CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
E. Research Variable
There were two kinds of variables in this research: dependent variable and independent variables. Dependent variable is the variable that is affect by the independent variables; independent variable is the variables, which influences other variables (Robertson, 1987:30). The independent variable of this research is the lexical simplification method and the dependent variable is the students’
reading skill achievement.
F. Procedures of Collecting Data
Procedures of collecting data adapted from the source data:
1. Through observation during teaching and learning activity in each meeting which consist of: students’ attendance, students’ response to the question, students gives a question, students accomplish the task and students understand the material. Each item had 1 point.
2. Through reading test made by the writer will be provided to the students in the end of cycle I and cycle II. In True or False Questions, if it is right
answer it gives 1 score and wrong answer score is 0. In essay Questions, each Question had value itself based on their difficulty. For the first Question if the answer is correct it gave 5 score and 0 if wrong.For second and thrid questions, if the answer correct it gave 3 score and 0 if wrong.
For fourth and fifth Questions, if the answer correct it gave 2 and 0 if wrong.
G. Technique of Data Analysis
In giving score to the students’ ability in reading some categories the researcher used the path as follows:
1. To find out the score of the student’s correct answer of test.
Scoring = x 100
Where total number of items are 10
To find out the score of students’ observationin each cycle
Scoring = x 100
Where the maximum score is 20
2. To measure the reading literal comprehension and the observation resuts, the score of the students was classified into:
Table 1: classification of students’ score SCALE CLASSIFICATION 96–100 Excellent
86–65 Very good
76–85 Good
66–75 Fairly good
56–65 Fair
36–55 Poor
0–35 Very poor
(Depdiknas, 2003) 3. Calculating the meanscore of students’ reading testused :
X X
N Where: : mean score
: Sum of all scoreN : Total number of subject
4. To calculate the percentage of the students’ score, the formula which used as follows:
P = X 100%
Where:
P = Percentage F = Frequency
N = Total Number of Subject
(Sudjana, 1999)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of findings of the research and its discussion. The findings of the research present the result of the students’ activeness observation in teaching and learning process, the improvement of the students reading comprehension, and the discussion of the research covers further explanation of the findings.
A. Findings
After analyzing the data of the research, it indicate tahat there was an improvement of the students reading skill through Lexical Simplification method.
There were two findings: the student’s achievement in reading comprehension (litera comprehension) and observation result. There were two items of literal reading comprehension data namely: main idea and sequence detail.
1. The achievement of students main idea and sequence detail.
a. Percentage of students’ main idea and sequence detail.
There were differences after the application of lexical simplification in improving the students’ reading comprehension ability in terms of identify main idea and sequence detail by considered the result of the students’ diagnostic test ( Non Lexical Simplification) and the students’
achievement after taking action in cycle (The Application of Lexical Simplification).
30
Table 2: The percentage of the students’reading comprehension in main idea and sequence detail
No Classification Scale
Non Lexical Simplification
The Application of Lexical Simplification Diagnostic
test
Cycle I Cycle II
freq % freq % freq %
1. Excellent 96-100 ̶ 0 ̶ 0 ̶ 0
2. Very good 86-95 ̶ 0 ̶ 0 2 6,67
3. Good 76-85 1 3,33 1 3,33 3 10
4. Fairly good 66-75 3 10 5 16,67 13 43,33
5. Fair 56-65 7 23,33 14 46,67 10 33,33
6. Poor 36-55 9 30 8 26,67 2 6,67
7. Very poor 0-35 10 33,33 2 6,67 ̶ 0
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100
The table above shownthe percentage of students’ main ideaand sequence detail in comprehending the diaognostic test (non Lexical Simplification), it indicated that 1 student (3,33%) got good, 3 students (10%) got fairly good, 7 students (23,33%) got fair, 9 students (30%) got poor, 10 students (33,33%) got very poor and none of students got very good and excellent.
After took the cycle I by Lexical Simplification method, it indicated that 1 student (3,33%) got good, 5 students (16,67%) got fairly good, 14 students
(46,67%) got fair, 8 students (26,67%) got poor, 2 students (6,67%) got very poor and none of students got very good and excellent.
After took cycle II, the table indicated that there were 2 students (6,67%) got very good, 3 students (10%) got good, 13 students (43,33%) got fairly good, 10 students (33,33%) got fair, 2 students (6,67%) got poor and none off students got very poor and excellent.
