THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READING VIEWED FROM STUDENTSâ INTELLIGENCE.

(1)

http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READING

VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ INTELLIGENCE

Yulia Agustina, 2Ngadiso, 3Dewi Rochsantiningsih

(Student of Magister Program of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS) Email: yulia.agustina24@gmail.com

(Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS) (Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS)

ABSTRACT – The objectives of this research are finding out whether: (1) semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012; (2) the students who have high intelligence have better reading ability than those who have low intelligence at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching strategies and students’ intelligence in teaching reading at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012. This research was an

experimental study conducted at SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012. The samples were two classes: VIII C and VIII D. The researcher took the sample of this study by using cluster random sampling. Each class was divided into two groups (the students who have high and low intelligence). The research instruments consist of the students’ intelligence document and a reading test. The reading test was tried out to get valid and reliable items. Then, the data were analyzed by using multifactor analysis of variance 2 x 2 (ANOVA) and Tukey test. Based on the research results, there are research findings as follows: (1) the students who are taught using semantic mapping have better reading ability than those who are taught using lecturing; (2) the students who have high intelligence have better reading ability than those who have low intelligence; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching strategies and students’ intelligece because semantic mapping is more effective to teach reading for the students having high intelligence, and lecturing is more effective to teach reading for students having low intelligence. Finally, it can be inferred that: (1) semantic mapping is an effective strategy to teach reading at the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the academic year of 2012/2013; (2) the effectiveness of the strategy is affected by the level of students’ intelligence.

Keyword - Teaching strategies, reading ability, Intelligence.

INTRODUCTION

Reading ability is an important tool for academic success because it is an important activity in life which students can update their knowledge, enrich vocabulary, add knowledge, ect. But in fact, the students still have low ability in reading competence, yet they still lack in understanding reading material. It is caused by many factors such as: they rarely read, lack of vocabulary, low

23

motivation, and inappropriate teaching strategy used when the teachers attempted to explain reading materials (Kamal Muhtar, 2010: 3).

(2)

to understand and to get a message that is conveyed by the writer through the

completed with the new information (Muhtar, 2010: 61). When using semantic

media of written language. mapping as postreading, teachers

The teacher’s strategies in teaching employ students’ disscussions to help reading are important factors to them recall and organize information improve the students’ ability in reading. that they have learned from reading text

The teacher should choose an as they make connection to words or

appropriate strategy in order to make students achieve adequate competence in reading. There are some kinds of strategies that can be applied by the teacher in teaching reading. Semantic mapping strategy is supposed to be appropriate strategy to develop her students’ ability in reading. Semantic mapping helps the students develop

concepts related to the topic (Antonnaci, et al., 2011:18).

On the contrary, lecturing strategy is used to describe a lesson where the teacher has control. It is also called as the teacher-centered. The teacher’s duty in this strategy is only telling the

material directly by face to face with the students. The students usually have no prior knowledge by seeing the curiosity to study about reading, yet relationship in a given topic. It is a

visual representation of a particular concept (Cooper, et al., 2009: 102).

they only listen to the explanation from the teacher and often make them feel bored.

This strategy is most effective when Besides the strategies, teaching it is used before, during, and after

reading and when the teachers serve as the guide or facilitator to their students who construst their own semantis maps.

learning process is affected by the students’ intelligence. It influences their ability in English skills especially in reading ability. Intelligence is the most When semantic mapping is as important tool for success and failure of prereading, helps to active students’ students in learning and also as prior knowledge (schemata). Further, the

teacher may use students’ prereading semantic maps to determine how much knowledge building is required before students read the text (Antonnaci 2011:

personality factor that influence the result of teaching and learning process. (Helmi, 2011: 34). According to Carol (2012: 1) intelligence is capacity for knowledge and the ability to acquire: 18). Using semantic mapping in whilst- capacity for reason, ability to reading helps the students to record the comprehend relationship, ability to information obtained from the text. By

making a semantic map during reading a text, the students’ prior knowledge are

24

(3)

An English teacher has an important 3. To know weather there is an role to manage and help students to get

success in their learning. One of the efforts, an English teacher should assist her students in implementing reading

interaction between teaching strategies and students’ intellegence in teaching reading.

There are some definitions of reading ability by giving them a suitable strategy according to some experts. Richard how the students learn to receive the

message and information in understand-ing a readunderstand-ing material. Considerunderstand-ing that background, the researcher states the problems to be researched as follows: 1. Is semantic mapping more effective

than lecturing to teach reading for the

(1997: 6) defines reading as a powerful activity that gives knowledge, insight, and perspective on readers. It means reading is powerful activity in getting knowledge, insight, and the reader’s perspective.

