STUDENTS’ LEVEL OF READING LITERACY
PROFICIENCY AT SMP NEGERI 2 SUKODONO
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan (S. Pd) in Teaching English
By:
Imroatus Sholichah
D75212066
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN AMPEL
SURABAYA
ABSTRACT
Sholichah, Imroatus. 2016. Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency at SMPN 2 Sukodono. A thesis. English Teacher Education Department, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, State Islamic University of Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Advisors: Rizka Safriyani, M. Pd.
Key terms: students’ reading literacy, proficiency level
This research was conducted to know the students’ level of reading literacy proficiency and also the factors influencing students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency.
This research is descriptive quantitative method. The subject of this research are thirty three students of 8th A grade students at SMPN 2 Sukodono. The test, questionnaire and interview were used as the instruments of this study. The test
was used to obtain the data about the students’ level of reading literacy
proficiency. This test is using two texts: continuous text and non-continuous text. Furthermore, the questionnaire and interview were used to obtain the data about the factors influencing students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency.
The finding shows that students’ mean score of continuous text is 4.7, (level 4). In this level, the students are able to locate, interpret and evaluate information of
several paragraphs. While students’ mean score of non-continuous text is 5.4
(level 5). In this level, the students are able to distinguish the relationship of specific parts of the text to implicit theme or intention. The average between combination of students’ mean score of continuous text and students’ mean score of non-continuous text is 5.1. So, students’ level of reading literacy proficiency in SMPN 2 Sukodono is level 5. Whereas, the factors influencing students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency are student’s reading out of school and student’s reading at school.
Based on the data finding in this research, some suggestions are given to English teacher. The teacher should increase students’ exercise, especially in continuous text in order to their continuous text and non-continuous texts proficiency levels are balance. It is also suggested future researcher that he or she should analyze with different aspects of this research, for example: measure students’ proficiency level in different skill or different instrument and continue to do research about
two factor influencing students’ reading literacy which do not be researched yet
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Reading ... 8
B. Reading Literacy ... 9
C. Factors Influencing Students’ Reading Literacy ... 11
D. Reading Literacy Proficiency Subscale ... 14
E. Previous Studies ... 16
G. Research Instrument ... 29
H. Data Analysis Technique ... 30
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Finding ... 33
1. Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 34
2. Factors Influencing Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 36
B. Discussion ... 43
1. Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 43
2. Factors Influencing Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 48
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ... 55
1. Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 55
2. Factors Influencing Students’ Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency ... 55
B. Suggestion ... 56
1. For the Teacher ... 56
2. For further Researcher... 56
REFERENCES
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the introduction of this study. They are background of the study, research questions, objectives of the study, significances of the study, definition key term and scope and limitation.
A. Background of The Study
As stated in Draft Reading Literacy Framework PISA 2015, reading literacy is comprehending, utilizing, and indicating on written texts, in order to reach the purpose, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to
participate in society.1 The PISA 2009 adds engagement into reading literacy definition.
“Reading literacy is understanding, using, reflecting on and engaging with written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society”.2
AwaluddinTjalla summarized the results of internasional study that showed low level of Indonesian students’ reading literacy. In 2006, reading
literacy achievement of Indonesian students was in 39 of 40 member countries.3 In 2006, the achievement of Indonesian students’ reading literacy
1
PISA 2015 DRAFT READING LITERACY FRAMEWORK… 9.
2
PISA 2015... 9
3
2
was in 50 of 57 countries.4 Meanwhile, Indonesian students’ ability score in reading literacy was 395, of International average score was 403.5
From the facts above, we know that Indonesian students need more references to read. They have to develop their passion for reading in order to increase the knowledge. Literate civilization is marked by willingness and ability of the people for reading.6 If they are low in literacy, it is dangerous for future generation. In Maman Suryaman’s journal, Teew said that nation which has low literate society will get gloomy civilization.7 It is clear that Indonesian students have to be motivated to read. Because of reading, they will get many profit of it. From the importance above, reading has many benefits for students’ future. It is being necessity for adolescent realm, such
as students in Junior High School.
In this research, the researcher helps the teacher to measure students’
reading literacy to know students’ proficiency level. To assess students’
reading literacy, the researcher uses PISA as instrument. If the result is in high level, the teacher has to defend it. In other hand, if the result is in low level, the teacher has to improve students’ reading literacy in order to be
better. So that, students’ reading literacy in SMPN 2 Sukodono contributes
the progress of Indonesian students’ reading literacy.
PISA (Program for International Students’ Assessment) is chosen as instrument to assess students’ level of reading literacy proficiency because it
4
AwaluddinTjalla... 2
5
AwaluddinTjalla... 18
6
Maman Suryaman, “Analisis Hasil Belajar Peserta DIdik dalam Literasi Membaca melalui Studi Internasional (PIRLS) 2011”.Litera.Vol 11 No. 1.2015, 171.
7
3
is appropriate with the subject in junior high school. PISA focuses on three subject lessons: Mathematics, Science and Reading and it is for fifteen years old students. Other international studies are The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which focuses on mathematics and science for thirteen years students and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) which focuses on reading for fourth grade of Elementary School students.8
Based on the reason above, the researcher chooses SMPN 2 Sukodono as the subject of this research. The researcher observed that this school has not provided international assessment yet. So that, the researcher wants to introduce PISA to the students and analyze students’ reading literacy by
conducting this research about students’ level of reading literacy proficiency.
If the result of their level of reading literacy proficiency is in high level, they can keep their reading literacy achievement with some enrichment/extensive reading. Otherwise, if their level of reading literacy proficiency is in low level, they have to improve their English especially in reading literacy.
The research will be conducted in class VIII-A because PISA assessment is only for students fifteen years old. Those students are classified as the eighth graders of Junior High School. The researcher chooses class VIII-A because based on the discussion with Mr. Khusnul as English teacher on May 14th2016, it is one of excellent classes in SMPN 2 Sukodono. This class is the best class among eighth grade. Because of the superiority, the
8
4
researcher interests to conduct the research in that class. Hopefully, students in this class can also introduce PISA to other classes. Thus, students’ reading
literacy in this school will be better.