To know the percentage of the students’ achievement in main idea clearly and sequence detail, look at the following chart:
Chart 2: The percentage of students’ achievement in main idea and sequence detail
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
poorvery poor fair fairly
good good very
good excellent
D Test Cycle I Cycle II
b. Mean score of students’ main idea andsequence detail
Based on the result, the mean score of students main idea and sequence detail in comprehending the text is presented by following table:
Table 3 :The mean score of the students’ main ideaand sequence detail.
Mean score of students’ mainidea and sequence detail
Non Lexical Simplifcation The application of Lexical Simplification
Diagnostic test Cycle I Cycle II
44 56 67,67
The table above shown that the mean score of students’ main idea and sequence detail. In diagnostic test (non Lexical Simplification), the mean score of the students was 44 (forty four), in cycle I, the mean score of the students was 56 (fifty six) and in cycle II, the mean score of students was 67,67 (sixty seven point sixty seven). It indicated that the students’ main idea was improved significantly through application of Lexical Simplification method.
To see clearly the mean score of students main idea and sequence detail, look at to the following chart:
Chart 3: The students’mean score in main idea and sequence detail
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
D Test Cycle I Cycle II
2. The students’ observation results
Students’ observation reults was taken from from observation during cycle I to cycle II. The data of observation result consist of: students’
attendance, students response the question, students give a questions, students accomplish the task and students understand the material.
a. Percentage of students’ observation result
Table below shown the percentage of students result dyring cycle I and Cycle II.
Table 4: Percentage of students’observation result
No Classification
Scale Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1. Excellent 96-100 2 6,67 3 10
2. Very good 86-95 2 6,67 3 10
3. Good 76-85 0 0 5 16,67
4. Fairly good 66-75 0 0 3 10
5. Fair 56-65 5 16,67 6 20
6. Poor 36-55 8 26,67 6 20
7. Very poor 0-35 13 43,33 4 13,33
Total 30 100 30 100
The table above, the percentage of students’ score through observation on cycle I to cycle II. In cycle I, there were 2 students (6,67%) got excellent, 2 students (6,67%) got very good, 5 students (15,67%) got fair, 8 students
(26,67%) got fair, 13 students (43,33%) got very poor and none of the students got good and fairly good. In cycle II, there were 3 students (10%) got excellent, 3 students (10%) got very good, 5 students (16,67%) got good, 3 students (10%) got fairly good, 6 students (20%) got fair, 6 students (20%) got poor and 4 students (13,33%) got very poor.
To know clearly the percentage of students’ observation results, look at the following diagram:
3.
Chart 4: Percentage of students observation results b. The mean score of students’ observation
Based on the results, the mean score of students observation through cycle I to cycle II is presented by the following table:
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Very poor Poor Fair Farly good Good Very good Excellent
Cycle I Cycle II
Table 5: The mean score of students’ observation Mean Score
Cycle I 48,5
Cycle II 66,83
The table above shown the mean score of students’ observation result through cycle I to cycle II. In cycle I, the mean score of the students’ observation resultswas 48,5 (forty eight point five). In cycle II, the mean score of stdents’ observaiton results was 66,83 (sixty six point eight three). It indicates that there was improvement of students’
observation result from cycle I to cycle II.
To see clearly the improvement of students’ observation results from cycle I to cycle II, look at to the following diagram:
Chart 5: The mean score of students’ observation results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cycle I Cycle II
students' mean score
B. Discussion
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about students’ literal comprehension in terms of main idea and sequence detail toward the application of Lexxical Simplification and the observation results of students’ activeness from cycle I to cycle II.
The result of the data analysis through the comprehension test shows that the students’ reading comprehension ability in terms of main idea and content improved significantly. It can be seen in the percentage and mean score of students diagnostic test and percentage and mean score of students in cycle I and cycle II.
The data from diagnostic test was found that 1 student (3,33%) got good, 3 students (10%) got fairly good, 7 students (23,33%) got fair, 9 students (30%) got poor, 10 students (33,33%) got very poor and none of students got very good and excellentand the mean score of the students’ literal comprehension in mind idea and sequence detail is 44 (forty four).
After the cycle I, it found that students' literal comprehension in mind idea and sequence detail through Lexical Simplification was improve sinificantly. The researcher found that 1 student (3,33%) got good, 5 students (16,67%) got fairly good, 14 students (46,67%) got fair, 8 students (26,67%) got poor, 2 students (6,67%) got very poor and none of students got very good and excellent. The mean score of students’ literal comprehension in main ideaand sequence detail is (56 fity six).
