt], with soft /g/ sound while four (4) others pronounced it as [gnæt], with a clear /g/ sound.
Silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word
There were four (4) words (foreign, sign, campaign, feign) containing pronunciation of /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word which were pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. There were hundred (100) utterances obtained from the test. From the whole numbers, 100% of the students were pronounced correctly. The diagram can be seen below.
Diagram 4.3 Percentage of pronunciation on silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word 73
27 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
The specific results are presented below.
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, in the word foreign (item no.10)
Twenty five (25) students were pronouncing the word correctly as [ˈfɔːr.ən].
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, in the word sign (item n.13)
The same case also happened in the word sign. All of the students pronounced the word correctly as [saɪn].
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, in the word campaign (item no.19)
In the word campaign, all of the students were also pronouncing it correctly as [kæmˈpeɪn].
▪ /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, in the word feign (item no.34)
All of the students (25) were able to pronouncing the word feign in correct way as [feɪn].
Silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable
There were four (4) words (align, assignment, resign, designer) containing pronunciation of /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable which were pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. From hundred (100) utterances obtained, 89% were belong to correct pronunciations. The percentage displayed in the diagram.
Diagram 4.4 Percentage of pronunciation on silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable
The specific results are presented below.
▪ /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, in the word align (item no.4)
There were twenty (20) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [əˈlaɪn]. Four (4) students pronounced it as [əˈlɪgnɪd], because the word was in the past tense form, with a clear /g/
sound. Meanwhile, one (1) students pronounced it as [əˈlɪdʒen], with soft /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, in the word assignment (item no.11)
There were twenty (20) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [əˈsaɪn.mənt]. Five (5) others pronounced it as [əˈsɪg.mənt], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, in the word resign (item no.22)
In the word resign, twentyfive (25) students were able to pronouncing it correctly as [rɪˈzaɪn].
▪ /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, in the word designer (item no.32)
There were twenty four (24) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [dɪˈzaɪ.nɚ], while one (1) other pronounced it as [dɪˈzaɪg.nɚ], with a clear /g/ sound.
Soft /g/ followed by /e/
100
correct pronunciation
89 11
correct pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
There were four (4) words (genius, oblige, generate, genre) followed by /e/ in the test, pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. There were hundred (100) utterances obtained, 89 utterances were pronounced correctly by the students and the rest, 11 utterances were pronounced incorrectly. The percentage can be seen in the diagram.
Diagram 4.5 Percentage of pronunciation on soft /g/ followed by /e/
The specific results are described below.
▪ Followed by /e/, in the word genius (item no.3)
There were twenty five (25) students who pronounced the word genius in correct way as [ˈdʒiː.ni.əs].
▪ Followed by /e/, in the word oblige (item no.8)
There were sixteen (16) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [əˈblaɪdʒ]. Nine (9) students were pronouncing it as [əˈblaɪg], with a clear /g/ sound.
▪ Followed by /e/, in the word generate (item no.14)
There were twentythree (23) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈdʒen. ə r.ɚt], while two (2) others pronounced it as [ˈgen.ə r.ɚt], with clear /g/ sound.
▪ Followed by /e/, in the word genre (item no.31)
All of the students were able to pronouncing the word correctly. Twenty three (23) students pronounced it as [dʒɒn.rə], while two (2) others pronounced it as [zɒn.rə].
Soft /g/ followed by /i/
There were five (5) words (ginger, gist, magic, giant, engineer) followed by /i/ in the test, pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. There were hundred and twentyfive (125) utterances, hundred and eigthteen (118) utterances were pronounced correctly and only seven (7) which were not. In percentages, 94% of the students were able to pronouncing the words while the 6% were not. The diagram is displayed below.
Diagram 4.6 Percentage of pronunciation on soft /g/ followed by /i/
The specific results are described below.
89
11 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
94
6 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
▪ Followed by /i/, in the word ginger (item no.16)
There were twenty three (23) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈdʒɪn.dʒɚ].
Meanwhile, one (1) student pronounced the word as [gɪn.dʒɚ], and one (1) other pronounced it as [gɪn.gɚ].
▪ Followed by /i/, in the word gist (item no.21)
There were twenty (20) students who were able to pronouncing the word in correct way as [ˈdʒɪst].
Five (5) others pronounced it as [gɪst].
▪ Followed by /i/, in the word magic (item no.26)
All of the students were able to pronouncing the word magic in correct way as [ˈmædʒ.ɪk].