Nunan (1998: 23) states that reading is a process of decoding written symbols, eighth graders of of SMPN 12 working from a smaller unit (individual

Tasikmalaya? letters) to large ones (words, clauses, and

2. Do the students having high sentences).

intellegence have better reading ability than those having low intellegence for the eighth graders of of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya?

3. Is there any interaction between the

Davies (1995: 1) states that reading is a mental, or cognitive, process which involves a reader in trying to follow and respond to a message from the writer who is distance in space and time. teaching strategies and students’ From the theories above, it could be intellegence in teaching reading? inferred that reading is a process to

In accordance with the problems decode the written symbol which

above, this research is intended: involves a reader in understanding and 1. To know weather the semantic attribute the information from a text to

mapping is more effective than build meaning as a piece of

lecturing in teaching reading at the communication between the reader and

eighth graders of SMPN 12 writer.

Tasikamalaya in the academic year 2011/2012.

There are four basic levels of reading comprehension according to Burs, et al,. 2. To know weather the students having (1996: 177), namely: literal,

high intellegence have better reading interpretative, critical, and creative ability than those having low reading. Brown (2004: 306) gives the intellegence for the eighth graders of

SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the academic year 2011/2012.

25

strategies for reading comprehension. They are:

(4)

2. Scan the text for specific information Further, semantic maps are graphic 3. Distinguish between literal and displays of word meaning that offers the

implied meaning, ect.

Based on the previous elaboration

students a visual representation of how words and concept are related through a above, it can be generated that reading network of organized knowledge ability is a process to decoding the

written symbol which involves a reader in

(Heimlich and Pittelman in Antonnaci, 2011: 18).

understanding the information from a In the researher’s undestanding, text to find main idea, explicit and semantic mapping strategy is a graphic implicit information, word references, array of knowledge which contains and meaning of certain word based on nodes, drawn as circle, squares, or the context. There are several aspects of triangles as a key word which is reading skill which lead to the indicators

that students or the readers are able to:

connected by lines or arrows to show how words and concept are related

(1) find main idea; (2) find explicit through a network of paragraph in information; (3) find implicit information;

(4) find word references; and (5) find

comprehending a text.

Sinatra (1986: 5) descibes different meaning of certain word based on the formats of semantic map: (1) the

context. narrative sequential, format arranges

Semantic mapping is derived from information in several pararel

the words semantic and maps. A hierarchical strands; (2) the thematic or semantic mapping, as construction, has descriptive map displays elements and essentially two aspects: visual and details about person, place, or things conceptual. A visual semantic map is around a central theme; and (3) the

made up of forms, such as circles, comparative or contractive map,

triangles, etc. Conceptual semantic map relationship among concepts by contains verbal information inside and displaying how class, examples, and between the forms, which represents

relationship between the words/ideas (Fisher in Raiziene 2003: 193). There are

attributes are related. The following is the example of semantic mapping by Judy Casulli in Brisk (2000 : 71): some definitions of semantic mapping racoon skunk poecupine rabbit

proposed by some experts:

According to Sinatra (1986:4) defines semantic mapping as a graphic arrange-ment how the major and minor ideas are related in a written work.

26

Jungle Animal

Desert Animal

Animals in South

Pains Animals

(5)

Iguana armadillo jaguar llma _{occurs between the instructor and the}

Figure 1. The Example of Semantic Mapping.

Antonnaci, et al., (2011: 20) explain the advantages of using semantic mapping as follows:

a. Helping to developh word knowledge; b. Helping to activate students’ prior

knowledge;

c. Helping to determine how much building knowledge is required;

In addition, this strategy has

disadvantages for its use. The following are disadvantages of using semantic map according to Eppler (2006: 201):

a. It is not easy to apply by beginner students; it requires extensive training.

b. It is difficult to find out the relation between the ideas.

c. The overall pattern does not necessarily assist memorability. On the other hand, a lecturing is probably the oldest teaching strategy and is still used widely used by many

teachers in the classroom. A lecturing is an oral presentation intended to present material or teach people about particular subject.

Kelly (2012: 1) defines that lecturing is a teaching strategy where an instructor is the central focus of information transfer. Sometimes, they will write on a board or use an overhead projector to provide visuals for students. Students are expected to take notes while listening to the lecture. Usually, very little exchange

27

students during a lecturing.

