Destiar Hotfide Manik
B. Disadvantages
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Result
The discoveries that found by the researcher:
1. The effect of Think Pair Share was more significant to the ability of the students in Reading Comprehension than the effect of Direct Method. Think Pair Share also gave a positive influence to the students activity in reading comprehension. It can be proved from the mean of post-test in experimental group was 78,47 and the mean of post-test
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 139 in control group was 64,41. It showed that the score of the students in experimental group was higher than control group.
2. The researcher found that the effect of Direct Method was lower than the effect of Think Pair Share to the ability of the students in Reading Comprehension. Direct method that focused on explanation didn‘t give any significant change, and the class tended to be bored and get it complicated. It also influenced the students‘ achievement in understanding the reading comprehension, and the statement was proved from the mean of score in pre-test 58,31 and post-test 64,41 in control group. After the class taught in Direct method, the highest score had been got by only eight students and it was 86 and dominantly the researcher found there were some students who got under the score of 50 in post-test. Also it can be seen that T-test is higher that T-table (8.74>
1.661) at the level of significance 0,05. It shows that the effect of Think-Pair-Share Teaching Method is more significant than Direct Method to the reading comprehension of grade eleven students of SMA RK Budi MuliaPematangsiantar on Hortatory Exposition Text.
4.2 Discussion
The purpose of this research is to find out whether teaching by Think-Pair-Share is more significant than with to the reading comprehension of grade eleven students of SMA RK Budi MuliaPematangsiantar on Hortatory Exposition text.
In this research, the researcher used two classes as the sample that consists of 48 students of each class. One class was chosen to be the experimental group and this group received treatment by using Think-Pair-Share and the other one as the control group received a different treatment or without Think-Pair-Share
To know the effect of Think-Pair-Share, the researcher gave the student a pre-test and post-test. The test was multiple choice with 30 questions. The researcher usedThe level of reading comprehension: Level Literal & Interpretive Reading Comprehension which are contained finding main ideas which are not directly stated, finding cause and effect, determining referents of pronouns, determining referents of adverbs, inferring omitted words, detecting moods, detecting author‘s purpose in writing, drawing conclusion, main ideas which are directly stated, vocabulary, sequence, sentence and paragraph meaning.
From the analysis of the data, the researcher found that the mean of pre-test in experimental group is 62,08 and the mean of post-test in experimental group is 78,47 , and the mean of pre-test in control group is 58,31 and the mean of post-test in control group is 64,42. Then, T-observed is higher than T-table (8.74> 1.661) at the level of significant is 0.05 with df = 94 (Nx + Ny – 2 = 48 + 48 - 2 = 94) , it means that there is effect of Think Pair Share Teaching Method to the reading comprehension of grade eleven students of SMA RK Budi Mulia Pematangsiantar.in Hortatory Exposition Text
After applying Think-Pair-Share teaching method in experimental class and Direct Method in control class, researcher had found that Think-Pair-Share helps every students could show their different opinion no matter it was wrong or correct because there was
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 140 time to share and teacher acted to cover every answer and made it easy to understand.
Different with Direct Method in control class, only some student who could show their understanding. Even though like that, researcher recognized that there were still lacks of this method. Because of large class, when every pair did their discussion, the class was becoming very noisy and very difficult for the teacher to control the class with only three meetings. It means, every next researcher is suggested to improve this method by added length of research to get more satisfying results in improving reading comprehension.
V. CONCLUSION
After conducting the research and collecting the data of the research from grade eleven students of SMA RK Budi MuliaPematangsiantar, finally the researcher concludes that Think Pair Share (TPS) significantly affect the students‘ reading comprehension where T-observed is higher than T-table (8.37 > 1.661). Teaching Reading Comprehension by applying Think Pair Share Teaching Method is more effective than using conventional teaching method. It is proven based on the means of experimental group is higher than control group (78,47> 64,41). The students were more interested in reading comprehension by applying Think Pair Share teaching method because they could discuss and share the problems found in the reading comprehension text with their friends.
REFERENCES
Alderson, J. Charles. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Arends, Richard I. 2009. Learning to Teach. New York : Mc. Grow Hill Componies Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. ProsedurPenelitian. Jakarta: RinekaCipta.
Boardman, Alison, Klingner, K. J., Vaughn. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Guilford Press.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach toLanguage Pedadogy.Second Edition. New York: Longman.
Elizabeth. S. Pang. 2000. Teaching Reading. International Bureau of Education
Gerrot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray:
Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Heilman, A, et.al. 1988. The Principles and The Practices of Teaching Reading. Ohio:
Charles E. Merill Publishing Co
Hudson, T. 2007. Teaching Second Language Reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
Linse, T. 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Nuttall, Christine. 1996. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Oxford:
MacMillan Education.
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 141 Pardiyono. 2007. Pasti Bisa: Teaching Genre - Based Writing. Yogyakarta: CV Andi
Offset.
Siahaan, S. & Shinoda, K. 2008. Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta: GrahaIlmu.
Prosiding Seminar Ilmiah Terjadwal ―Pengolahan Data Analisis Karya Ilmiah”, 08 Mei 2018
Page 142