CHAPTERS III RESEARCH METHOD
E. Procedure of Data Collection
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 =
1
2 2
N N
N D 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.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter consists of two sections, the findings of the research and the discussion of research findings. The discussion deals with the description and interpretation of the findings.
The findings of the research deal with the effectiveness of Scaffolded in improving students’ reading comprehension which consists of the students’.
A. Findings
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.
30
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
2
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.
81
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’
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:
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’
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:
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
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.
79
Prediction of outcomes
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.
Pretest
Posttest
Figure 4.4: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of making conclusion
Figure 4.4 indicates the students’ score of making conclusion in interpretative level between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, thestudents’ mean score is 47.5. After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 80. So, the difference score between pretest and posttest is 32.5. 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.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
47.5
Figure 4.4: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of making conclusion
Figure 4.4 indicates the students’ score of making conclusion in interpretative level between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, thestudents’ mean score is 47.5. After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 80. So, the difference score between pretest and posttest is 32.5. 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.
Making conclusion
80Figure 4.4: The mean score of students’ comprehension in interpretative of making conclusion
Figure 4.4 indicates the students’ score of making conclusion in interpretative level between pretest and posttest. Before applying treatment in pretest, thestudents’ mean score is 47.5. After applying treatment, students’ mean score improved, where in posttest is 80. So, the difference score between pretest and posttest is 32.5. 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.
Pretest
Posttest
Table 4.7: The students' improvement
NO Indicator
Mean score Improvement Pretest Posttest (%)
1. Main Ideas 49.16 81 64.76%
2. Sequence of Details 45.83 81.16 77.08%
3. Prediction of Outcomes 50 79 58%
4. Making Conclusion 47.5 80 69.14%
Table 4.7 variables that the students score in posttest improves after teaching reading comprehension by using Scaffolded for literal and interpretative level. Before giving treatment the students score’ in pretest for literal comprehension in main ideas is 49.16 and sequence of details is 45.83. While Interpretative comprehension in prediction of outcomes is 50 and making conclusion is 47.5. These results are classified into poor. However, after giving treatment the students’ score in posttest of literal improves to be 81 for main idea and 81.16 for sequence of details. While score in posttest of interpretative to be 79 for prediction of outcomes and 80 for conclusion. These scores are classified as a good category. It means that, after using Scaffolded gives improvement to the students’ comprehension in reading.
In another type, the following graphic is designed to show the students’
improvement in reading comprehension.
Graphic 4.1: The students’ improvement Graphic
Graphic 4.1 Shows the students’ improvement before and after applying the treatment. There two levels of comprehension in reading is researched; literal (main ideas & sequence of detail) and interpretative (prediction of outcomes &
conclusion). The students’ improvement in literal is 64.76 for main idea and 77.08 for sequence of details. While the students improvement in interpretative is 58 for prediction of outcome and 69.14 for conclusion. Using Scaffolded is effective to improve the students’ reading comprehension, especially for literal and interpretative levels.
2. Test of significance (t-test)
The hypothesis was tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (test of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significant difference between the result of students’ mean scores
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
main ideas 64.76%
In another type, the following graphic is designed to show the students’
improvement in reading comprehension.
Graphic 4.1: The students’ improvement Graphic
Graphic 4.1 Shows the students’ improvement before and after applying the treatment. There two levels of comprehension in reading is researched; literal (main ideas & sequence of detail) and interpretative (prediction of outcomes &
conclusion). The students’ improvement in literal is 64.76 for main idea and 77.08 for sequence of details. While the students improvement in interpretative is 58 for prediction of outcome and 69.14 for conclusion. Using Scaffolded is effective to improve the students’ reading comprehension, especially for literal and interpretative levels.
2. Test of significance (t-test)
The hypothesis was tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (test of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significant difference between the result of students’ mean scores
sequence prediction conclusion 64.76%
77.08%
58.00%
69.14%
In another type, the following graphic is designed to show the students’
improvement in reading comprehension.
Graphic 4.1: The students’ improvement Graphic
Graphic 4.1 Shows the students’ improvement before and after applying the treatment. There two levels of comprehension in reading is researched; literal (main ideas & sequence of detail) and interpretative (prediction of outcomes &
conclusion). The students’ improvement in literal is 64.76 for main idea and 77.08 for sequence of details. While the students improvement in interpretative is 58 for prediction of outcome and 69.14 for conclusion. Using Scaffolded is effective to improve the students’ reading comprehension, especially for literal and interpretative levels.
2. Test of significance (t-test)
The hypothesis was tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (test of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significant difference between the result of students’ mean scores