Conclusion - CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

CHAPTERS V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

order.

3) Critical Reading

critical reading is evaluating written materials comparing the ideas discovered in the material with know standard and drawing conclusions about their accuracy, appropriateness, and timeless. In this level the teacher must be an active reader questioning, searching for fact and suspending judgment until he or she has considered all of the materials.

C. Narrative materials

Narrative is simply tell a story or relay a sequence of events. Generally, these events are told in chronological order, that is the order in which they happened. However, a narrative paragraph most often tells a story in order to illustrate or demonstrate a point. Because of this, developing a strong topic sentence is important.

Sarbin (1986: 9) The narrative is a way of organizing episodes, actions, and accounts of actions. It is an achievement that brings together mundane facts and fantastic creations; time and place are incorporated. The narrative allows for the inclusion of actors’ reasons for their acts, as well as the causes of happening.Characteristics of Narrative.

1. Characteristics of Narrative Materials

Ely, S (2010: 2) divides the characteristics of narrative as follow:

a. Use storyline in chronological order (time order)

b. The point is what the writer or character learned from what happened c. Heavy on description, setting, plot and character

d. Easy to visualize

2. Generic Structure of a Narrative Reading

a. Orientation, introduction of the story in which the characters, setting and time of the story are established. Usually answers who? when? where? and it is stated in the beginning of the story.

b. Complication or problem, the complication usually involves the main character(s) (often mirroring the complications in real life).

c. Resolution, there needs to be a resolution of the complication. The complication may be resolved for better or worse/happily or unhappily.

Sometimes there are a number of complications that have to be resolved.

These add and sustain interest and suspense for the reader.

3. The Language Features of The Narrative Text

The classification the features of the narrative text follow:

a. Usually use simple past tense,

b. Using action verb in the story related to the chronologically arranged of the story

c. Using Connectives, linking words to do with time such as once upon a time, on the next day, etc and

d. Using imagery such as metaphor for example "She has a heart of stone"

D. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2.I. Conceptual Framework

In this conceptual framework, the students face problems in learning English. One of the crucial problems was their reading comprehension in narrative materials. Based on the problems above, the researcher Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy to overcome the problems. SRE Strategy is one of good techniques in teaching reading because it gives new feeling for students and makes students active and creative.

The Implementation of Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy

Students’Improvment on Reading Comprehension

Post-reading During reading Pre-reading Activities PROCES

OUTPUT

Literal Comprehension Main idea & Sequence

Interpretive Comprehension Prediction & Conclusion

INPUT Reading Material: Narrative Text

This learning process can used a pre experimental reasearch. The were two form that was Literal and Interpretive comprehension in narrative materials.

E. Hypothesis

1. Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

The use Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy can improve the students reading comprehension at the Eight Grade of SMPN 3 Galesong Selatan (Takalar).

2. Null Hypothesis (H0)

The use Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy cannot improve the students reading comprehension at the Eight Grade of SMPN 3 Galesong Selatan (Takalar).

The method used in this research was a pre experimental research design with one group pre-test and post-test. This design may also be presented as follows:

O1 X O2

Where:

O1= Pretest O₂= Posttest

X = Treatment

(Gay, 1981:225)

B. Research Variables and Indicators

The variables and indicators of the research as follow:

1. Research Variables

There were two variables in this research. The first variable was dependent variable and the second variable was independent variable.

Dependent variable was reading comprehension, while Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) was independent variable.

2. Indicators

a. The indicators of literal reading comprehension were the main ideas and sequence of details.

b. The indicators of interpretative comprehension were prediction and conclusion.

C. Population and Sample 1. Population

The population of this research was the Eight Grade of Junior High School of SMPN 3 Galesong Selatan (Takalar) in the 2016/2017 academic year. This consists of nine classes. Each class consists of 30-35 students. The total numbers of population were 315 students.

2. Sample

The researcher selected class VIII A as the sample using purposive sampling. The reason to choose this class was that the majority of the students’

in the class have problem in using narrative text. As the teacher suggested. The number of students’ in class VIII A were30 students’.

D. Research Instrument

The instrument of the research was a narrative text. Narrative text gave as a pre-test and a post-test. The pre-test used to find out the students’ prior knowledge, while post-test used to find out the students’ achievement at narrative text after gave the treatment by Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy.

The procedure of collecting data involved the following steps:

1. Pre-test

The pre-test gave before doing the treatment. The pre-test used narrative text, to find out the students’ background knowledge ofnarrative text.

