A. Research Design
This research employed a pre-experimental design which used to given description about the application of Contextual Guessing Technique in improving the students‟ reading comprehension of the second year of SMP Negeri 4 Baraka.It aims to know whether Contextual Guessing improve the students‟ reading comprehension after using it.
Table 3.1 Research Design
Pre- Test Treatment Post- Test
O1 X O2
Where :
O1 : the pre-test X : treatment O2 :the post-test
(Emzir, 2013: 97) a. O1 : the pre-test
Before giving the treatment, the researcher gave a pre-test to the sample. The sample of this research was 25 students. Every students have 40 minutes for solving the task. The task was 10 numbers, consist 5 number multiple choice and 5 number essay. This aims to identifying
the students prior knowledge on reading. The researcher gave a pre-test that consist of narrative short story and answer the qustions about the story.
b. X : treatment
After giving the pre-test, the students were given treatment by Contextual Guessing Technique. It take a place for four meetings and spent 45 minutes in twice meeting.Researcher select the words from the text or other reading material that to be learnt by the students whose meaning may be necessary to understand. The researcher presentabout words which to the students, and they direct to its surrounding context.
a. First Meeting: The researcher gave the students‟ reading material
“Rabbit and Lion” with text book to improve reading comprehension. And then the students‟ looking around the unfamiliar word in the text. The students‟ find out the meaning of those unfamiliar word, and then guessing the sentences and the general meaning of the text. And the last, the students‟ guessing the meaning of the whole story.
b. Second Meeting: The researcher gave the students‟ reading material “Rabbit and Lion” with text book to improve reading comprehension. And then the students‟ looking around the unfamiliar word in the text. The students‟ find out the meaning of those unfamiliar word, and then guessing the sentences and the general meaning of the text. And the last, the students‟ guessing the meaning of the whole story.
c. Thirth Meeting : The researcher gave the students‟ reading material
“The Good Step Mother” with text book to exercise to improve reading comprehension. And then the students‟ looking around the unfamiliar word in the text. The students‟ find out the meaning of those unfamiliar word, and then guessing the sentences and the general meaning of the text. And the last, the students‟ guessing the meaning of the whole story.
d. Fourth Meeting: The researcher gave the students‟ reading material
“The Good Step Mother” with text book to exercise to improve reading comprehension. And then the students‟ looking around the unfamiliar word in the text. The students‟ find out the meaning of those unfamiliar word, and then guessing the sentences and the general meaning of the text. And the last, the students‟ guessing the meaning of the whole story.
c. O2 : the post-test
The researcher gave a post-test after holding the treatment. The post- test was the same is the pre-test. The sample of this research was 25 students. Every students have 40 minutes for solving the task. The task was 10 numbers, consist 5 number multiple choice and 5 number essay. The researcher gave a post-test that consisted of narrative short story and answer the qustions about the story.
B. Population and Sample 1. Population
The population of this research took from the second year students of SMP Negeri 4 Baraka. There are four classes, namely VIII A consisted of
25 students, VIII B consisted 23 students, VIII C consisted 25 students, and VIII D consisted 20 students. Total number of population were 93 students.
2. The sample
The researcher took only one class as the sample of this research. The sample of this research was 25 students of VIII A.Which consisted of 8 boys and 15 girls. The research taken purposive sampling technique for this research.
C. Research Variables and Indicators 1. Variables
This research used two variables namely; Independent variable and Dependent variable. Independent variable was the Contextual Guessing Technique, Dependent variable was the students‟ reading comprehension.
2. Indicators
There are two indicators of reading comprehension, they are:
a. The indicators of the students‟ literal comprehension was main idea.
b. The indicators of the students‟ inferential comprehension was conclusion.
D. Instrument of the Research
The students was given a pre-test before conducting the treatment. The test is reading comprehension test in form multiple choice to assess the students‟
literal comprehension and essay test to assess the students‟ inferential comprehension.
a. The Assessment of Literal Comprehension (Main Idea).
Indicator Score
The answer include a clear generalization that state or implies the main idea
40
The answer state or implies main idea 30
Indicator innacurate or incomplate understanding of main idea 20 The answer include minimal or no understanding of main idea 10
( Harmer cited in Arsyam, 2012 :33) b. The Assessment of Inferential Comprehension( Conclusion)
Indicators Score
Students explain all the characters telling the story what would like and make very good conclusion
40
Students explain most the character telling the story what would like and make very good conclusion
30 Students explain litle of the character telling the story what
would like and make very good conclusion
20 Students does not explain of the character telling the story
what would like and make very good conclusion
10 (Waltres cited in Arsyam, 2012: 34) E. Procedure of Data collection
To collect the data, the researcherholds some procedures as follows:
1. Pre-test
Before applying Contextual Guessing Technique or before doing the treatment, the students are given pre-test to know their achievement in reading.