▪ Followed by /i/, in the word giant (item no.33)
It was the same with the previous word, in the word giant, the whole students were able to pronouncing it correctly as [ˈdʒaɪ. ə nt].
▪ Followed by /i/, in the word engineer (item no.38)
The total number of students (25) were able to pronouncing the word engineer in correct way as [ˌen.dʒɪˈnɪr].
Soft /g/ followed by /y/
There were four (4) words (biology, cardiology, energy, tragedy) followed by /y/, pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. Among hundred utterances, 93% of the students were able to pronouncing the words correctly, and 7% were not. The percentage displayed in the diagram.
Diagram 4.7 Percentage of pronunciation on soft /g/ followed by /y/
The specific results are described below.
▪ Followed by /y/, in the word biology (item no.1)
There were only one (1) student who pronounced the word as [baɪˈɒl.ə.gi], while twenty four (24) others pronounced it in correct way as [baɪˈɒl.ə.dʒi].
▪ Followed by /y/, in the word cardiology (item no.6)
There were two (2) students who pronouncing the word as [ˌkɑːr.diˈɒl.ə. gi], while the rest of the students (23) pronounced the word correctly as [ˌkɑːr.diˈɒl.ə. dʒi].
▪ Followed by /y/, in the word energy (item no.20)
In the word energy, the whole students were able to pronouncing it in correct way as [ˈen.ə.dʒi].
▪ Followed by /y/, in the word tragedy (item no.36)
There were four (4) students who pronouncing the word as [ˈtræg.ə.di], while the rest of the students (21) pronounced it correctly as [ˈtrædʒ.ə.di].
Hard /g/
There were four (4) words of hard /g/ sound in the sentences, those were regulation, guilty, garbage, and target. Total utterances were hundred (100) pronounced by twentyfive (25) students. The correct pronunciation among them were eightyfour (84), while the sixteen (16) were belong to incorrect. The percentage showed in the diagram.
Diagram 4.8 Percentage of pronunciation on hard /g/
93
7 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
The specific results are shown below.
▪ Hard /g/, in the word regulation (item no.23)
There were three (3) students who pronounced the word as [ˌredʒʊˈleɪ.ʃ ə n], with soft /g/.
Meanwhile the rest of the students (22) pronounced the word in correct way as [ˌreg.jʊˈleɪ.ʃ ə n].
▪ Hard /g/, in the word guilty (item no.25)
All of the students were able to pronouncing the word guilty in correct way as [ˈgɪl.ti].
▪ Hard /g/, in the word garbage (item no.29)
There were two (2) students who pronounced the word as [ˈdʒɑːr.bɪdʒ], with soft /g/ sound, while twenty three (23) others pronounced it correctly as [ˈgɑːr.bɪdʒ].
▪ Hard /g/, in the word target (item no.40)
There were eleven (11) students who pronounced the word incorrectly as [ˈtɑːr. dʒɪt], while fourteen (14) students pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈtɑːr. gɪt].
Exceptions (/g/ sound with special pronunciation)
There were four (4) sentences containing /g/ sound with special pronunciation, the words were signal, hunger, angle and signature. It belongs to exceptions because it does not follow the pronunciation of silent /g/, soft /g/, or hard /g/. There were twentyfive (25) students pronouncing the sentences, so there were hundred (100) utterances in total. Among them, sixtyseven (67) were belong to correct pronunciation, while twentythree (23) others were pronounced incorrectly. The percentage showed in the diagram.
Diagram 4.9 Percentage of pronunciation on exceptions
The specific results are shown below.
▪ /g/ sound with special pronunciation, in the word signal (item no.7)
The word signal pronounced with clear /g/ sound. There were eighteen (18) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈsɪg.nəl], while seven (7) students pronounced it as [ˈsaɪ.nəl].
▪ /g/ sound with special pronunciation, in the word hunger (item no.12) 84
16 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
67
23 correct
pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
The word hunger pronounced with clear /g/ sound. There were eleven (11) students who were able to pronouncing the word correctly as [ˈhʌŋ.gɚ], while fourteen (14) students pronounced it as [ˈhʌŋ.ɚ], without /g/.
▪ /g/ sound with special pronunciation, in the word angle (item no.28)
The word angle pronounced with clear /g/ sound. There were fifteen (15) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈæŋ.gl]. Meanwhile, ten (10) others pronounced it incorrectly as [ˈæn.dʒl], like in the word angel.