The researcher found that even there was an improvement after application of lexical simplification in cycle I, It was still far from the standard curriculum that the researcher wants to achieve. The standar curriculum is 65.
Based on the unsuccessful teaching in the cycle I, the researcher decided to do cycle II. In the cycle II, the researcher revised the lesson plan, explains more clearly the material, gives more addintional vocabulary, makes text more simplify and gives better guidance to the student in reading text.
Finally, in cycle II after repaired from cycle I, the mean score of students’
literal reading comprehension is 67,67 (sixty seven point sixty seven). there was 3 students (10%) got excellent, 3 students (10%) got very good, 5 students (16,67%) got good, 3 students (10%) got fairly good, 6 students (20%) got fair, 6 students (20%) got poor and 4 students (13,33%) got very poor. It means that the mean score of students got improve as 11,67 (eleven point six seven) in literal reading comprehension.
Meanwhile, the result of students’ observation also improved from the cycle I to cycle II. It can be seen from the percentage of students’ observation results through cycle I to cycle II and the mean score of students’ observation results therough cycle I to cycle II.
In cycle I, there were 2 students (6,67%) got excellent, 2 students (6,67%) got very good, 5 students (15,67%) got fair, 8 students (26,67%) got fair, 13 students (43,33%) got very poor and none of the students got good and fairly good. The mean score of students’ observation results is 48,5 (forty eight point five).
In cycle II, there were 3 students (10%) got excellent, 3 students (10%) got very good, 5 students (16,67%) got good, 3 students (10%) got fairly good, 6 students (20%) got fair, 6 students (20%) got poor and 4 students (13,33%) got very poor. The mean score of students’ observation resuts is 66,83 (sixty six point eight three).
Finally, students’ mean score get 67,67 (sixty seven point six seven) where the standar curiculum is 65. It means that the stndar curriculum could be achieved.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter contains conclusion and suggestion based on the research findings in previous chapter. The researcher puts forward the following conclusion and suggestions.
A. Conclusion
Based on discussion in previous chapter it concluded that Lexical Simplification Method improve students’ reading skill significantly at the eighth grde students of SMP Muhammadiyah Makassar. The proves are the significant improvement in literal reading reading comprehension (main idea and sequence detail) where the findings are: the mean score of students’ diagnostic test is 44 (forty four), students’ mean score in cycle I is 56 (fifty six) and students mean score in cycle II is 67,67 (sixty seven point six seven). Moreover, the average observation results also show a significant improvement from cycle I to cycle II.
Where, in cycle I mean score of students’ observation results is 48,5 (forty eight point five) and in cycle II The mean score of students’ observation resuts is 66,83 (sixty six point eight three).
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the writer further states some suggestion as follows:
40
1. It is suggested that the English teacher apply the lexical simplification as one of alternative in teaching method and learning process.
2. The students are expected to improving their intensity in learning reading through lexical simplification method.
3. The writer hopes the researches use Lexical simplification to improving students’ reading comprehension.
4. The teacher should apply various kinds of suitable technique in teaching reading to make students more interested in reading English text and to increasing the quality of studying and teaching.
5. Another researcher try to improve reading comprehension not only for literal comprehension but also in Interpretive or Inferential Comprehension and critical reading.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anita, 2010. Improving Students’ Reading Comprehesion Through Sustained Silent Reading Method (A Classroom Action Research at the XI-IPA SMA Muhammadiyah Wilayah Makassar), Makassar. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Thesis.
Asmirawati, 2010. Improving Students Reading Comprehension Through Resiprocal Teaching at the First Year Students of SMPN 3 Bajeng, Makassar. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Thesis.
Alipour, Mohammad. Gorjian, Bahman. And Zafari, Iman. 2012. “The Effects of Songs on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Recall and Retention: The Case of Gender”.Advanced in Digital Multimedia (ADMM). 1 (3), 140-143.
Atai, M. Reza. Hossein Mohammad. 2007. Content Schemata, Linguistic Simplification, and EFL Readers’ Comprehension and Recall. Reading in a Foreign Language (Journal), Vol. 19, No. 1. (http//nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl diakses pada tanggal 28april 2013).
Brewton, John English,et.al.1962. Using good English. Vol .12. new jersey:
Laidlaw brothers publishers.
Chatib, Munif. 2012. Sekolahnya Manusia. Bandung. Penerbit Kaifa.