2. Treatment

The researcher gave the treatment by Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE) Strategy. In this activity, the writer makes some learning process as like that:

a. In the first teaching the teacher open the class.

b. The teacher introduces the material about narrativetext for the students’.

c. The teacher gave the motivation and make the prediction about the text with the students.

d. After that the students silent reading 15-20 minutes.

e. The teacher read the text with the student and discuss it.

f. The teacher explains about the text and gave the some question.

g. And then the teacher asked the students make the conclusion about the text.

h. Teacher gave them evaluation.

i. After that the students silent reading and answer the some question.

3. Pos-test

The post-test gave after doing the treatment. The content of the post-test was the same that of the pre-test. Post-test used the narrative text to find out the student’s achievement at narrative text.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

The data analyzed quantitatively were as follows:

1. Scoring the students answer of pre-test and post-test by using formula.

Score: the total correct answer x 100 maximum number score

(Gay 1981)

Table 3.1 Rubric for Main Ideas

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 96-100 Clearly identified the main idea by providing strong evidence, details relating to the main idea.

Very good 86-95 Identified the main idea and provide adequate evidence, details relating to the main idea.

Good 76-85 Limited the main idea identification and limited evidence, details relating to the main idea.

Fairly good 66-75 The answer states or implies the main idea.

Fairly 56-65 The answer include minimal or no understanding of main idea.

Poor 46-55 Indicator inaccurate or incomplete understanding of main idea.

Very poor 0-45 Did not identify the main idea of the story or provide any evidence, details relating to the main idea.

Table 3.2 Rubric for Sequence of Details

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 96-100 Relevant telling qualify details give reader important information that goes beyond the obvious or predictable Very good 86-95 Sequence of details were relevant, but one key issue

almost u supported or more predictable than others.

Good 76-85 Sequence of details were relevant, but one key issue almost u supported or fairly predictable.

Fairly good 66-75 Many contain few, incorrect or irrelevant.

Fairly 56-65 Much of the response is copied directly from the text.

May content major inaccuracies.

Poor 46-55 Responseis written mostly in the students’ own words.

May content minor inaccuracies.

Very poor 0-45 Response is writtenin the students’ own words.

Table 3.3 Rubric for Prediction of Outcomes

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 96-100 Predicting occurs when students’ hypothesize what the author will discuss next in the text. In order to do this.

Very good 86-95 Prediction were relevant, but one key issue almost unsupported or more predictable than others.

Good 76-85 Many contain few, incorrect or irrelevant.

Fairly good 66-75 Much of the response is copied directly from the text.

May content major inaccuracies.

Fairly 56-65 Prediction were relevant, but one key issue almost unsupported or fairly predictable.

Poor 46-55 Responseis written mostly in the students’ own words.

May content minor inaccuracies.

Very poor 0-45 Response is writtenin the students’ own words.

Table 3.4 Rubric for Conclusion

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 96-100 Conclusions reflect resource reading in development of idea.

Very good 86-95 Conclusions reflect reading in development of idea.

Good 76-85 Conclusions reflect only reading in development of idea.

Fairly good 66-75 Conclusions details were some what relevant, but several key issue were unsupported all predictable.

Fairly 56-65 Conclusions there is answered, but do not reflect any reading of resource in development idea.

Poor 46-55 Conclusions the answer include minimal or no understanding of idea.

Very poor 0-45 Conclusions the answer include mostly understanding of idea.

Categorizing the whole of score into the following classification, score Table 3.5 Classification

No score Classification

1 96-100 Excellent

2 86-95 Very Good

3 76-85 Good

4 66-75 Fairly Good

5 56-65 Fairly

6 46-55 Poor

7 0-45 Very Poor

2. Calculating the mean score of students by applying the following formula.

=^∑

Where : X = Mean Score

∑ X= Total Score N = Total Respondent

(Gay, 1981: 298 )

3. Calculating the improvement of the students’ score of pre-test and post-test, the writer used the following formula :

P= x 100

Where : X1 =Mean score of Pre-Test X2 =Mean score of Post-Test

P =Improvement

(Gay, 1981: 298)

t =

 





2 2



 



N N

N D D

Where:

T = Test of Significant

D = The means score

∑ D =The sum of total score of difference

D2 = The square of the sum score of difference N = The total number of students’

(Gay, 1981:366)

After getting the result of t-test value the writer was used t-table to compared there was significant difference or not. To show us interval of the significance on the sample as follows:

If t-test > t-table ………….. There is significant different

t-test< t-table ………….. There is no significant different

For the hypothesis testing, the t-test value was compared with the t-table value at the level of significance p=.0.05 with the degree of freedom df = N-1.