▪ /g/ sound with special pronunciation, in the word signature (item no.39)
The word signature pronounced with clear /g/ sound. There were twenty three (23) students who were able to pronouncing the word in correct way as [ˈsɪg.nɪ.tʃɚ], while two (2) others pronounced it as [ˈsaɪ.nɪ.tʃɚ], without /g/.
Another form (words with /gh/)
There were four (4) sentences containing words with /gh/ which pronounced by twentyfive (25) students, those are insight, nightmare, tight, and enlighten. With the total number hundred (100) utterances, fiftyeight (58) were correct and fortytwo (42) were incorrect. The percentage can be seen in the diagram below.
Diagram 4.10 Percentage of pronunciation on words with /gh/
The specific results are shown below.
▪ Words with /gh/, in the word insight (item no.9)
The word insight pronounced with silent /g/ sound. There were twenty (20) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈɪn.saɪt]. Meanwhile, five (5) students pronounced it incorrectly as [ˈɪn.saɪg], with clear /g/ sound.
▪ Words with /gh/, in the word nightmare (item no.15)
The word nightmare pronounced with silent /g/ sound. There were only seven (7) students who pronounced the word in correct way as [ˈnaɪt.mer]. The eighteen (18) others pronounced it incorrectly as [ˈnaɪg.mer], with clear /g/ sound.
▪ Words with /gh/, in the word tight (item no.27)
The word tight pronounced with silent /g/ sound. There were only eight (8) students who pronounced the word correctly as [taɪt]. The rest of the students (17) pronounced it incorrectly as [taɪg], with clear /g/ sound.
▪ Words with /gh/, in the word enlighten (item no.35)
The word enlighten pronounced with silent /g/ sound. There were twentythree (23) students who were able to pronouncing the word in correct way as [ɪnˈlaɪ.t ə n], while two (2) others pronounced it incorrectly as [ɪnˈlaɪg.t ə n], with clear /g/ sound.
The percentage of correct pronunciation by each student was obtained by dividing the score with the number of items (40) and multiplied by 100. The following is the formula.
X = 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X 100%
58 42
correct pronunciation incorrect pronunciation
The result of the calculation can be seen in table below.
Table 4.2 Students’ Pronunciation Score No. Respondents’
Code
Scores Percentage of the Correct Pronunciation
1 R1 36 90%
2 R2 36 90%
3 R3 31 77.5%
4 R4 35 87.5%
5 R5 32 80%
6 R6 29 72.5%
7 R7 30 75%
8 R8 33 82.5%
9 R9 37 92.5%
10 R10 29 72.5%
11 R11 34 85%
12 R12 28 70%
13 R13 27 67.5%
14 R14 30 75%
15 R15 31 77.5%
16 R16 32 80%
17 R17 39 97.5%
18 R18 36 90%
19 R19 35 87.5%
20 R20 35 87.5%
21 R21 37 92.5%
22 R22 35 87.5%
23 R23 32 80%
24 R24 27 67.5%
25 R25 29 72.5%
Average 32.6 81.5%
It can be seen from the table that the lowest score was 27 and the highest was 39. After the percentage of each students’ score was counted, then calculating the mean score by using the following formula.
The mean = ∑ 𝑁𝐶𝐼
∑ 𝑅
= 815
25
= 32.6
Note: NCI: number of correct item R: respondent (student)
It can be concluded from the calculation above that the students’ mean score was 32.6. Next, determine the average proportion of the correct pronunciation by dividing the sum of students’ correct answer with the maximum correct answer and multiplied by 100. The calculation as follows.
The average proportion = ∑ 𝑅𝐶𝐴
∑ 𝑀𝐶𝐴 X 100
= 815
1000 X 100
= 81.5%
Note: RCA: respondents’ correct answer MCA: maximum correct answer
It can be figure out that the average proportion of the correct pronunciation of /g/ sound by the fourth semester students of English Language Education Program of Universitas Brawijaya is 81.5%.
According to mastery level in curriculum of 2004, the average proportion of the students belong to good achievement.
Questionnaire
The findings on questionnaire were analyzed based on each student. Whereas, the result of each item was as follow:
21
14 16
4
11 9
0 5 10 15 20 25
Consult to dictionary when pronouncing
English word
Check the phonemic symbol to knowing
that the pronunciation of a
word is correct or incorrect
Feel difficult to differentiate between
allophones /g/
Students' Experience on Pronunciation
Yes No
4. Discussion
From the findings, it can be concluded that the average proportion is 81.5%. The average was compared with mastery level in curriculum of 2004, belongs to good achievement. The results highlight on four mastery levels which are excellent, good, average, and poor. They perfomed an excellent performance in pronouncing silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable and soft /g/ sound, good performance in pronouncing silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word and hard /g/ sound, average performance in pronouncing exceptions (/g/ sound with special pronunciation), and poor performance in pronouncing silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, and also words with /gh/. It can be conclude that the students have no problem in pronouncing silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word (good), silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word (excellent), silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable (excellent), soft /g/
(excellent), and hard /g/ (good).