There has been a lot of research in the field which focused on reading literacy, such as research which is done by MamanSuryaman. In this research, Suryaman analyzed Indonesian students’ ability in reading literacy; students’
ability in solving literate question and illiterate question; and the factors that influenced solving question ability. 9
There are also some researches related to the students’ reading literacy
in Indonesia. Mashulah has more specific analysis. She focused on students’
difficulty in understanding English reading text. This research was conducted to know the students’ difficulties and also the factors causing the difficulties in understanding English reading descriptive text. This research is a case study and it uses descriptive quantitative method.10
This research will be different from all of those researches because in this research the researcher will analyze the level of reading literacy proficiency of junior high school students and the factors influence students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency. Furthermore, this research will focus on the students’ reading literacy assessed by PISA. Therefore, the researcher chooses this topic with the title of “Students’ Level of Reading Literacy
Proficiency” with the expectation that the result of this research can increase
9
Maman Suryaman, “Analisis Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik dalam Literasi Membaca melalui Studi Internasional (PIRLS) 2011”, Litera.Vol 11 No. 1.2015, 171.
10
Mashulah.An Analysis of Students’ Difficulties in Understanding English Reading Text.
5
students’ and the teacher’s knowledge in improving the English teaching and
learning process. B. Research Problems
1. What is students’ level of reading literacy proficiency in class VIII-A of SMPN 2 Sukodono?
2. What are the factors which influence students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency?
C. Objectives of The Study
Based on question above, the purposes are:
1. To describe the students’ level of reading literacy proficiency atSMPN 2 Sukodono.
2. To explainthe factors influence students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency.
D. Significances of The Study
There are significances supposed by the researcher as follow: 1. Theoretical significance
The result of this research is supposed to give knowledge theoretically to the teacher, students and also to the researcher herself about how to measure students’ level of reading literacy in Middle
School.
6
For the teacher, he becomes know his students’ level of reading literacy proficiency level so the teacher will be easier to teach.
E. Definition Key Term
1. Reading literacy is understanding, using, reflecting on and engaging with written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s
knowledge and potential, and to participate in society.11
In this research, reading literacy is one of skill which measured to determine students’ proficiency level.
2. Reading literacy proficiency isa competence that should be reached by the students.
3. Reading literacy proficiency level is standard of a high-level qualification in interpreting written texts.
F. Scope and Limitation of The Study
The scope of this research is the researcher using instrument adopted from PISA Released Items – Reading 2006 to assess students’ level of reading literacy proficiency.
The researcher limits the focus of reading literacy into PISA 2006 by the theme Graffiti and Warranty. These themes arechosen because they include descriptive text and card which are similar to syllabus of Junior
11
7
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter describes the theoretical bases of this research; they are reading, reading literacy, the factor influence level of reading literacy proficiency, reading literacy proficiency subscale description and previous study.
A. Reading
In learning language, especially English, the students have to adept four skills which consist of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Reading is seen as important skill because it is receptive skill.
Reading has many definitions from previous researchers. Mashulah wrote, according to Sutari “reading is a process of getting the meaning of something written of printed by interpreting its characters or symbols”.1
Harris said that “reading is the meaningful interpretation of printed of written
verbal symbols which also involves sensing, perceiving, achieving meaning, learning reacting in variety of ways.2
Foreign Language Teaching Methods wrote three prominent ideas emerge as most critical for understanding what "learning to read" means.3 First, reading is a process undertaken to decrease uncertainty about meanings a text conveys. Second, reading is the process output from a negotiation of
1
Mashulah. An Analysis of Students’ Difficulties In understanding English Reading Text.
(Unpublished S-1 Thesis. Surabaya: English Teacher Education Departement, UIN Sunan Ampel, 2013).12
2
Mashulah. An Analysis of Students’ Difficulties In understanding English Reading Text… 12
3
9
meaning between the text and its reader. Third, reading is the knowledge, expectations, and strategies a reader uses to uncover textual meaning all play decisive roles way the reader negotiates with the text's meaning. Therefore, we can conclude that reading is the interpreting activity of written text to the reader. It needs senses to get the meaning of the text.
B. Reading Literacy
PISA 2009 defines reading literacy as: understanding, using, reflecting
on and engaging with written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society.4 To further
understand the PISA 2009 definition of reading literacy, each part of the definition is explained further:5
1. Understanding
Understanding refers to the ability to gain meaning from what is read. This can includes the meaning of words or it can be more complex in
identifying the underlying theme of a narrative.
2. Using
Using relates to the notions of application and function (i.e. applying what has been read to an immediate task or goal, or using what is read to
reinforce or change beliefs).
4
Sue Thomson, Kylie Hillman, and Lisa De Bortoli. A teacher’s guide to PISA reading literacy (Australia. ACER Press. 2013), 7.
5
10
3. Reflecting
Reflecting on emphasizes the notion that reading is interactive, where readers make connections with their own thoughts and experiences when engaging with a text.
4. Engaging
Engaging with involves the reader’s motivation to read and is comprised of constructs including interest in and enjoyment of reading, a sense of control over what one reads, and reading practices.
5. Written texts
Written texts include texts from a variety of media – hand-written, printed and digital. They can include visual displays such as diagrams and pictures. Written texts can be in a variety of formats, including continuous and non-continuous, and in a variety of text types, such as narrative and expositions.
Definition of reading literacy also comes from Bruner. Reading literacy is repeated by the culture of reader, the context of reading and the purposes of reading.6 According to the definition, reading literacy is depended on the reader perception, recognize the situation and the aim of reading.
By those definitions, reading literacy needs high critical thinking. Thus, students do not only require to comprehend the written text but also to
6
11
use their feelings in reflecting the text. They are supposed to make something new from the text in order to reach high level of reading literacy proficiency.