Westwood (2008: 18) remarks that the main objection to lecturing is that they imply the possibility of creating knowledge and understanding in students simply by talking at them. In fact, the formal lecturing is the classic example of a transmission strategy.

In short, lecturing strategy is the teacher-centered which focuses on information transfer. It emphasizes on the teacher’s role in presenting information by talking to students, while students are passive, they only receive the information from teacher’s presentation.

The following here are the advantages of lecturing according to Cashin (1985: 85):

a. Lecturing can help communicate the enthusiasm of teachers for their subjects.

b. Lecturing can be specifically organized to meet the needs of particular

students.

c. Lecturing can present large amounts of information.

Although the lecturing can be an effective and efficient teaching startegy, it has a number of disadvantages,

according to Cashin (1985: 87) as follows:

(6)

b.

Students' attention wanes quickly after fifteen to twenty-five minutes.

c.

Information tends to be forgotten quickly when students are passive.

fact, carrying abstract thinking, adapting and learning from the experience, and evaluating and judgment.

The factors that affecting Intelligence,

Intelligence is general term to according to Cherry (2012: 5) there are describe human mind which covers many three main factors that influence interrelated abilities, such as the ability intelligence:

in solving the problem, reasoning, a. Genetics

planning, thinking abstractly to use b. Biology and Biochemistry, there are a language, conveying idea, understanding

ideas and learning. According to Carol (2012: 1) intelligence is capacity for

wide range of biological factors that can impact intelligence.

c. Environment, there are a number of

knowledge and the ability to acquire: environmental factors that impact

capacity for reason, ability to child cognitive development:

comprehend relationship, ability to demographics, poverty, bird order, evaluate and judge, and capacity for childhood trauma, environmental original and productive thought.

Meanwhile, Gardner (1999: 6) states that human intelligence involves skills of the problem solving which enable the individual to solve the problems, to create an effective product, and to have

stress, and parenting.

Based on the previous quotations above, it can be concluded that indicators of intelligence are the general mental of individual to learn a new knowledge, solve the problem, make good responses

awork for the acquisition of new from truth or fact, carry abstract

knowledge. thinking, adapt and learn from the

Later on, Thordike in Djaali (2007: environment, and evaluate and judge. 64) defines intelligence as demonstrable The researcher presents some in ability of individual to make good

responses from the stand point of truth or fact. According Terman in Djaali (2007: 64) intelligence is the ability to

hypotheses. Those hypotheses are as follows:

1. Semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading for the

carry on abstract thinking. eighth graders of SMPN 12

From the theories above, it can be summarized that intelligence is human’s ability to use his knowledge in learning a new knowledge, solving the problem, making good responses from truth or

28

Tasikmalaya.

(7)

3. There is an iteraction between teaching strategies and students’ intelligence in teaching reading.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research was conducted at SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya at the eighth graders in academic year of 2011/2012 which is located on Jl. Sutisna Senjaya Kawalu, Tasikmalaya and was conducted from July to January 2013.

graders D and C. The number of students of each class is 40 students.

The researcher took the sample of this research by using cluster random sampling technique. This technique is used because the population of this research consists of some classes and each class is relatively homogeneous.

The researcher used a test to collect the data. There are reading test and In this research, the researcher students’ intelligence document. Reading applied an experimental study with a test is used to know students’ ability in quantitative approach. Fraenkel and reading while students’ intelligence Wallen (1993: 240) state that document is used to collect the data of experimental study is one of the most students’ intelligence. The form of test is powerful research methodologies, objective test.

because it is the best way to establish cause and effect relationship between variables.

Meanwhile, a quantitative approach is a kind of research that gives a pressure in the systematic analysis, using statistic analysis toward quantitative data that includes correlational study, experiment,

For the IQ test, the students were already tested by their own school, therefore the researcher will use those score as the data. The IQ test in this research has been conducted by Lembaga Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia (LPSDM) Pelita Harapan Bangsa which is located at Perum Green Java No. 1 and ex-post facto. This research is Cawang, Magelang.

designed to describe and to prove the influence of using semantic mapping to teach reading viewed from students’ intelligence.

The population of this research is all

Meanwhile, reading test is in multiple choice forms. According to Heaton (175: 14) multiple choice item is now widely regarded as being one of the most useful of all objective item types. The test must the eighth graders of SMPN 12 be valid and reliable.