In excellent performance, there were pronunciation of silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable and soft /g/ sound. The students performed their pronunciation in correct way. They tended to not pronounce /g/
sound in silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable. For example, in the word resign, the total number of 22
2 1 0
1
23
3 2 0
0
21
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pronouncing the word
"gratitude"
Pronouncing the word
"tragedy"
Pronouncing the word
"gnome"
Pronouncing the word
"sign"
Students' Pronunciation on /g/ Sound
/g/ /dʒ/ silent /g/
10
25
2 3
15
0
22
0 0 1 1
21
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pronouncing the word
"target"
Pronouncing the word
"grab, guess"
Pronouncing the word
"genuine, margin"
Pronouncing the word
"paradigm, gnash"
Students' Pronunciation on /g/ Sound
/g/ /dʒ/ silent /g/
the students (25) pronounced the word correctly as [rɪˈzaɪn]. In soft /g/ sound, most of the students pronounced [dʒ] for the words. For example, in the word cardiology, only two (2) students pronounced it as [ˌkɑːr.diˈɒl.ə. gi], while the rest (23) pronounced the word in correct way as [ˌkɑːr.diˈɒl.ə. dʒi].
In good performance, there were pronunciation of silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word and hard /g/ sound. Several the students did not pronounced /g/ sound in silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word. For example, in the word gnash. There were nineteen (19) students who pronounced the word correctly as [næʃ]. Six students pronounced the word incorrectly, three (3) students pronounced it as [dʒnæʃ], with soft /g/ sound, and three (3) students pronounced it as [gnæʃ], with a clear /g/ sound. In hard /g/ sound, the students tended to pronounced [g] for the words. For example in the word regulation, there were three (3) students who pronounced the word incorrectly as [ˌredʒʊˈleɪ.ʃ ə n], with soft /g/
sound. Meanwhile the rest of the students (22) pronounced the word in correct way as [ˌreg.jʊˈleɪ.ʃ ə n].
In average performance, there was pronunciation of /g/ sound with special pronunciation. The students tended to not pronounce the /g/ sound clearly. They did not pronounce the /g/ sound in the words hunger, signal, and signature while they have to do the vice versa. In the word angle, some of the students tended to pronounce it with [dʒ], like in the word angel. It might because they do not matter to pronounce such English word that seem to be the same in spelling with the same pronunciation (angle and angel), while they do not know whether their pronunciation is correct or incorrect.
In poor performance, there were pronunciation of silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, and words with /gh/. In silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable, the students tended to pronounce the word with clear /g/ sound. For example, in the word diaphragm, there were only five (5) students pronouncing the word correctly as [ˈdaɪ.ə.fræm]. Twenty (20) students pronounced the word incorrectly, nine (9) students even pronounced it as [ˈdaɪ.ə.græm], like in the word diagram, while eleven (11) others pronounced it as [ˈdaɪ.ə.frægm], with clear /g/ sound. It might naturally occur since their native language is Indonesian, where each consonant should be pronounced clearly (Chaer, 2011). It is in line with the previous study done by [5] that one of the factors that might affect students’ pronunciation is the interference of the mother tongue, in other words, the native language of the students themselves. In addition, from the questionnaire which had been distributed to the students, two of them thought that they should pronounce the word paradigm with [g] sound, while one other pronounced it with [dʒ] (see subchapter 4.1.2). Further, from the total number of the students (25), seven of them confirmed that they do not check the phonemic symbols of the word to know whether their pronunciation is correct or incorrect but they feel difficult to differentiate the allophones of /g/ sound. It may become a problem of why they cannot pronounce the word correctly. Whereas, in words with /gh/, several students also tended to pronounce /gh/ sound clearly. For example, in the word tight. There were eight (8) students pronounced the word correctly as [taɪt], while the rest (17) pronounced it incorrectly as [taɪg], with clear /g/ sound. It may occur naturally since their native language is Indonesian which consonants should be pronounced clearly (Chaer, 2011). According to Kenworthy (1987) the native language could affect students’
pronunciation because there are any differences in the sound system, while in this case Indonesian and English. Further, Kenworthy (1987) also stated that motivation may influenced students’ pronunciation since some of the students did not check the dictionary although they felt difficult to differentiate allophones /g/.