C. The Factors Influence Level of Reading Literacy Proficiency
There are factors influencing level of reading literacy proficiency. Andrejs Geske and Antra Ozola, from Latvia, did the research about that. The results of these factors are economic factors of student’s family, collaboration
of a student and his/her family, student’s reading out of school and student’s
reading at school.7
“The results of the research have also proved that there is a close coherence between the meaning of education to parents and
students’ learning achievements, i.e., if education is regarded as a
value in the family, there is a big possibility that children will have high learning achievements.”8
Socio-economical conditions are significant for early achievements in reading; it is important whether parents read aloud for their children at home (more frequently than 3 times a week), are salubrious and have a positive approach (attitude) to learning.9
1. Economic Factors of Student’s Family
The family factors could be as follows: the number of people in a
family, parents’ education, financial position, and attitude towards
education (in this case it is characterized by the number of books and encyclopedias at home).
7
Andrejs Geske and Antra Ozola, “Factors Influencing Reading Literacy at The Primary School Level”. PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21st CENTURY. Vol 6, 2008, Pp 71-77.
8
Balster-Liontos as cited in Andrejs Geske and Antra Ozola… 71.
9
12
There are 3% of fathers and 8% of mothers of students with the lowest reading literacy (group Z) have higher education, while in students with the highest reading literacy (group A) this number is sufficiently higher – 37% of fathers and 49% of mothers of children from group A have it. It can be observed that the number of fathers possessing higher education differs almost 13 times.
2. Collaboration of A Student and His/Her Family
The family collaboration could be as follows: someone read aloud before a child went to school, someone watched TV with subtitles together with a child before s/he went to school, someone played wordplays before a child went to school.
The analysis of the data among the 4th grade students at the pre-school age in Latvia reveals that at this age only 15% of group A students
don’t read or read only sometimes and together with one of the adults; in
group Z the number of such students is four times higher – 62%. In group A, adults frequently tell stories to the children (51% against 33% in group Z), play with alphabet toys (54% against 39% in group Z), have wordplays (43% against 29% in group Z), write letters or words (69% against 49% in group Z).
3. Student’s Reading Out of School
As factor of student’s reading out of school, the students could be
13
There are 94% of group A read more for their own enjoyment once a week or more frequently (in comparison to 62% in group Z), read books more about a particular theme – 39% every or almost every day (16% in group Z).
4. Student’s Reading at School
The student’s reading at school factor could be as follows: a test or a
quiz about the read text, read for oneself quietly, draws pictures about the read text, read aloud for a group of students, read books having several chapters and read plays.
The students of group A more frequently read “more serious” literature like different stories (52% every or almost every day in comparison to 35% in group Z), poetry (9% against 2% in group Z), some parts of fiction books at least once a week (46% against 30% in group Z), plays at least once a week (66% against 54% in group Z).
In this research, the researcher uses only two of four factors
influencing students’ reading literacy. They are student’s reading out of
school and student’s reading at school.
D. Reading Literacy Proficiency Subscale Description
Below are the characteristic of tasks of reading literacy proficiency subscale description for text format:10
10
Sue Thomson, Kylie Hillman, and Lisa De Bortoli. A teacher’s guide to PISA reading literacy
6 Negotiate single or multiple texts that may be long, dense or deal with highly abstract and implicit
meanings. Relate information in texts to multiple, complex or
counterintuitive ideas.
Identify and combine information from different parts of a complex document that has unfamiliar content, sometimes drawing on features that are external to the display, such as footnotes, labels and other organisers. Demonstrate a full understanding of the text structure and its implications. 5 Negotiate texts whose discourse
structure is not obvious or clearly marked, in order to discern the relationship of specific parts of the text to the implicit theme or intention.
Identify patterns among many pieces of information presented in a display that may be long and detailed, sometimes by referring to information that is in an unexpected place in the text or outside the text
4 Follow linguistic or thematic links over several paragraphs, often in the absence of clear discourse markers, in order to locate, interpret or evaluate embedded information.
Scan a long, detailed text in order to find relevant information, often with little or no assistance from organisers such as labels or special formatting, to locate several pieces of information to be compared or combined.
3 Use conventions of text organisation, where present, and follow implicit or explicit logical links such as cause and effect relationships across sentences or paragraphs in order to locate, interpret or evaluate
information.
Consider one display in the light of a second, separate document or display, possibly in a different format, or draw conclusions by combining several pieces of graphical, verbal and numeric information.
2 Follow logical and linguistic connections within a paragraph in order to locate or interpret
information; or synthesise
information across texts or parts of a
text in order to infer the author’s
purpose.
15
1a Use redundancy, paragraph headings or common print conventions to identify the main idea of the text, or to locate information stated explicitly within a short section of text.
Focus on discrete pieces of information, usually within a single display such as a simple map, a line graph or bar graph that presents only a small amount of information in a straightforward way, and in which most of the verbal text is limited to a small number of words or phrases. 1b Recognise information in short,
syntactically simple texts that have a familiar context and text type, and include ideas that are reinforced by pictures or by repeated verbal cues.
Identify information in a short text with a simple list structure and a familiar format.
There are two types of text format: continuous text and non-continuous text. Continuous texts are organized into paragraph, for example newspaper, novel, story in magazine and etc. Non-continuous texts are formed into a number of lists, for example schedule, table, forms and etc.