2. Post test
After applying the treatment, the researcher gave post-test to the students to obtain data, whether there any progress or improvement of the second year students reading comprehension of SMP Negeri 4 Baraka after applying treatment throughContextual Guessing Technique.
F. Technique of Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, the researcher use some steps as follows:
(Gay cited in Mariana, 2012: 33 ) 1. The data would be collected through the test analysis by using mean score
formula.
The formula is:
X = ∑X N
Where : X : Mean score
∑X : The sum of all score N : the total number of subject
(Gay, 1981) 2. Calculating the percentage of the students‟ score by used formula:
1 1 2
X X
P X x 100%
Where: P = Percentage
X2 = The mean score of post test X1 = The mean score of pre test
(Gay, 1980)
3. After collecting the data of the students‟ the researcher classified the score of the students.
Classification Score
Excellent 96-100
Very Good 86-95
Good 76-85
Fairly Good 66-75
Fair 56-65
Poor 36-55
Very Poor 0-35
(Depdikbud, 1985: 45)
4. To know the significant difference between the score of the pre-test and post-test, writer calculated the value of the best by used the following formula:
̅
√∑ (∑ ) ( )
Where: t : test of significance differences ̅ : the mean of the difference score D : the sum of all score
N : the total number of sample
31 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of findings of the research and discussion. The findings describe about the result of the data collected from the test. And discussion explain and interprets the findings. The result of the research will be described in the following description:
A. Findings
The findings of the research that teaching reading comprehension trough Contextual Guessing Technique could increase reading comprehension in literal comprehension and inferential comprehension. These findings are described as follow:
1. Students‟ Reading Comprehension
a. Students‟ Literal Reading Comprehension in Term Main Idea.
Students‟ literal comprehension after the researcher taught English by using Contextual Guessing Technique have different in pre- test and post- test. In pre- test students still less understand about main idea but after applied Contextual Guessing Technique the students‟ more understand about main idea, can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.1. Mean score of Literal Comprehension Literal Reading
Comprehension
The students‟ score Improvement (%) pre-test post-test
Main Idea 49 77.8 58.77%
Chart 4.1. Rate percentage of pre-test and post-test of reading.
The table and the graphic above, shows that there was improvement of the students‟ in reading comprehension in term of literal comprehension from pre-test with the mean score was 49 and post-test was 77.8. The improvement of pre-test to post test was 58.77%.
Table 4.2. Classification of the students’ score reading comprehension in term of main idea
No. Classification Score Pre-test Post-test Frequency % Frequency %
1 Excellent 96 – 100 - - 0 -
2 Very Good 86 - 95 - - 3 12%
3 Good 76 - 85 - - 10 40%
4 Fairly Good 66 - 75 1 4% 9 36%
5 Fair 56 - 65 5 20 3 12%
6 Poor 36 - 55 13 52% - -
7 Very Poor 0 -35 6 24% - -
Total 25 100% 25 100%
0 20 40 60 80 100
PRE-TEST POST-TEST
Based on the table above, it shows that the classification of the students‟
score reading comprehension in term of main idea in pre-test and post-test. In pre- test, there are 1(4%) student got fairly good, 5(20%) students got fair, 13(52%) students got poor, and 6(24%) students got very poor.After taking treatment by using contextual guessing technique, the percentage of student main idea in post- test are 3(12%) students got very good, 10(40%) students got good, 9(36%) students got fairly good, and 3(12%) students got fair.
b. Students‟ Inferential reading comprehension in term of Conclusion
Student inferential reading comprehension by using contextual guessing technique have different in pre-test and post-test. In pre- test students still less understand about conclusion but after applied Contextual Guessing Technique the students‟ more understand about conclusion.
Table 4.3. Mean Score of Inferential Comprehension Inferential Reading
Comprehension
The students‟ score Improvement (%) pre-test post-test
Conclusion 48.4 79.4 64.04%
Chart 4.2. Rate percentage of pre-test and post-test of reading.
0 20 40 60 80 100
PRE TEST POST TEST
The table and the graphic above, shows that there was improvement of the students‟ in reading comprehension in term of inferential comprehension from pre-test with the mean score was 48,4 and post-test was 79.4. The improvement of pre-test to post test was 64.04%.