Tasikmalaya in academic year of In techniques of analyzing the data, 2011/2012. The total numbers of the researcher used descriptive analysis population are about 380 students and inferential analysis. Descriptive divided into 9 classes. The sample of this

research are two classes, the eighth

(8)

842 316 684 421

No. Sample Based upon the calculation above, it

shows that the χo2 (3.30) is lower than χt2 at

the level of significance α = 5% (7.815) or

hypothesis. Before conducting the χo2 < χt2 (3.30 < 7.815). Therefore, it can be

hypothesis, it is necessary to know the concluded that the data obtained are

No

Data _SampleNo of (Lo)

(Lt) (α) Status

homogenous.

Table 3.The Summary of a 2x2

1 A1 40 0.07 0.14 0.05 Normal

normality and homogeneity. Then, the researcher tested the hyphotesis using Multifactor Analysis of Variance or ANOVA 2X2. It is used to find out the difference between columns and rows. Besides ANOVA, the researcher used

Multifactor of Variance

Tukey Test to identify the significant difference between groups or cells.

Based on the above table, it can be concluded that:

1. Fo between columns (5.290) is higher

than Ft _(0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and it

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Summary of Normality Test

Based upon the above data showing that Lo of A1 (0.0738) < Lt (0.141), Lo 0f A2

that the data obtained are in normal distribution.

Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test

means the difference between columns

is significant. The students’ mean of A1

(72) is higher than the students’ mean

of A2 (67), thus it can be stated that

semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading. 2. Fo between rows (9.393) is higher

than Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and

it means difference between rows is significant. It can be stated that the X1

9508 difference between the achievement of

si2

(9)

significant. The students’ mean of B1

(71) is higher than the students’ mean of B2 (66). Hence, the students who

Hence, B1 (71) is higher than B2 (66), it

can be stated that the students having high intelligence have better reading

have high level of intelligence have ability and those having low

better reading ability than the intelligence. students who have low intelligence.

3. Fo interaction (1419.61) is higher than

3) Because qo between cells (A1B1 and

A1B2) (6.80) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),

Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and it can the students who have high

be stated that there is interaction effect between the two variables, the teaching strategies and the degree of intelligence on the reading ability. It means that the effect of the teaching strategies used on the reading ability depends on the sudents’ degree or level of intelligence.

Table 4. The Summary of Tukey Test

intelligence who are taught by using semantic mapping are significantly different in reading ability from the students who have low intelligence who are taught by using lecturing. The mean score of students having high

intelligence A1B1 (77) is higher than

that of those who have low intelligence

A1B2 (65), so semantic mapping is more

Between

Group qo qt Status Meaning effective than lecturing to teach

A1 – A2

reading for the students having high intelligence.

1) Because qo between columns A1A2

(0.05)

difference between columns is

significant. The students’ mean of A1

(72) is higher than the students’ mean

of A2 (67). It can be inferred that

teaching reading using semantic mapping at the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya is more effective than teaching reading using lecturing.

2) Because qo between rows B1B2 (4.230) is

(0.05)

concluded that the students who have high intellligence and those who have low intelligence are signicantly different in their reading ability.

31

4) Because qo between two cells (A1B2 and

A2B2) (3.52) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),

lecturing differs significantly from semantic mapping to teach reading for students who have low intelligence. The mean score of students having low intelligence who are taught by lecturing (69) is higher than those who are taught by using semantic mapping (64), thus lecturing is more effective than semantic mapping for teaching reading for students having low intelligence.

Reffering to the result of tuckey test at point 3 and 4 above, it can be inffered that semantic mapping is more

appropriate strategy for the students (3.25) is higher than qt (2.86), the

(10)

with high intelligence, while conventional Maggard (2012: 1) states promote a strategy, lecturing, is appropriate combination of semantic mapping and strategy for students with low reading activities to enable the readers to intelligence in teaching reading. Hence, it

can be summarized that there is an interaction between teaching strategies and the students’ intelligence in teaching reading.

Discussion

Based on the computation result of data analysis, it can be presented as follows: 1. Semantic mapping is more effective

than lecturing to teach reading.

make use of schema in achieveng a fuller understanding of a text.

On the contrary, lecturing is used to describe a lesson where the teacher has a control. It is also called as the teacher centered because the teacher’s duty in this strategy is only telling the material directly by face to face with the students.