E. Previous Studies
In this part, the researcher will review some previous studies related to this research:
1. First, there are also some researches related to the students’ reading literacy in Indonesia. Mashulah has more specific analysis. She
focused on students’ difficulty in understanding English reading text. This research was conducted to know the students’ difficulties
16
of the students find difficulties in identifying main idea of the text, more than half of students made mistake in identifying specific word in the text and many students cannot understand the structure
of the text. Whereas, the factors causing the students’ difficulties in understanding English reading descriptive text are learners’
background, teaching technique, and the learners’ environment.11 2. Second is the study done by Maman Suryaman, entitled “Analisis
Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik dalam Literasi Membaca melalui Studi
Internasional (PIRLS) 2011”. In this research, Suryaman analyzed Indonesian students’ ability in reading literacy; students’ ability in
solving literate question and illiterate question; and the factor that influenced solving question ability. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan deskriptif eksploratoris dan analisis dokumen. This research uses exploratory descriptive approach. The results are
following. First, Indonesian students’ reading ability achievement is
in the low level below international median. Second, Indonesian
students’ ability in solving question is in progress in 2006 to 2011,
especially in high, medium and low level, but in perfect level does not change yet. Third, the ability to solve question is influenced by a tendency answering question based on the guess, a less of stem construction and question choice, a less of discourse quality, a less
11
17
of maximally reading competence development, a less enough of reading ability development, inappropriateness of literature theory
teaching, a variety of answer measurement in teacher and students’
perception and in appearance of question in National Examination.12 3. Third is “The Relationship between Reading Comprehension and
Reading Strategy Use among Malaysian ESL Learners” by
Pezhman Zare and Moomala Othman. The study was an attempt to find out the rate of recurrence of reading strategy use among Malaysian ESL learners. It also tried to figure out the possible relationship between reading strategy use and reading comprehension. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine the frequency of strategies employed by the learners. To find out the data, the researcher used independent sample t-test and Pearson coefficient correlation. According to the findings Malaysian ESL learners can be categorized as high strategy users. Furthermore, the use of reading strategies had a strong positive correlation with reading comprehension achievement.13
4. “An Assessment of Reading Comprehension Practice in Jordan” is being the forth previous study in this research. It was done by Dina Al-Jamal, Mahir Al-Hawamleh and Ghadeer Al-Jamal. This study
12Maman Suryaman, “An
alisis Hasil Belajar Peserta DIdik dalam Literasi Membaca melalui Studi
Internasional (PIRLS) 2011”. Litera.Vol 11 No. 1. 2015, 170-186.
13
18
aimed at assessing the level of reading comprehension proficiency of EFL Jordanian readers with regard to the relationship between identifying the main idea in a paragraph and language proficiency in expository texts. In the study, the researchers evaluated students' reading comprehension using a comprehension test and assessed
individual Jordanian tenth grader students’ reading comprehension
proficiency level. The results of the study revealed a moderate reading comprehension proficiency level among 10th graders along with negligible instruction of comprehension skill by EFL teachers.14
5. Fifth previous study is “Relationship between Reading Proficiency, Strategic Competence, and Reading Comprehension Test Performance: A Study of Iranian EFL Learners” by Narjes Ghafournia & Akbar Afghari. The study scrutinized the interaction between reading proficiency and strategic competence via reading comprehension test performance of Iranian EFL learners. The researcher asked postgraduate students to take a reading comprehension test and answered a metacognitive strategy questionnaire successively in one session. The findings manifested that the participants at the high level of reading proficiency used metacognitive strategies more frequently than did the participants at the low and intermediate levels of reading proficiency in the
14
19
taking setting. The findings also revealed a positive linear
relationship between metacognitive awareness and the participants’
test performance.15
6. Sixth, “The Reading Comprehension Level of Intermediate Pupils across Content Areas: Towards a Proposed Reading Enhancement Program” by John Michael B. Cachero and Glenda G. Salem. This study determined the reading comprehension performance of 4th grade pupils of Bayombong Central School/SPED Center in the three content areas (i.e. English, Science, and Mathematics) in relation to selected personal- and school-related variables towards the conceptualization of a functional reading enhancement program. This study used quantitative method to determine the relationship of the reading comprehension level of the Grade IV pupils of a central school to each of the personal and school-related variables. The result revealed that the pupils are in the beginning level across the twelve reading comprehension skills and in general.16
7. Seventh, “Improving the Reading Comprehension of Middle School Students With Disabilities Through Computer-Assisted
Collaborative Strategic Reading” done by Ae-Hwa Kim, Sharon
Vaughn, Janette K. Klingner, Althea L. Woodruff, Colleen Klein
15
Narjes Ghafournia and Akbar Afghari, “Relationship between Reading Proficiency, Strategic Competence, and Reading Comprehension Test Performance: A Study of Iranian EFL Learners”.
International Education Studies. Vol. 6, No. 8. 2013. Pp 21-30.
16
John Michael B Cachero and Glenda G Salem, “The Reading Comprehension Level of Intermediate Pupils across Content Areas: Towards a Proposed Reading Enhancement Program”.
20
Reutebuch, And Kamiar Kouzekanani. This study investigated the effects of computer-assisted comprehension practice using a researcher-developed computer program, Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading (CACSR), with students who had disabilities. Students in the intervention group received the CACSR intervention, which consisted of 50-min instructional sessions twice per week over 10 to 12 weeks. The results revealed a statistically
significant difference between intervention and comparison groups’
reading comprehension ability as measured by a researcher-developed, proximal measure (i.e., finding main ideas and question generation) and a distal, standardized measure (i.e., Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Passage Comprehension).17
8. Eighth, “The Effectiveness of Hypertext Glosses to Improve the
Eight Graders’ Reading Comprehension of Recount Text at SMPN 2 Surabaya” by Alda Dea Delfina. This study aimed to find out the
answer of whether hypertext glosses is effective to improve the
eighth graders’ reading comprehension and to find out the
advantages and the disadvantages the eighth graders get from learning reading recount text using hypertext glosses. This research used quasi-experimental research; they were grouped into experimental and control groups. The scores from post-test showed
17
Ae-Hwa Kim, Sharon Vaughn, Janette K. Klingner, Althea L. Woodruff, Colleen Klein
Reutebuch, And Kamiar Kouzekanani.. “Improving the Reading Comprehension of Middle School Students With Disabilities Through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading”.