Table 4.4. Classification of the students’ score reading comprehension in term of conclusion
No. Classification Score
Pre-test Post-test Frequency % Frequency %
1 Excellent 96 – 100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86 - 95 - - 4 16%
3 Good 76 - 85 - - 14 56%
4 Fairly Good 66 - 75 - - 4 16%
5 Fair 56 - 65 4 16% 3 12%
6 Poor 36 - 55 18 72% - -
7 Very Poor 0 -35 3 12% - -
Total 25 100% 25 100%
Based on the table above, it shows that the classification of the students‟
score reading comprehension in term of conclusion in pre-test and post-test. In pre-test, there are 4(16%) students got fair, 18(72%) students got poor, and
3(12%) students got very poor. After taking treatment by using contextual guessing technique, the percentage of student conclusion in post-test are 4(16%) students got very good, 14(56%) students got good, 4(16%) students got fairly good, and 3(12%) students got fair.
2. Mean Score of Reading Comprehension
The mean score of literal and inferential comprehension of the students‟ in pre-test and post-test after calculating the mean score are presented in the following table:
Table 4.5. The Mean Score of Students’ literal and inferential comprehension
Indicators
Mean Score
Pre-test Post-test Literal Comprehension
(Main Idea)
49 77.8
Inferential Comprehension (Conclusion)
48.4 79.4
Based on the table above, shows that the mean score of main idea in post- test is greater than the pre-test (77.8>49) and the main score of conclusion in post- test are greater than the pre-test (79.4>48.4).
3. Hypothesis
The hypothesis, the researcher used t-test for sample test. That is a test to know the significance different between the result of students‟ mean score in pre- test and post-test. The researcher used t-test analysis on the level of significant=
0.05 with degree of the freedom (df) = 25 indicated that t-table value is 2.064. The result of the data analysis t-test of the students‟ reading comprehension through contextual guessing technique table below:
Table 4.6. The Comparison of T-test and T-table Score of the Students’
Reading Comprehension.
Variables t-test t-table Description
Literal Comprehension 12.30 2.064 Significance Inferential Comprehension 13.36 2.064 Significance
The table shows that the value of the t-test is higher than the value of t-table.
The t-test value of main idea is greater than t-table (12.30> 2.064) and t-test value of conclusion are greater than t-table (13.36>2.064). It said that the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. It means that there is a significance different esult of the students‟ literal and inferential reading comprehension in reading through Contextual Guessing Technique.
B. Discussion
1. Students’ Literal Reading Comprehension Using Contextual Guessing Technique.
The description of the data collected through pre-test as explained in the previous section shows that the students‟ literal reading comprehension is improved. As (Burns, Roe & Ross, 1984) literal comprehension is the most
obvious comprehension involves surface meaning. Idawati (2009) conducted her research use of Contextual Guess was better then when they where taught by using other technique in improve the students‟ reading comprehension.
Based on the findings above, shows that the students' literal reading comprehension is supported by the mean score of students on pre-test and post- test in main idea is 49 and 77.8. Before applied contextual guessing technique, the students could not decide clearly identified main idea by providing strong evidence, details relating to the main idea. But after applied contextual guessing technique the students easily for decide main idea.
After calculating the students‟ score of the indicator of literal reading comprehension in pre-test and post-test also explain the classification of students‟
improvement of literal reading comprehension. In pre-test, there are 1(4%) student got fairly good, 5(20%) students got fair, 13(52%) students got poor, and 6(24%) students got very poor. After taking treatment, the percentage of student main idea in post-test are 3(12%) students got very good, 10(40%) students got good, 9(36%) students got fairly good, and 3(12%) students got fair. Then none of them got excellent, fair and very poor.
Based on finding above, shows that the students‟ comprehension in literal is significantly improved. The score of the students‟ in post-test is higher than the score of students‟ in pre-test. Therefore, it can be conclusion that the contextual guessing technique could improve the students‟ comprehension in literal reading comprehension.
2. Students’ Inferential Reading Comprehension Using Contextual Guessing Technique.
Inferential of reading comprehension includes thinking process such as drawing conclusions, generalizing and predicting outcomes (Cate, Jane, Marcia, &
Peter, 2001). In Irawati (2006) conducted her research also concludes that there is a significant difference between the reading comprehension before and after using communicative tasks. In other words the communicative tasks can improve students‟ reading comprehension.
Based on finding above shows that the students' inferential reading comprehension is supported by the mean score of students on pre-test and post- test in main idea is 48.4 and 79.4. Before applied contextual guessing technique, the students‟ difficult to get conclusion or reflects resources reading in development idea. But after applied contextual guessing technique the students easily for conclusion and get the meaning moral value of the text.