Westwood (2008: 18) remarks that the main objective to lecturing is creating

Semantic mapping is a strategy in _knowledge _and _{understanding} _in

which information is categorically _{students simply by talking at them.} structured. It helps students arrange _{Moreover, in this stratregy the students} information by utilizing the most _{have no} _{chance to be active, creative,} important aspect and concept which is _{and interactive because only the teacher} related with a text. All activities in this _becomes _the _decision _maker, _as _a strategy are students-centered because it _consequence, _it _{makes the} _students makes the use of students’ prior _{passive and feel bored in following}

knowledge and control the input at each paragraph of the map’s bulding.

According to Zaid (2005: 7) semantic mapping is as comunicative language teaching because it incorporates many aspects of CLT such as active, interactive, students centered, and as an integrative activity. Using semantic mapping in pre-reading phase stimulate the students prior knowledge, the whilst-reading helps the students to record the information obtained from the text, and when using

teaching learning process because they only listen to the teacher’s explanation. That is why semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading. 2. The students’ having high intelligence have better reading ability than those having low intelligence.

Intelligence is the most important tool for success and failure of the students in learning. Carol (2012: 1) states that intelligence is capacity for knowledge and the ability to acquire: semantic mapping as post reading phase _capacity _for _reason, _ability _to helps the students recall and organize _comprehend _{relationship,} _ability _to information from what they have learned _{evaluate and judge, and capacity for} from reading a text. Widomski in _{original and productive thought. The}

(11)

students who have high level of 3. There is an interaction between

intelligence will acquire knowledge teaching strategies and the students’

quickly and apply the knowledge intelligence.

effectively. The students having high Students’ participation in learning intelligence have high ability in activities is strongly affected by teaching comprehending a text (Debour, 1960:

132). By high intelligence the students have hard effort optimally to achieve the success, have much bravery to answer teacher’s question, have strong intention in learning that makes them understand the lesson more easily as stated by Gardner (1999: 6) human intelligence involves skills of the problem solving which enable the individual to solve the

strategies. Semantic mapping strategy is a students-centered because it makes the students more active, interactive, and creative. When they try to create a map, the students work with each other before and after reading a text. The students who are taught using semantic will find the main concept of a text then try to represent a text by making the schemata which are related to paragraphs of a text. problem, to create an effective product, It certainly helps the students to and have to a work for the acquisition of

new knowledge.

On the other hand, students with low intelligence will find the diffulty in

understand reading a text easily. All activities in this strategy such as pre-reading, whilst pre-reading, and post reading are communicative. According to Zaid

acquiring new knowledge. They are (2005: 7) semantic mapping is as

passive because they prefer becoming communicative language teaching

listeners and following participants in because it incorporates many aspects of learning process. They always depend on (CLT) such as active, interactive, someone else, don’t try hard, give up students-centered, and integrative easily in the face of challange. It proves

they are slower in doing reading tasks

activity.

The fact shows that the students which are given to them as stated by having high intelligence have high Debour (1960: 132) the students who curiosity in comprehending reading have low intelligence will have low ability

in understanding a text. It happens because they have less capacity to learn and to solve the problem, and to carry on the abstract thinking. That’s the reason

material and like to read anything that teacher gives them. They also peform very well in the class, try to be active, and do the task better. Gardner (1999: 6) states that human intelligence involves why the students’ having high skills of the problem solving which

intelligence have better reading ability enable the individual to solve the than those having low intelligence.

33

(12)

and to have a work for the acquisition of between teaching strategies and students’ new knowledge. Therefore, semantic intelligence for teaching reading.

mapping is more effective to teach reading for the students having high intelligence.

Meanwhile, lecturing strategy is the

Conclusion, Implication, and Suggestion

As the research result and the discussion

teacher-centred which focuses on elaborated in preceding page, the

information transfer. This strategy findings are as follows

:

doesn’t give any chances to the students to be active in learning process. The

1. Semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading for the

students are passive and mostly they eighth graders of SMP 12

prefer talking with their friends than Tasikmalayain the academic year listening to the teacher. It is stated by

Kelly (2012: 1), lecturing is a teaching

2011/2012.

2. The students having high IQ have strategy where an instructor is the cenral _{better reading} _ability _than _those focus of information transfer.

The fact shows that the students

having low IQ.

3.

There is an interaction between the having low intelligence have less _{teaching strategies and the students’} attention, motivation, and interest in _{intelligence in teaching reading at the} joinning learning process, tend to wait to _eighth _graders _of _of _SMP ₁₂ the teacher’s explanation to know the

message of a text or need their friends’ help in understanding a text. It is stated by Charles Spearman in Cherry (2012: 5),

Tasikmalaya in the academic year 2011/2012.