Connolly, Michael. 2011. Teaching Kids to Love Learning, Not Just Endure It.
United Kingdom. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Depdiknas. 2003. Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Jakarta. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah Direktorat Tega Kependidikan
Engh, Dwayne. 2013.”Why Use Music in English Language Learning?A Survey of the Literature”. English Language Teaching. 6 (2), 113-127.
Ferre, John P., 1983. Merriil Guide to the Research Paper. Colombus Toronto London: Sydney, Charless E. Merril Published Company.
Finocchiaro, Mary. 1989. English as a Second/Foreign Language: From Theory to Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Harris, J. A. & Sipay, R. E. (1985). How to Increase Reading Ability. A guide to developmental and remedial methods. New Yersey: Longman Inc.
Hasnawati 2011. Improving Students Reading Comprehension Through Direct Reading Thinking Activity (A Classroom Action Research of Students in
42
SMK Negri Maiwa, Enrekang) ), Makassar. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Thesis.
http://esl.fis.edu/learners/advice/vocab.htm (Accessed on 20th May 2013 : 09.35 pm)
Hughes, Arthur.1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Kustaryo. 1998. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kemampuan Membaca.
Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Krashen, S. 2002. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
(Online),
InternetEdition,(http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learnin g/index.html, diakses tanggal 12 Januari 2013)
LaCursia, Nancy. And Parker, Jenny. 2011.”Integrating Music in the Health Classroom: A Resource for Health Teachers”. Health Education Teaching Journal. 1, 11-19.
Liu, Ying. Perfetti, And Charless A. 2005. The Lexical Constituency Model: Some Implications of Research on Chinese for General Theories of Reading.
American Psycological Association (Journal), Vol. 112, No. 1. (Accessed on 28 april 2013).
Mundsack, Allan, James Deese, and Ellin K. Deese. 1957. How to Study and Other Skill for Success in Collegue: Fith edition. USA: The Machgraw- Hill Compaies, inc.
Murcia, C. M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. USA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Nemati, Azadeh. 2010.”Active and Passive Vocabulary Knowledge: The Effect of Years of Instruction“.The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. 12, 30-46.
Nuttal, Christine, 1982. Teaching Reading Techniques in a Foreign Language.
London : Heinemann education Books. Organization, and practice.
Massachuseths : Newbury House Publisher, Inc.
Octaviany, Yenny. 2007. The Application of Total Physical Response in Teaching English Vocabulary to the Fourth Graders of SD Negeri 04 Krajankulon Kaliwungu Kendal in The Academic Year Of 2006/2007. A Final Project.
Semarang. English Department Faculty of Languages and Arts Semarang State University.
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. 2006. 7th edition. United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.
Plag, Ingo. 2007. Word-Formation in English. Draft version. Cambridge University Press.
Ramsey, Bayless. 1986. Music: A Way of Life. 2nd edition. United State of America: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company.
Robertson, Ian. 1987. Sociology. New York, NY: Worth Publisher, Inc.
Sadeghi, Karim. 2003. The Key for Sccessful Reader-writer Interaction: Factor Affecting Reading comprehension in L2 Revisited. The Asian EFL Journal.
(http://iteslj.org/Articles/Schoepp-Songs.html, diakses tanggal 28 April 2013)
Schoepp, Kevin. 2001. Reasons for Using Songs in the ESL/EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal. (Online), Vol VII, No. 2, (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Schoepp-Songs.html, Accessed on 22 Februari 2013)
Shen, Chunxuan. 2009. “Using English Song: an Enjoyable and Effective Approach to ELT”. English Language Teaching. 2 (1), 88-94.
Smith, B. Nila and H. Allan Robinson. 1980. Reading Instruction for Todays Children. Englewood. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Sukardi, H.M. 2013. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Tindakan Kelas Implementasi dan Pengembangannya. Jakarta. PT Bumi Aksara.
Tim Peyusun FKIP Unismuh Makassar. 2013. Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi.
Makassar: Panrita Press Unismuh Makassar.
Urano, Ken. 2004. Lexical Simplification and Elaboration: Sentence Comprehension and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis: university of Hawaii. Retrieved from the world wideweb: http//www.yahoo.com/urano@ hawaii.edu.html. accessed on Mei, 2013.
Zulhaji. 2011. Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension through Double Lup Problem Solving Method (A Classroom Action Research at the XI Class of SMA Islam Hisbul Wathan Gowa), Makassar. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Thesis.