Although the high number of incorrect pronunciation came from three dimension which had been explained, there was one word mispronounced quite a lot by the students. In the word target, eleven (11) from twentyfive (25) students pronounced the word as [ˈtɑːr. dʒɪt]. From the questionnaire, fifteen (15) from twentyfive (25) students’ answered that they should pronounce the word with [dʒ]. From those fifteen students, two students did not feel difficult to differentiate allophones of /g/ and also did not check the phonemic symbol of the word, five students did not feel difficult to differentiate allophones of /g/ but they checked the phonemic symbol of the word, four students feel difficult to differentiate allophone of /g/ but they did not check the phonemic symbol of the word, and four students feel difficult to differentiate allophones and they checked the phonemic symbol of the word. These various answers could be the problem that they mispronounced particular word, because several of students felt they do not necessary to confirm whether their pronunciation was correct or incorrect although they feel difficult to differentiate allophones of /g/.
5. Conclusion
The conclusions of the research are the vary of students’ mastery level toward the dimension of pronunciation of /g/ sound, and the problems that may be faced by the students in pronouncing /g/ sound, including the differences of sound systems between their native language (Indonesian) and their foreign language (English) and their motivation as well.
Students’ mastery level is various toward the dimensions of pronunciation of /g/ sound. Those are excellent in pronunciation of silent /g/ before /n/ at the end of a word, silent /g/ before /n/ in the same syllable, soft /g/ sound; good in pronunciation of silent /g/ before /n/ at the beginning of a word and hard /g/ sound; average in pronunciation of the exception (words with special pronunciation); and poor in pronunciation of silent /g/ before /m/ in the same syllable and words with /gh/ sound. Besides, there are two problems that may be faced by the students to pronounce /g/ sound. The first problem is the differences of sound systems between their native language (Indonesian) and their foreign language (English). The second problem might be caused by the students’ motivation in pronouncing /g/ sound.
They have different willingness in checking the correct pronunciation of particular words whether they felt difficult to differentiate allophones /g/ or not, based on their answers on the questionnaire.
6. References
1. Arikunto, Suharsimi. (1998). Prosedur penelitian. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
2. Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to research in education. USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Eighth edition.
3. Beare, Kenneth. (2016). Pronunciation: silent letters. http://www.myenglishteacher.eu/blog/list-of- words-with-silent-letters-in-english/#g Accessed on Dec, 11th 2016.
4. Boyer, Susan. (2008). Understanding english pronunciation: an integrated practice course.
http://whatistionexperts.com/pronunciation-definition-according-to-experts/ Accessed on Dec, 11th 2016.
5. Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Longman: Second edition.
6. Chaer, Abdul. (2011). Tata bahasa praktis bahasa indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Edisi revisi.
7. Creswell, John W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Sage Publication, Inc. Third edition.
8. Creswell, John W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Pearson Education, Inc. Fourth edition.
9. Dalton, Christiane & Seidlhofer, Barbara. (2001). Language teaching: a scheme for teachers education: pronunciation. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Dewi, Anggun Kusuma. (2009). Pronunciation problem faced by the english department students in pronouncing –ed ending (a case of the sixth semester students of the english department of unnes in the academic year of 2008-2009). Semarang State University: English Department Faculty of Languages and Arts.
11. Dornyei, Zoltan. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Fraenkel, Jack R. & Wallen, Norman E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Seventh edition.
13. Getty, John A. (1983). Elements of rhetoric: exhibiting a methodical arrangement of all the important ideas. http://whatistionexperts.com/pronunciation-definition-according-to-experts/
Accessed on Dec, 11th 2016.
14. Hassan, Elkhair Muhammad Idriss. (2014). Pronunciation problems: a case study of english language students at sudan university of science and technology. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. English Language and Literature Studies; Vol. 4, No. 4.
15. Isaac, Stephen & Michael, William B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. California:
Edits Publishers. Second edition.
16. Kelly, Gerald. (2001). How to teach pronunciation. Longman: Pearson Education Limited.
17. Kenworthy, Joanne. (1987). Teaching english pronunciation. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
18. Ladefoged, Peter. (1982). A course in phonetics. Los Angeles: University of California. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Second edition.