21
that the experimental group got better score than the control group with the mean score of the experimental group of 31.80 and the mean score of control group of 25.44.18
9. Ninth, “The Reading Recount Text Comprehension Of The Eighth Grade Students Of Mts Nu Wahid Hasyim Salafiyah Jekulo Kudus In Academic Year 2012/2013 Taught By Using Crazy Professor Reading Technique” by M. Fathoni. The objective of this research is to find out whether there is a significant difference of reading recount text comprehension of eighth grade students of MTs NU Wahid Hasyim Salafiyah Jekulo Kudus in academic year 2012/2013 before and after being taught by using Crazy Professor Reading Technique. The population used in this research is the eighth grade students of MTs NU Wahid Hasyim Salafiyah Jekulo Kudus in academic year 2012/2013 in second semester. This research used an experimental research. The result of the experiment shows that the mean of pre-test is 62.58 and the mean of post-test is 72.38. It was found t-observation 6.18 in the level of significance 0.05, the degree of freedom (df) 25, and t-table (tt) 2.06. In other word t-observation is higher than t-table (to>tt). Thus, Ho is denied and Ha is confirmed.19
18
Alda Dea Delfina. The Effectiveness of Hypertext Glosses to Improve the Eighth Graders’
Reading Comprehension of Recount Text at SMPN 2 Surabaya. (Unpublished S-1 Thesis. Surabaya: English Teacher Education Departement, UIN Sunan Ampel, 2013).
19
22
10.Tenth, “Strategies In Teaching Reading At The Eight Grade Of Smp Negeri 2 Buduran Sidoarjo” by M. Iqbal Firdaus. This study focused on answering the questions of: What kinds of strategies
used to improve the student’s reading skill? How do the teachers
apply the strategies to improve the student reading skill? And how
are the students’ responses to teaching reading used by their
teacher? This research is descriptive qualitative research. Based on the research concludes that Teaching strategies applied by teachers in reading skill were intensive reading and silent reading. The
application of the strategies to improve the students’ reading skill
were keep applying the principle of teaching reading as Jeremy Harmer stated; Reading is not passive skill, Student needs to be
engaged with what they are reading. And the students’ responses are
good, most of them feel enjoy and interest with the teaching reading strategies. According to them the teachers was attractive, smart, open-minded, patient, funny (gave them little joke to make them interested in their material). 20
This research will be different from all of those researches because in this research, the researcher will analyze the level of reading literacy proficiency of junior high school students and the factors influence
students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency. The researcher uses Professor Reading Technique. (Unpublished S-1 Thesis. Kudus: English Education Departement, Muria Kudus University, 2013).
20
23
descriptive quantitative research. To determine students’ level of reading
literacy proficiency, the researcher measures with Reading literacy proficiency subscale descriptions.21 To determine the factors influence
students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency, the researcher analyze
students’ answer from 16 open questions of questionnaire.
21
Sue Thomson, Kylie Hillman, and Lisa De Bortoli. A teacher’s guide to PISA reading literacy
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter describes about the research method of the research. They are research design, research setting, research subject, data and source of data, research procedure, data collection technique, research instrument and data analysis technique.
A. Research Design
This research was grouped as case study using descriptive quantitative research. This research used descriptive quantitative method because the researcher gathered the data based on students’ score that indicated as numerical, and then she presented the result into descriptive form. The objectivity maximum of quantitative research design is done by using numerical, statistic tabulation, structure, and specimen control.1 Case study was more appropriate in this research because this research conducted in a group of class. Case study is basically a study intensively of an individual or groups that seen having a certain case.2
B. Research Setting
The setting of this research was at SMPN 2 Sukodono. It is located on Jl. Plumbungan, Sukodono. In this school English class was held twice a
1
Nana Syaodih Sukmadinata, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. (Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. 2013). 53.
2
25
week, every Wednesday and Thursday. Every meeting was held for 80 minutes (2x40 minutes/meeting).
C. Research Subject
The subject of this research was the 8th A grade students at SMPN 2 Sukodono. The class consisted of 34 students there were 10 boys and 24 girls. The researcher considered that the students in this class should be given other references of study international in order to know the kind of many questions. Also, based on the discussion with Mr. Khusnul as English teacher, he said that this class is the most excellence class among other classes in 8th A grade in this school, so the students are expected to introduce PISA to students in other classes.
D. Data and Source of Data
1. Data are the information material about research object that gained in research location.3 The data in this research are numerical of students’ score result and the note of interview result with Mr. Khusnul as English teacher.
2. The sources of data are first sources where the data produced.4 The sources of the data in this research are the result of students’ answer and the process of interview with Mr. Khusnul.
3
Burhan Bungin. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif. (Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Group), 2005. 119.
4
26
E. Research Procedure
There were some procedures to be followed during the research, in order to find out the valid data to answer the research problems.
The procedures are:
1. The researcher prepared all the instruments to collect the data. There are step in preparing the instrument:
a. Deciding test. Test is from PISA Released Items – Reading 2006 theme Graffiti and Warranty. These themes were chosen because these were match with students’ material in syllabus KD 3.10 and 3.13 so they have familiar about the text.
b. Making some questionnaires related to factor influencing students’ reading literacy proficiency.
c. Making some questions for English teacher related to students’ reading literacy.
2. The researcher asked permission to the headmaster to conduct the research in that school.
3. The researcher asked the permission to the English teacher to join her class for introducing the research.
4. The researcher collected all of data. The first day was for test and the second day was for questionnaire.
27
F. Data Collection Technique
In this research, there are three data collection: reading test, questionnaire and interview.
1. Reading test.
A test is a method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge,
or performance in a given domain.5 The kinds of test are item respond formats and distribution of items. In item respond format, students have to answer one of several construct items. In distribution of item, students have to answer by giving short or long phrase. This test is aimed to answer the first research question: students’ level of reading literacy proficiency.
2. Questionnaire
Questionnaire is a technique or a method of data collection indirectly (the researcher is not directly ask to the respondent).6 According to Sukmadinata, there are three kinds of questions, those are open question, structure question and close question.