The criteria for the hypothesis testing were as follows:

Table 3.6 Hypothesis testing

Comparison Hypothesis

H0 H1

t-cal< t-table t-cal> t-table

Accepted Rejected

Rejected Accepted

(Gay, 1981:320) The table above meant (1) the t-test value was smaller than the t-table value, the null hypothesis would be accepted, while the alternative hypothesis was rejected, and (2) the t-test value was equal to greater than the t-table value, the null hypothesis was rejected, while the alternative was accepted.

Improvement of literal and interpretative comprehension.

1. The effectiveness of Scaffolded procedure in improving students’ reading comprehension before and after the treatment

The findings of the research present the result description of the research through the distribution score of pretest and posttest on literal level and interpretative level of reading comprehension by using Scaffolded.

a. The students’ Tabulation of Literal Comprehension with Main Ideas and Sequence of details.

1) Main Ideas

The following table showed the percentage of students’ tabulation of main ideas.

Table 4.1 The Students' Tabulation of Main Ideas

No Classification Score Pretest Posttest

F % F %

1 Excellent 96-100 - - 3 10%

2 Very Good 86-95 - - 9 30%

3 Good 76-85 - - - -

4 Fairly Good 66-75 5 16.67% 15 50%

5 Fair 56-65 - - - -

6 Poor 46-55 19 63.33% 3 10%

7 Very Poor 0-45 6 20% - -

Total 30 100 30 100

Based on the data of the results observation indicated that some students’

still lack of main ideas in pretest, where as 6 students’ (20%) got very poor. 19 students’ (63.33%) got poor and 5 students’ (16.67%) got fairly good. Therefore, after treatment and evaluation in the posttest that there is significant improvement, where as 3 students’ (10%) got poor. 15 students’ (50%) got fairly good. 9 students’ (30%) got very good and 3 studenrs’ (10%) got excellent.

2) Sequence of details

Table 4.2: The Students' Tabulation of Sequence of details

No Classification Score Pretest Posttest

F % F %

1 Excellent 96-100 - - 3 10%

2 Very Good 86-95 - - 8 26.67%

3 Good 76-85 - - - -

4 Fairly Good 66-75 4 13.33% 17 56.67%

5 Fair 56-65 - - - -

6 Poor 46-55 17 56.67% 2 6.66%

7 Very Poor 0-45 9 30% - -

Total 30 100 30 100

Based on the data of the results observation indicated than in pretest, 4 students’ (13.33%) got fairly good. 17 students’ (56.67%) got poor and 9 students’ (30%) got very poor. In posttest, indicated that some of the students’

have improvement of content in reading comprehension. Than the first pretest, but in the posttest become improve 3 students’ (10%) got excellent. 8 students’

(26.67%) got very good. 17 students’ (56.67%) got fairly good and 2 students’

(6.66%) got poor.

b. The Improvement of The Students’ Interpretive Comprehension with Prediction of Outcomes and Conclusion.

1) Prediction of outcomes

Table 4.3: The Students' Tabulation of Prediction of outcomes.

No Classification Score Pretest Posttest

F % F %

1 Excellent 96-100 - - 3 10%

2 Very Good 86-95 - - 6 20%

3 Good 76-85 - - - -

4 Fairly Good 66-75 5 16.67% 18 60%

5 Fair 56-65 - - - -

6 Poor 46-55 18 60% 3 10%

7 Very Poor 0-45 7 23.33% - -

Total 30 100 30 100

The table above shows the percentage of the students’ prediction of outcomes. After taking treatment in pretest the percentage of the students’ reading test in prediction of outcomes 5 students’ (16.67%) got fairly good. 18 students’

(60%) got poor and 7students’ (23.22%) got very poor. In posttest, the percentage of the students’ reading test in prediction of outcomes was 3 students’ (10%) got

excellent. 6 students’ (20%) got very good. 18 students’ (60%) got fairly good and 3 students’ (10%) got poor.

2) Conclusion

Table 4.4: The Students' Tabulation of Conclusion.

No Classification Score Pretest Posttest

F % F %

1 Excellent 96-100 - - 2 6.67%

2 Very Good 86-95 - - 10 33.33%

3 Good 76-85 - - - -

4 Fairly Good 66-75 5 16.66% 14 46.67%

5 Fair 56-65 - - - -

6 Poor 46-55 17 56.67% 4 13.33%

7 Very Poor 0-45 8 26.67% - -

Total 30 100 30 100

The table above shows the percentage of the students’ reading test in conclusion was 5 students’ (16.66%) got fairly good. 17 students’ (56.67%) got poor and 8 students’ (26.67%) got very poor. In posttest, the percentage of the students’ reading test in conclusion was 2 students’ (6.67%) got excellent. 10 students’ (33.33%) got very good. 14 students’ (46.67%) got fairly good and 4 students’ (13.33%) got poor.

c. The improvement of students’ literal comprehension

The students’ literal comprehension in reading can be seen in the following table.