19. Longman dictionary of contemporary english 5th edition.
20. Maddox, Maeve. (2014). The two sounds of g. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/the-two-sounds-of- g/ Accessed on Dec, 11th 2016.
21. Mertens, Donna M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publication, Inc. Third edition.
22. Muslich, Masnur. (2012). Fonologi bahasa indonesia: tinjauan deskriptif sistem bunyi bahasa indonesia. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
23. Rattanji. (2012). Silent letter g. http://rattanji78.blogspot.co.id/2012/02/silent-letter-g.html Accessed on Dec, 8th 2016.
24. Roach, Peter. (1991). English phonetics and phonology: a practical course. Cambrige University Press. Second edition.
25. Yule, George. (2010). The study of language. New York: Cambrige University Press. Fourth edition.
[1] Dewi, Anggun Kusuma., “Pronunciation problem faced by the english department students in pronouncing –ed ending (a case of the sixth semester students of the english department of unnes in the academic year of 2008- 2009).,” Semarang State University: English Department Faculty of Languages and Arts., 2009.
[2] Muslich, Masnur., “Fonologi bahasa indonesia: tinjauan deskriptif sistem bunyi bahasa indonesia,” Jakarta: Bumi Aksara., 2012.
[3] Kelly, Gerald., “How to teach pronunciation.,” Longman: Pearson Education Limited., 2001.
[4] Joanne. Kenworthy, “Teaching english pronunciation,” New York: Longman Group UK Limited., 1987.
[5] Hassan, Elkhair Muhammad Idriss, “Pronunciation problems: a case study of english language students at sudan university of science and technology,” Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. English Language and Literature Studies, vol. Vol. 4, No. 4., 2014.
[6] Ary et al., “Introduction to research in education,” USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning., 2010.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
First author’s
Febby Dwi Adeline
Febby is an English teacher of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Sidoarjo, Jl. KH. Samanhudi 81 Jasem Bulusidokare Sidoarjo, Indonesia
Doi: 10.21776/ub.educafl.2020.003.01.2
18
Autonomous Online Reading using PQRST to enhance the students’ Reading Skill in Recount Text
Enik Evi Indahwati SMP N 2 Malang Uvinafa83@gmail.com
Indonesia
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Apr 12, 2020 Revised Apr 12, 2020 Accepted May 12, 2020
The lack of maximum reading competency achieved by students becomes the background of this research. Data of the students reading competency score on[1] descriptive text shows the average of 70.19 which is still far below the minimum standard score of 77. Literature review shows several factors influencing the low level of student reading competencies, namely: (1) minimum vocabulary mastery, (2) the absence of reading strategies used which results in difficulties to understand long sentences, (3) lack of background knowledge, and (4) less motivated to learn English because of the monotonous teaching methods. By using Classroom action Research, this study aims at improving the students reading skills of recount text by employing autonomous online reading using PQRST technique. The results of the study show that (1) the students scores in reading were significantly increased, (2) the students activity in class in learning activities was increased, and (3) students comprehension of the recount text was facilitated by the PQRST strategy by activating their background knolwledge (Preview), writing what they want to know (Question), Readingand Summarizing the text, then continued by Test. In conclusion, autonomous online reading with PQRST techniques can improve students’ learning outcomes well.
Keywords:
reading skills, recount text, online reading, PQRST.
Corresponding Author:
Enik Evi Indahwati SMP N 2 Malang Uvinafa83@gmail.com Indonesia
1. Research Background
English language skills in the curriculum at school cover four aspects, namely: (1) listening skills, (2) speaking skills, (3) reading skills, and (4) writing skills. Having good reading [2]skills is believed by most people to make it easier for students to improve their understanding or other aspects of language and also achieve academic success. Unfortunately, students' reading skills are often found to be far from expectations. Many students have low reading ability. To graduate from junior high school, students must take a national exam which is a test to measure students' reading abilities. Therefore, reading is one of the skills that are urgent for students to get their success. Reading is also the same as other activities that needs a lot of practices. The ability to comprehend reading material in their process of learning foreign languages needs to be improved to enable them to get used to the reading process and avoid misunderstanding.
In the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture Decree No. 65 of 2013 concerning the standard process, it is stated that the learning process in the education unit should be held interactively, inspiring, fun, challenging, and motivating students to participate actively, as well as providing sufficient space for initiative, creativity, and independence according to talent, interests, and physical and psychological development of students. Given the rapid development of science and technology, teachers as the spearhead in efforts to improve the quality of education are expected to improve their abilities. To overcome these conditions teachers are expected to continuously improve their learning models. Active, creative, effective, and fun learning[3] is an innovative learning model to increase student’s participation in learning in class.