“In the questionnaire of open question, questionnaire is containing question that can be answered by respondent freely. Structure question is the questions that have arranged structurally and there are main question, little question and sub question. In the close question, the questions had already have option answer which directly chosen by respondent”.7
5
H. Douglas Brown, Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. (Longman. 2004), 3
6
Nana Syaodih Sukmadinata, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan…219.
7
28
In this research, the researcher used open form questionnaire, so the students can answer based on them freely. The questionnaire was distributed after the students finish doing test. This questionnaire was expected to answer the research question number two: the factors influence students’ level of reading literacy proficiency.
3. Interview
Interview is the process gaining information for research purpose by questioning-answering while face to face between interviewer and respondent or informant.8 In this study, the researcher interviewed the English teacher. It was used to explore detail information about students’ level of reading literacy proficiency and
the factors influence students’ levels of reading literacy proficiency.
The researcher also interviewed the students to confirm students’
answer in the questionnaire.
G. Research Instrument
The researcher made the instrument for her research that would be used to collect the data.
a. Test
The instrument of the test was adopted from PISA RELEASED ITEMS – READING.9 The tests were consisted of continuous text and non-continuous text. Each text has seven questions so there are
8
Moh. Nazir. Metode Penelitian. (Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia, 1988). 234.
9
29
fourteen questions for the test. There were 57,2% questions from PISA and 42,9% development questions from the researcher. In this test, the researcher gave several difficult meaning so that the test was understandable for students.
b. Questionnaire
There were 16 questions in the questionnaire and they were written in Bahasa Indonesia to help the students understand the content easily. All of questions were open question, but the researcher also prepared the option to help students in thinking.
c. Interview
There were interview with the students and teacher. In interview with students, the researcher used similar questions of questionnaire because the aim of interview was checking the truth of students’ answer in questionnaire. In interview with teacher, the researcher prepared 11 questions. All of questions were about students’ factor influencing students’ level of reading literacy proficiency in the school.
H. Data Analysis Technique
The procedures of analyzing the data are: 1. Identification of data
30
wrong answer was given score 0.10 For construct item, correct answer of each question was given full credit, incomplete answer was given partial-credit and inaccurate or incorrect answer was given no credit.11 After that the researcher counted the number got by each item.
b. Secondly, the researcher determined the level of students’ reading literacy as follows:
Level
Score
Continues Text Non-Continues Text
6 More than 6 More than 6
5 More than 5 More than 5
4 More than 4 More than 4
3 More than 3 More than 3
2 More than 2 More than 2
1A More than 1 More than 1
1B More than 0 More than 0
Maximal score 7 7
c. Thirdly, the researcher analyzed the result of questionnaire to identify and determine the factor influence students’ reading literacy.
d. Forthly, the researcher analyzed the result of the interview by summarizing the answer of English teacher to get more
information about students’ reading literacy from the students and
the teacher.
10
PISA 2015 DRAFT READING LITERACY FRAMEWORK. 30.
11
31
2. Tabulation
The researcher tabulated the data by counting students’ answer of the questionnaire and test. To know the percentage of data, the researcher use formula:
P = F x 100% N
P : Percentage
F : Number of frequency of the respondent answer N : Maximum number
3. Triangulation Data
Students’ level of reading literacy proficiency is measured by
Reading literacy proficiency subscale descriptions.12 There are seven of proficiency levels: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1a and 1b. The researcher is helped
by English teacher, Mr. Khusnul to check and validate students’
proficiency level, whether it is appropriate with the students’ ability or not.
4. Conclusion
The researcher concludes the result of this research and she will describe into narrative form.
12
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the finding of this research. It deals with the presentation of the data, data analysis and discussion about data obtained from test, questionnaire and interview. These data analysis and discussion are presented descriptively.
A. Research Finding
There are three kinds of data used in this research, and the research finding presents the result of the research based on those data.
The first data obtained from the result of the test given to the students was about reading literacy proficiency level. The second data obtained from the result of the questionnaire distributed to the students was about the factor influencing
students’ reading literacy proficiency level. The last data obtained from the result
of interview to the students and the English teacher was used to support the data obtained through the questionnaire.
33
1. Students’ level of reading literacy proficiency
In this research, the test was used to measure students’ level of reading literacy proficiency. The test was given to the students on Wednesday 1st June 2016. There were seven questions in each text: continuous text and non-continuous text. Continuous text was about descriptive text, whereas non-continuous text was about card. Table below is the finding of data.
Table 4.1 Students’ level of continuous Text
Level N F Percentage (%)
6 6 33 18.2%
5 6 33 18.2%
4 11 33 33.3%
3 8 33 24.2%
2 2 33 6.1%
1A - 33 -
1B - 33 -
Table 4.1 is students’ level of continuous text. There were six
participants (18.1%) who got the highest level, level 6. There were six participants (18.1%) who got level 5, eleven participants (33.3%) got the level 4, eight participants (24.2%) got level 3 and two participants (18.1%) got level 2. Meanwhile there was no participant who got level 1A and 1B.
The average of students’ level in this text is on level 4 with score 4.7
34
Table 4.2 Students’ level of non-continuous text
Level N F Percentage (%)
6 11 33 33.3%
5 13 33 39.4%
4 6 33 18.2%
3 2 33 6.1%
2 1 33 3%
1A - 33 -
1B - 33 -
Table 4.2 is students’ level of non-continuous text. There were 11 participants (33.3%) who got the highest level, level 6. There were 13 participants (39.4%) who got level 5, six participants (18.2%) got the level 4, two participants (6.1%) got level 3 and only a participant (3%) got level 2, while level 1A and 1B were gotten by no participant. The average of
students’ level in this text is on level 5 with score 5.4 (appendix 1).