After calculating the students‟ score of the indicator of inferential reading comprehension in pre-test and post-test also explain the classification of students‟
development reading comprehension. In pre-test, there are 4(16%) students got fair, 18(72%) students got poor, and 3(12%) students got very poor.
After taking treatment, the percentage of students‟ score in post-test are 4(16%) students got very good, 14(56%) students got good, 4(16%) students got fairly good, and 3(12%) students got fair. Then none of them got excellent, fair and very poor. Based on finding above, shows that the students‟ comprehension in inferential is significantly improved. The score of the students‟ in post-test is
higher than the score of students‟ in pre-test. Therefore, it can be conclusion that the contextual guessing technique could improve the students‟ comprehension in inferential reading comprehension.
3. The significant differences of T-test and T-table
Through the result of pre-test and post-test, the result of t-test value of the level of the significant= 0.05, degree of the freedom (df) = 25 indicated that t- table value is 2.064. The t-test is higher than the value of t-table. The t-test value of the main idea is higher than t-table (12.30>2.064) and t-test value of the conclusion are greater than t-table(13.36>2.064).
By the seeing the effective of the students‟ literal and inferential comprehension in reading skill. It is conclusion that contextual guessing technique improve the students‟ comprehension in literal and inferential in reading. It could be showed from the students‟ reading pre-test and post-test, some students were difficult to answer the question and find main idea and conclusion. But the students‟ reading comprehension in post-test, which the content reading comprehension could be understand and were easy to answer the question and find out the main idea and conclusion.
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that the students‟ of the second year students of SMP Negeri 4 Baraka can be argued that using Contextual Guessing Technique is very effective in improving the students reading comprehension.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents some conclusions and suggestions of the result from the data analysis.
A. Conclusion
1. Contextual Guessing Technique is effective to increase the students‟
literal reading comprehension in term of main idea. It is proven by the mean score of the students where the pre-test score was 49 and the post-test was 77.8.
From the finding in the previous chapter, it can be seen the t-test value of literal reading comprehension is greater than t-table value (12.30>2.064). It means that there is a significant difference of students‟ literal reading comprehension between before and after using Contextual Guessing Technique.
2. Contextual Guessing Technique is effective to increase the students‟
inferential reading comprehension in term of conclusion. It is proven by the mean score of the students where the pre-test score was 48.4 and the post-test was 79.4. From the finding in the previous chapter, it can be seen the t-test value of literal reading comprehension is greater than t-table value (13.36>2.064). It means that there is a significant difference of students‟ inferential reading comprehension between before and after using Contextual Guessing Technique.
B. Suggestion
In relation to the conclusions above, the writer suggests that:
1. Special for English teacher, through the use of contextual guessing technique can improve reading skill.
2. English teacher should be more creative in choosing the contextual guessing technique in teaching reading comprehension.
3. Contextual guessing technique is one of the method that can be considered in teaching in order to help the students reading skill in classroom. Because effective and innovative way to improve and implemented the students reading comprehension.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, Suharsimin. 2016. (Edisi Revisi) Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan.
Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Beck, McKeown, and Kucan. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford Press
Bungin, Burhan. 2012. Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Cain, K. (2009). Children‟s Reading Comprehension Difficulties. A Consideration of the Precursors and Consequences. In C. Wood, & C. Vincent (Eds), New York: Routledge.
Carnine, D. W., Jerry, S., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct Reading Intruction.
Indiana, USA: Prentice Hall.
Cete, C., J, V. O., Marcia, A. B., & Peter. E. B (2001). Comprehension Skill, Inference Making Ability, and Their Relation to Knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29 (6), 850- 859.
Dalmar Fisher. 1994. Communication in Organization. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.
Depdikbud. (1985). Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Proses Belajar Mengajar dan Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Sistem Penilaian. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Emzir. 2013. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Gay, L, R. (1981). Educational Research: Competence for Analysis and Application: Second Edition, Colombus New York: Charles E. Marril Publishing Company.
Grabe, William, Fredricka L. Stoller. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading Second Edition. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Haastrup, K. 1989. The learner as word processor. International association of applied linguistic review, 6, 34-46.
Handoko, M. Dini. 2017. The Concept of Reading Comprehension. (online), (Iqrometro.co.id/ the-concept;of-reading-comprehension.html).
Accessed on July 27th, 2018.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman
Haynes, M. & Baker, L. (1993). American and Chinese Readers Learning from Lexical Familiarization in English Text. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J.
Coady (eds). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 130- 152). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.