Table 4.5: The mean score of students' Literal comprehension

NO Indicator

Mean score

Improvement (%) Pretest Posttest

1. Main ideas 49.16 81 64.76

Sequence of details 45.83 81.16 77.08

Mean score 47.49 81.08 70.92

Table 4.5indicates that there are differences of students’ score of pretest and posttest in reading literal comprehension. The data analysis shows the students’ mean score improves from pretest to posttest. The students’ mean score of pretest in main ideas is 49.16 and sequence of details is 45.83. It is classified as poor. However, after applying treatment the students’ literal comprehension improved. It is proved by students’ mean score of posttest in main idea is 81 and sequence of detail is 81.16. It is classified as good. So, the improvement of students’ achievement in literal Comprehension in main ideas is 64.76% and sequence of details is 77.08%. It means that, using Scaffolded is effective to improve students’ literal comprehension in reading.

Figure 4.1: The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.1 indicates the difference mean score of students’

comprehension of main idea in literal comprehension between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, the students’ mean score is 49.16.

After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 81.

So, the difference score between both groups is 31.84. It means that students’

score in pretest was greater than students’ score in posttest. Thus, using Scaffoldedis effective to improve students’ literal in reading comprehension.

0 20 40 60 80 100

49.16

Figure 4.1: The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.1 indicates the difference mean score of students’

comprehension of main idea in literal comprehension between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, the students’ mean score is 49.16.

After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 81.

So, the difference score between both groups is 31.84. It means that students’

score in pretest was greater than students’ score in posttest. Thus, using Scaffoldedis effective to improve students’ literal in reading comprehension.

Main Ideas

Figure 4.1: The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.1 indicates the difference mean score of students’

comprehension of main idea in literal comprehension between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, the students’ mean score is 49.16.

After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 81.

So, the difference score between both groups is 31.84. It means that students’

score in pretest was greater than students’ score in posttest. Thus, using Scaffoldedis effective to improve students’ literal in reading comprehension.

Pretest Posttest

Figure 4.2:The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.2 indicates the difference mean score of students’

comprehension of sequence of details in literal comprehension between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, the students’ mean score is 45.83. After applying treatment, students’ meanscore improved, where in posttest is 81.16. So, the difference score between both groups is 35.33. It means that students’ score in pretest was greater than students’ score in posttest. Thus, using Scaffoldedis effective to improve students’ literal in reading comprehension.

d. The improvement of students’ interpretative comprehension

The students’ interpretative comprehension in reading can be seen in the following table:

0 20 40 60 80 100

45.83

Figure 4.2:The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.2 indicates the difference mean score of students’

d. The improvement of students’ interpretative comprehension

The students’ interpretative comprehension in reading can be seen in the following table:

45.83

81.16

Sequence of details

Figure 4.2:The mean score of students’ comprehension in literal level

Figure 4.2 indicates the difference mean score of students’

d. The improvement of students’ interpretative comprehension

The students’ interpretative comprehension in reading can be seen in the following table:

Pretest Posttest

Table 4.6: The mean score of students' Interpretive comprehension

NO Indicator

Mean score Improvement Pretest Posttest (%)

1. Prediction of outcomes 50 79 58

2 Making conclusion 47.5 80 69.14

Mean score 48.75 79.5 63.57

Table 4.6 indicates that there are differences between students’ score of interpretative comprehension before and after using treatment in reading. The data analysis shows that the students’ mean score improves from pretest to posttest.

The students’ mean score of pretest in prediction of outcomes is 50 and making conclusion is 47.5. It is classified as poor. However, after applying treatment the students’ interpretative comprehension improved. It is proved by students’ mean score in posttest of prediction of outcomes is 79 and making conclusion is 80. It is classified as good. So, the improvement of students’ achievement in literal comprehension of prediction of outcomes is 58% and making conclusion is 69.14%. It means that, using Scaffolded is effective to improve students’ literal comprehension in reading.

Figure 4.3: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of prediction of outcomes

Figure 4.3 indicates the students’ score of Prediction of outcomes in interpretative level between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, the students’ mean score is 50. After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 79. So, the difference score between pretest and posttest is 29. It means that students’ score in posttest was greater than students’ score in pretest. Thus, using Scaffolded was effective to improve students’ interpretative in reading comprehension.

78.4 78.6 78.8 79 79.2 79.4 79.6 79.8

80 80

Prediction of outcomes

Figure 4.3: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of prediction of outcomes

Prediction of outcomes

Figure 4.3: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of prediction of outcomes

Pretest

Posttest

Dalam dokumen The Writer (Halaman 33-62)