Chart 4.1 Students’ level of reading literacy proficiency
0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% 30,00% 35,00% 40,00% 45,00%
Level 6 Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1ALevel 1B
Continues Text
35
Chart 4.1 above is the summary both of continuous and non-continuous text. It showed that level 5 of non-non-continuous text was the most achieved by the students. The lowest level reached by students was level 2 of non-continuous text. Three of level 6 continuous texts, level 5 continuous text and level 4 non-continuous text were in the same percentages (18.2%). 2. Factors influencing students’ level of reading literacy proficiency
The researcher uncovered the factors influencing students’ level of reading literacy proficiency gained from the result questionnaire which consist of sixteen items. The result of the data was classified into two variables factors which consist of some sub-variable factors. Those variables are about students’ reading out of school and student’s reading at school. Below are the detail explanations of those two categories.
Table 4.3 Student’s Reading Out of School
No. Influence of reading literacy F N Percentage (%) 1. The interval students’ read in the home:
4. The book students’ read out of school:
a. Story book 5. The students’ read beside the book:
a. Magazine
Number 1 is about the interval students’ read in the home. There were fifteen
37
(18.2%) stated that they read in the home seldom, and four participants (12.1%) read in the home once in two days.
The kind of books they read in the home is on the second statement. School book was the most books read by 23 participants (47.9%) in the home. There were nine participants (18.7%) read novel and general knowledge, six participants (12.5%) read story book, and only one participant (2.1%) read magazine in the home. Fifteen participants stated that they read two or more kind of book in the home.
Number three was about the kind of literature in the home. There were many literatures in their home and there were 24 participants (38%) told that school book is the most literature they have. Newspaper was second number of the most literature in the home. There were 14 participants (22.2%) who have newspaper in the home and nine participants (14.3%) confess that magazine was the kind of literature in the home. Other participants said that the kinds of literatures in their home are novel, wattpad and religion book.
Statement number four was about the book students’ read out of school. There were 14 participants (41.2%) who read story book and general knowledge book in out of school, five participants (14.7%) read escort book, and only a participant (2.9%) read recipe book. According to the table, there was one participant who read more than one book.
38
out of school, 13 participants (33.3%) read comic, six participants (15.4%) read magazine, other participants read wattpad, novel and article from internet. There were two participants (5.1%) stated that they never read literature beside the book. It explained that they read the book only.
Number 6 was about some information they have known from reading. There were five participants (14.2%) said that they got information about education from reading, two participants (5.7%) agreed that they got information about football from reading and 29 participants got information about general information. There were two participants choose more than one information.
Table 4.4 Student’s Reading at School
No. Influence of reading literacy F N Percentage (%) 7. The interval students read in the school:
a. Everyday
11. The interval students do silent reading:
a. Everyday 12. The story students have ever drawn:
a. Legend
story students’ ever told to their friends, the interval students do quiz about
reading text, the interval students do silent reading, the story students have ever drawn and word game which students doing while reading. Those questions were important because they are about students’ reading activities in the school.
40
(15.1%) read once in a week in the school. It showed that reading every day was influencing students’ reading literacy. Continue to number eight, it was about the kind of books students read in the school. There were 28 participants (75.7%) who read school book, seven participants (18.9%) read novel and two participants (5.4%) read story book. According to the
percentage, most of students read school book as kind of book students’ read
in the school, so school book was one of influencing students’ reading literacy.
In data number nine, regardless seven participants who read novel in the school, there were 24 participants (64.8%) who said that they told story about novel to their friends and only one participant who told about general information to their friends. Other stories students’ ever tell to their friends were about fairy tale, about the story in school book, about history/Islamic history and about general information.
played crossword and three participants (9.1%) who never read while play.
Table 4.7 Reading is as hobby and the profit of reading
42
participants (36.3%) said that reading is not their hobby. When they asked about the profit of reading, most of them (63.6%) answered that reading increased knowledge, information and perception. There were four participants (12.1%) said that they also learning while reading, five participants (15.1%) said spending free time and three participants (9.1%) stated that reading is the entertainment.
B. Discussion
1. Students’ level of reading literacy proficiency
In this research, there were seven levels where each level has different indicator. Each level indicator is also for each question.
a. Continuous Text
The indicator of highest level of continuous text is “Negotiate single or multiple texts that may be long, dense or deal with highly abstract and implicit meanings. Relate information in texts to multiple, complex or counterintuitive ideas.”1 There were six participants (18.1%) who could be passing level 6. They were able to relate the information in
the text about Helga and Sophia’s opinion, from the question “Which do
you think is the better letter?”. Several students answered that Helga’ letter is better than Sophia’s letter. The reason was because Helga refused graffiti firmly. In other hand, several students answered that Sophia’s
1
43
letter is better than Helga’s letter. It was because Sophia’s thinks neutral about Graffiti.
There were six participants (18.1%) who got level 5. This level has lo
wer indicator than level 6; “Negotiate texts whose discourse
structure is not obvious or clearly marked, in order to discern the relationship of specific parts of the text to the implicit theme or intention.”2 Those participants were able to answer the question about text which they agree with. Several students answered that they agreed with Helga and other participants agreed with Sophia. They are who
agree with Helga’s opinion: graffiti makes the ozone layer damage.
Several students answered that they agreed with Sophia. In briefly, Sophia wants that graffiti can be accepted by society because its style is not stealing.
Level 4 was reached by eleven participants (33.3%). This level has indicator locating, interpreting or evaluating embedded information. The
students got question about interpreting “how danger the method destroys the ozone layer is” from Helga’s opinion. The answer was in beyond.
Most of them understood that the method is using spray containing CFC (Chloro Fluoro Carbon) so that it is danger for ozone layer. Also,
anybody answered simply, “It contains danger material”.
44
In this level, the indicator was about using conventions of text organization to determine cause and effect relationships across sentences. There were eight participants (24.2%) got level 3. The question is “Why does Sophia refer to advertising?” and the most answer were because advertising is more avowed by society. Another answer was because advertising has many customers. It was different from graffiti that only enjoyed by a few people.