In accordance with the revised edition syllabus of 2017, the Basic Competencies which must be achieved by the second year students[4] of senior high school are to capture contextual meaning related to social functions, text structure, and linguistic elements of oral and written recount texts, very short and simple, related to personal experiences in the past ( personal recount). In fact, based on the observation of the researcher who is as an English teacher in State Junior High School 2 Malang, the language skills that must be achieved by students in accordance with the requirements of the basic competencies have not shown any satisfactory results, as evidenced by the large number of students who experience difficulties in learning English to be able to get the maximum value, especially in aspects of reading (reading comprehension).
The main thing that motivated the researcher to conduct this research was the researcher's own experience as a teacher in State Junior High School 2 Malang who encountered less than optimal reading competency achieved by students, especially students of class VIII I who were taught by the researchers. The reading competency value data on the previous basic competence about descriptive text shows that the average reading value of students is 70.19. This is far below the KBM value of 77.
From observations while teaching reading in class VIII I, the researcher drew a conclusion that there are several factors that influence low student reading competencies, including: (1) minimal vocabulary mastery, (2) difficult to understand long sentences because they do not use reading strategies, (3) lack of background knowledge, and (4) less motivated to learn English because the teacher's method of teaching is monotonous.
Based on such conditions, the researcher tries to conduct classroom action research (CAR) to overcome the difficulties experienced by students of class VIII I and improve reading skills by using strategies that might help students overcome their problems when they have to understand reading text.
[5]According to Sulistyo (2011), there are several factors that influence students' understanding of a text.
These factors include; linguistic factors, background knowledge about the subject matter in the text, knowledge of the structure of the text, micro reading skills, and reading strategies.
Wilkins in Choudhury (2010) said that without grammar, very little can be understood by people who learn languages, and without vocabulary, nothing can be understood. According to Choudhury (2010), to master certain vocabularies, [6]teachers should use a variety of techniques and make many sentences with the vocabulary that are close to the environment of student life. [7]Esteria (2017) applied the PQRST technique in grade 8 of SMPN 1 Pangkalan Lada and found that this method can improve reading comprehension. [8]Faradina (2015) also uses the PQRST technique in an experimental study and concludes that the PQRST technique can improve students' reading comprehension skills.
The researcher takes a reading strategy in the form of autonomous online reading. In addition, the researchers also use the PQRST technique. With [9]a good method and a fun strategy it is expected that students of class VIII I can be more enthusiastic and easier to understand the recount text.
Based on the background above, the researchers conducted a study with the title, "Autonomous Online Reading To Improve Reading Skills in Recount Text Understanding with PQRST Technique for Class VIII I Students of SMPN 2 Malang Academic Year 2018/2019."
2. Research Objective
Based on the background above, the authors formulated the problem of this research, namely "How does an autonomous online reading strategy improve the reading ability of recount text of grade VIII I students of SMP Negeri 2 Malang with the PQRST technique?"
The learning styles of students in class VIII I vary, some are auditory, visual, and kinesthetic.
Their reading ability also varies, some are quick to understand reading, and some are rather slow. To overcome the differences of each student, it will be difficult if conventional classical learning is done.
The writer (teacher) tries to find a way for students to learn according to their learning style and according to their speed of reading comprehension by giving them the opportunity to read their own
reading text in a book, reading online through http://www.rong-chang.com/nse/ students not only read written text but can also listen to native[10] English speakers from the web. In addition, students can also see a list of meanings of difficult words from the text. Students are also facilitated with fun crossword puzzles, completing text overlaps, and dictation activities and arranging random words into sentences.
Based on the formulation of the problem above, the purpose of this study is to explain how an autonomous online reading strategy improves the reading ability of recount text of grade VIII students of SMP Negeri 2 Malang with the PQRST technique.
The benefits of this research are as follows:
1. For students: This research is expected to be able to improve students' reading skills in learning English
2. For teachers: the implementation of this research can encourage teachers to develop varied learning strategies, so that learning in the classroom will be better.
3. For schools: The results of this study will provide added value and encourage further researcher to overcome other problems encountered in teaching and learning activities in schools.
3. Methods
This research approach is qualitative with a class action research strategy with data analysis that is cyclical in nature. Cycle / steps / stages of research:
Planning
In the context of carrying out classroom action research, systematic action preparation is conducted as an initial activity, which is as follows:
a. Make initial observations of the object of research in order to identify problems.
b. Determine methods, observation tools and design learning in accordance with predetermined problem solving models.
c. Determine the time of action.
d. Define collaborators.