The findings indicate that semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing people who have high intelligence _{to teach reading. Semantic mapping is a} perform well on a work tend to perform _{useful strategy which helps the students} well on other works, while those who _{to increase and develop their} _prior have low intelligence perfom badly on a

work, tend to perform badly on others.

knowledge by seeing the connections through paragraphs in a given topic by

Hence, the students’ having low _{the teacher. Semantic mapping} _uses

intelligece will have less capacity to learn _{before, during, and after reading a text.} and perform well. Therefore, lecturing is _Prior _to _read _a _text, _the _teacher more effective for the students having

low intelligence.

Based on explanation above, it can be concluded that there is an interaction

34

(13)

students to think of ideas which related b. The teachers can apply semantic

to the topic. This brainstorming phase mapping to teach reading to

allow the students to stimulate their improve the students reading

prior knowledge or experience. Thus ability.

prior knowledge can be used as a c. The teachers have to consider that stepping a block get new knowledge.

Second, the teacher writes down the topic or main concept in the center of the map. Then, engage to build the semantic maps

intelligence is one factor that may influence the students’ reading ability in the teaching and learning process.

and begin the pre-reading discussion. As students read, they use their semantic maps to add to the meaning of the

2. For the Students

a. The students are expected to be more active, creative, and having words. The teacher instructs the students good participant in learning to add the information from their process especially in reading class, readings to clarify the meaning of key

words. Then, the teachers encourages the students to note additional words that further explain the ideas from their

in order that the students can improve their reading ability and get good achievement in reading. b. For the students who have low reading. As the students read, the teacher intelligence, they should

reminds students to write down encourage themselves to study

questions about words that need hard and be more active in

clarification. jonning the teaching learning

The teacher directs the students to use their semantic maps during the

process especially in reading class.

discussion of their reading. The teacher directs them to clarify the information that they get from their readings.

For the last, related to this research,

3. For Other Researcher

a. The researchers can use this result of the study as the starting point to continue the next study.

the researcher wants to gives some b. The researchers can use this

suggestions as follows: research as an additional

1. For the Teachers reference for further relevant

a. The teachers should focus their attention to select the strategies based on some consideration: like

research certainly with different variables and condition.

level of difficulty and intelligence.

students’ REFERENCES

Antonnaci, et al. (2011). 40 Strategies for Middle and Secondary Classrooms

(14)

Developing Conten Area Literac.

Sandiego: Sage.

Balajthy. (2003). Struggling Readers: Assessment and Instruction in

Grades. Boston: Guilford Press.

Brown, H Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment Principles and

Through Semantic Mapping

Strategy. Unpublished Thesis.

Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University. Nunan (1998). Desingning Task for the

Communicative Classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Classroom Practices.

Longman.

Mexico: Kelly. (2012).

Retrieved

database.

Lecture Pros and Cons.

from 712 educators

Brisk. (2000). Literacyand Bilingualism A Handbook for All Theachers.

Houston: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Burns, et al. (1984). Teaching Reading in

Today’s Elementary Schools. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Carol. (2012). Intelligence. Retrieved from http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glo ssary/g/intelligence . Carol. (2012). Factors Ffecting Intelligence.

Rerrieved from http://www. agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic &superid=7&topicid=636 .

Raizienie, Saule and Bronislava Grigaite. (2005). Developing Child’s thinking skill by Semantic Mapping

Strategies. 9(2), 192-206. Retrieved

from EBSCO online database. Zaid. (2005). Semantic Mapping in

Communicative Language Teaching.

30(3), 11. Retrieved from English Teaching Forum database.

Cashin (1985). Improving Lectures. Manhattan: Kansas State University. Cooper, et al. (2009). Literacy: Helping

Student Construct Meaning. Boston:

Cengage Learning, Inc.

Davies. (1995). Introducing Reading.

London: ClaysLtd, StIves plc. Debour. (1960. The Reaching Reading.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Djaali. (2007). Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Eppler. (2006). A Comparison between

Mapping Methods. Journal

Imformation Visualization, 5,

202-210. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs. 95000131.

Fraenkel and Wallen. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education. Boston: McGraw Hill Companies.

Gardner. (1999). Intelligence Reframe. New York: Basic Books a member of the Preseus Books Group.

Helmi. (2011). The Effectiveness of Group Investigation Model to Teach Reading Viewed from Students’

Intelligence. Unpublished Thesis.

(15)

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READING VIEWED FROM STUDENTSâ INTELLIGENCE.