There were two participants (18.1%) who got level 2. This level has
indicator: “Follow logical and linguistic connections within a paragraph
in order to locate or interpret information; or synthesize information
across texts or parts of a text in order to infer the author’s purpose.”3 To synthesize information, the students were asked to classify Helga’s opinion about Graffity with their own words. Most of students classified that Helga becomes anger because she knows school wall is repainted because of graffiti. Her main opinion is actually she refuses graffiti.
There was no participant who got level 1A and 1B. Both of those levels were easier than five levels above. Level 1A was to identify the main idea of the text and level 1B was to recognize information in short. Level 1B, which the lowest level was only question in multiple choice. The question in level 1B was about the purpose of each of these letters
and level 1A was about the main concept or idea of Shopia’s opinion.
3Sue Thomson, Kylie Hillman, and Lisa De Bortoli… 5
45
Based on the counting, the average of students’ level in continuous text is on level 4 with score 4.7 (appendix 1).
b. Non-Continuous Text
In non-continuous text, the researcher found that many students who got higher level in this text. To prove it, researcher analyzed one by one. There were 11 participants (33.3%) who got the highest level, level 6. The indicator is “Identify and combine information from different parts of a complex document that has unfamiliar content, sometimes drawing on features that are external to the display, such as footnotes, labels and other organisers. Demonstrate a full understanding of the text structure and its implications.” The participants have to answer about the reason of the words “Thank you for your business” printed on the bottom of the receipt. Possible answer is because saying Thank you one of politeness.
46
There were six participants (18.2%) who achieved this level. The
students tried to pass the indicator “fine relevant information”. They have
to answer the reason why it should display address. Their answers were
variation; “the owner wants customer to visit back to the shop”, “they do not get lost”, “the customer easy to go the shop again”, and so on. Other
reasons are to create a good relationship with the customers, it is good for business to be nice to the customer.
In level 3, the students have an indicator to combine several pieces of graphical, verbal and numeric information. Based on that indicator, they have to mention the differences between receipt and warranty above. Most of them could answer well because they could take a look the
differences of both in the card. Students’ who got level 3 were two
participants (6.1%). The clear difference is in warranty card there is days of purchase that should be completed and returned to the shop while in receipt there is no days of purchase.
There was only a participant (3%) who got level 2. The question of
this level has indicator “Demonstrate a grasp of the underlying structure
of a visual display such as a simple tree diagram or table, or combine two pieces of information from a graph or table”.4 They have to answer the question about combine two pieces of information what Sarah buy, and the answer is “tripod”.
47
Nobody was in level 1A and 1B in both of continuous and non-continuous text. It means that most of them could pass the questions in these levels which have indicator lower than other levels above. The indicator of level 1A was about focus on discrete pieces of information, while level 1B as the lowest level has indicator “Identify information in a short text with a simple list structure and a familiar format”.5
Based on the discussion above, the researcher concluded that non-continuous text was better achievement than non-continuous that. From the data, the mean score of continuous text was 4.7, in level 4, while the mean score of non-continuous text was 5.4, in level 5. The possible reasons why non-continuous text was higher than continuous text were first, perhaps students have become accustomed reading table, card or notice in their school book, newspaper and magazine, second the students are easier to interpret the question of non-continuous text, third the questions in non-continuous text are easier than questions in continuous text.
2. Factor influencing students’ reading literacy
Andrejs Geske and Antra Ozola did the research about factors influencing reading literacy at the primary school level. They found four
aspects: socioeconomic factors of student’s family, collaboration of a student
5
48
and his/her family, student’s reading out of school and student’s reading at
school. The researcher tried to do those factors in secondary school with use only two factors that more appropriate with students’ condition in secondary school as measurement to make questionnaire. Those factors are student’s
reading out of school and student’s reading at school. Below are the
discussions about those two factors: a. Student’s reading out of school
The data number one to six were about student’ reading out of school. It includes reading in the home, in the public places and so on. Statements number one to three discussed about student’s reading activity in the home. Based on the data, the largest participants (45.4%) said that they read in the home every day. It matched with students’ habit that the researcher asked in the questionnaire number 14. There were 21 participants (63.6%) stated that reading is their hobby. Moreover, if they aware of the profit of reading, they will read the literature every day. On data number 15, there were 21 participants (63.6%) who said that the profits of reading are increasing knowledge, information and perception.
49
office prepares several books and magazine. They can take the advantages of them better than doing nothing.
The most common kind of books they read in the home was school book. There were 23 participants (47.9%) stated that they read it in the home. Again, school book was the most literature existed in the home. There were 24 participants (38.1%) answered that they have more school book than other literatures. From the table, there were 30 from 33 participants who have more than one literature. Other literatures in the home were newspaper, novel, religion book and so on. The researcher concluded that school book was one of literature influencing students’ reading literacy.
Indeed, school book was one of important book for students, especially students in SMPN 2 Sukodono. They included history book, mathematic book, science book, Indonesian language book, and so on. The researcher though that students in Junior High School at least reading all school book because it has complex knowledge, but it has the weakness. Students who read only school book do not know the update news, such as news morning from outside place. To solve this problem, students have to read newspaper or monthly magazine in order to know the news.
50
general knowledge book where in out of school. The researcher also
looked for what student’s read beside the book is. There were 14
participants (35.9%) read newspaper outside the school. It is right, we can find newspaper easily; in the halt, in the stall, and so on. The students took the opportunity to read it. While waiting something, they got new information from newspaper.
Number six was about some news they got from reading. Most of participants (74.3%) got information about general information, five participants (14.3%) got report about education and two participants (5.7%) knew the news about football. It showed that most of them got general knowledge from newspaper and it was good for their literacy. They could interpret the information easily.
Information above was the result of this research about the factors
influencing students’ reading literacy out of school. They were the
interval students’ read in the home, the kind of books they read in the
home, the kind of literature in the home, the book students’ read out of
school, the students’ read beside the book and some information they
have known from reading. While the factors influencing students’ reading literacy out of school based on Andrejs Geske and Antra Ozola were the students could be read for joy, read aloud, listen to what is being read and read comics.