Action
The implementation of these actions is carried out in collaboration with other teachers. So that the implementation of the action can run smoothly, the teacher is guided by the preparation of learning in which the steps that must be taken by the teacher in learning using the autonomous online reading method with the PQRST technique. This class action research procedure consists of two cycles. In each cycle the teacher carries out actions based on the stages of applying aotonomous online reading with the PQRST technique.
Research Sample and Instrument
Because the research approach chosen in this study is a qualitative approach with a classroom action research (PTK) research strategy, the sampling technique is using non-probability sampling (sampling technique that does not give an opportunity to be selected as a sample) (Sugiyono, 2005) in words Another sample of the research object is class VIII I with 32 students, 10 male students and 17 female students.
In classroom action research, the research instrument is the researcher himself and the collaborator.
Data Collection
Researchers use test instruments to measure the skills, knowledge or ability of talent possessed by individuals. The test consists of multiple choice questions about 20 recount texts. Test methods and this
document as a support in the data collection process. Researchers also use observation sheets (observations).
Observation activities are carried out during the learning process. In conducting observations, researchers are assisted by English teachers from peers based on the observation format that has been provided by researchers. Data is taken from the percentage of student learning outcomes in the English learning process
before and after being given an action. Data is also taken from the learning / guidance situation when action is carried out using the PQRST technique.
4. Results
Preliminary Condition
Initial observations were carried out in February even semester 2018/2019. Referring to the initial observation activities conducted in this class action research, it shows that there are 46.88% or 15 of the 32 students who have English learning outcomes above the Minimum Mastery Criteria that have been set.
While 17 students (53.12%) had not yet completed. This condition shows that the majority of students of class VIII I of SMP Negeri 2 Malang have not been completed, so it is necessary to take actions that are expected to increase their understanding of the subject matter provided.
Before conducting research, researchers coordinated with other English teachers as collaborators on the learning plans that will be carried out. The minimum standard of mastery learning for students in class VIII of SMPN 2 Malang is determined by the school which is 77. Classical learning is said to be complete if at least 70% of students in the class experience mastery learning. So, 70% of students got a minimum score of 77. The reading comprehension value of students in Pre-Action was an average of 71.72% and seen from the completeness of each student by 46.88%. As the instructor of learning, the researcher prepares a lesson plan, Worksheet as material in conducting student learning and discussion. The researcher also prepared observation sheets and field notes sheets to find out student activities and teacher activities during the learning process. In addition, researchers also prepare questions to find out students' understanding of recount text reading material.
The more specific portrait of the implementations can be seen in the following part:
Cycle I
Cycle I consists of four stages; Planning, Execution, Observation, and Reflection. The first cycle was planned for three meetings, namely on March 5, March 12 and March 14, 2019 with the material discussed was "Text Recount".
1) Action Planning
In the first cycle, the actions planned to overcome the problems are as follows:
a. Developing learning plans (RPP) with a cooperative nuance, with the type used is PQRST. Example of RPP attached.
b. Arranging PQRST characteristic observation sheets (group work)
c. Arranging assessment instruments in the form of assessment sheets of student observation d. Preparing daily test questions in the form of multiple choice totaling 20 questions.
NO TEACHER’S ACTIVITY
STUDENTS’
ACTIVITY
LEARNING MATERIALS
1 Teacher devides the class into 8 groups
Grouping Observation sheet, test items
2 Teacher hands out recount texts as the learning materials
Students get recount texts as the learning materials 3 Teacher observes
group discussion (assisted by an observer/
colleague)
Students do a group
discussion about the recount text using PQRST technique 4 Teacher appoints
a group to present the result of the group’s
discussion
Students present the result of the group’s
discussion
5 Teacher assigns students to read an online recount text by providing the web address
Students do autonomous online reading using PQRST technique
6 Teacher
conducted an evaluation
Students are evaluated
3) Observation
Observation activities carried out by researchers and observers at each meeting. From observations of student activities in learning, it shows that the level of student activity in the first cycle has increased in a positive direction when compared to the initial observation. With the PQRST technique the teacher has been able to mediate learning activities so that in each group, students actively participate in discussions, problem solving, sharing with each other so that they have the same understanding of the material taught by the teacher.
Other real conditions indicate that autonomous online reading activities through http://www.rong-chang.com/nse provide space for each individual to understand the reading text according to their learning patterns and speed of
