CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
B. Suggestion
Based on conclusion above, the researcher presents some suggestions as follow:
1. It suggested that the teacher especially for the English Teacher at Class XI MIA of SMA Muhammadiyah Sungguminasa, they use Inference Strategy as one alternative among other teaching that can be used in teaching reading achievement.
2. It suggested that English Teacher at Class XI MIA Of SMA Muhammadiyah Sungguminasa, should used Inference Strategy in presenting the reading achievement and can bring a increased in reading achievement for students.
3. For the next researcher, it suggested to this thesis as an additional reference with different discussion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. Durton H. Berry and Milicant 1984. Efficient Reading: A Practical Guide, Sidney: MC .Grew-Hill Book Company.
Amri. 2015. The effectiveness of using anticipation guide strategy in improving reading comprehention at hte second year students of SMP pgri barembeng gowa. Undergraduate thesis. Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Asia, Nur. 2012. Improving the Students’ Reading Comprehension Through Directed Activities Related to Texts stategy. Undergraduate thesis.
Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Attaprechakul, Damrong. vol.6 No.13. jan.2013. Inference Strategies to Improve Reading Comprehension of Challenging Texts. A journal in English Language Teaching. Thailand: Thammasat University Bangkok.
Beers. Kylene 2003a. Teaching Students to Make Inferences. from http://amin- limpo.blogspot.co.id/2012/11/makinginferences. html. Retrieved Novem- ber 13,2012
Beers, Kylene. 2003b. When Kids Can't Read: What Teachers Can Do.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bude. 2005.Teaching Ideas from Kylene Beers’ Book. Retrieved March 7,2016.
from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bude0007/kb/024410.htm1
Cohen, Louis., Lawrence Manion., & Keith Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. (5 th ed). New York: RouledgeFalmer.
Cown, Cristine. 2007. Evaluation: A Reading Strategy: Prediction and Inference.
[ powerpoint slides]. Retrieved March 7, 2016. from http://yahoo.com Davies, F.W.J. (1973). Teaching reading in early England. London: Pitman and
Sons Ltd.
McKay, Dianne.(2007). Main Idea, Gives Supporting Details and Inference Rubric. Retrieved March7,2016. From www2.bakersfieldcollee.edu,BLS _SLO.
Dikbud K. 2012. The Effectiveness of Using PQTR Method to Improve Reading Comprehension (An Experimental Research The Second Class of Sma Negeri 1 Bolo). A thesis. Makassar. Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Frey,Edward 1981. Teaching Faster Reading. A Manual Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, D., Frey, N, & Williams, D. (2002). Educational Leadership. Seven literacy strategies that work.
Gay, L. R. 1981. Educational Research New York, Gharles Menu Publishing Co.
A Bell Homel Company
Gay,L.R.1996. Educational Research. Competencies For Analysis and Applicantion Fifth Edition: Columbus. Cluries E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Gear, Adrienne. (2006). Reading power: Teaching students to think while they read. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke.
Goodman.1973. The Dictionary of Education. MC. Grew: Hill Book Company, New York.
Grellet,Francoise,1981. Developing Reading skills. London: Combridge.
Harvey, Stephanie, & Goudvis, Anne. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Hikmawati.2012. Improving the Students’ Reading Comprehension Through Think Aloud Strategy at the Second Year Students of MTS Muhammadiyah Lempangan Kab. Gowa. Undergraduate thesis.
Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Irmawati,s. 2012. Improving the Students’ Reading Comprehension Through Directed Reading-Thinking Activity Method Classroom Action Research
at Class XI MA Muhammadiyah Bantaeng.
Undergraduate thesis. Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Kasmawati. 2012.Improving the Students’ Ability in Reading Comprehension Through (KWL) Know want to Know Learned Strategy at the First Year Student of SMP Aisyiyah Sungguminasa. Undergraduate thesis.
Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Kasmiati. 2012. Improving the Students’ Reading Comprehension Through Inference Strategy at the Tenth year Students of Madrasah Aliyah Darulmuttaqin Bungasunggu. Undergraduate thesis. Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Kasmira. 2015. The Effectiveness of the Application of Active Process Method in Improving the Students of SMP Batara Gowa. Undergraduate Thesis.
Makassar: FKIP Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S.1997. Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Reading Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kurland,daniel J, 2000. How the Language Really Works: the Fundamentals of Critical and Effective Writing. From http://www.criticalreading.com/infe rence_process.htm. Retrieved 29 juni 2016.
Kustaryo, S.2001. Reading Technique for college Students. Jakarta: P2LPTK Matyo, jude, Vol.53 (2015). The effect of the SIM Inference Strategy on Reading
Scores of Special Education and At-Risk Students. Florida jurnal of Educational Research. Kearney: UNK (University of nebraska kearney).
Misiak, Sue. 2007. Making Inferences. Retrieved February 18 2016,from http://www.strategyeach.aspx.htm#Suemisiak,htm1
Nuttal, Cristine.1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London : ELBS.
Patel, M.F., & Jain, Praveen M. 2008. English Learning Teaching (Methods, Tools & Technique). Jaipur: Sunrise Publisher.
Parel, Jain. 2008. English Language Teaching (Method, Tools and Techniques).
Jaipur. Sunrise Publisher and Distributors.
Phillips, Linda M.Vol.410 (1987). Inference Strategy in Reading Comprehension.
A Journal of Center For the Study of Reading Technical Report. Urbana- champaign: University of Illinois.
Pinnell, Gay Su, & Scharer, Patricia, L. (2003). Teaching for comprehension in reading. Grades K–2: Strategies for helping children read with ease, confidence, and understanding. New York: Scholastic.
Simanjuntak. Edithia G. Dra. 1988. Developing reading skill for EFL. Students Inference Form Context. Jakarta: P2LTK.
Smith.et.all.1977. Study Guide, Standard II Reading Comprehension Research and Best Practices. Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Assesment. Pdf Smith, Richard J and Johnson, daled. 1980. Teaching Children to Read. Canana
Addison Wisely Publishing Company. INC.
Sudjana. 2007. Metode Statistika. Bandung: PT Gramedia.
Thinker and Cullough,M. Mc. Constance. 1975. Teaching Elementary Reading.
New Jersey. Prentice–Hall.Inc. Englewood Cliffs.
Tiro, Muhammad Arif. 2008. Dasar-dasar Statistika. Makassar: Andira Publisher.
Zwiers, Jeff. 2005. Building Reading Comprehension Habits in Grades 6–12.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
The finding of the research that teaching reading achievement through inference strategy could increase the students’ literal reading achievement and also could increase the students’ interpretative reading achievement. In the further interpretation of the data analysis were given below:
1. Students’ Literal Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy
Students’ literal reading achievementusing inference strategy have different in pre-test and post-test. In pre-test students still less understand about main idea and supporting details but after applied inference strategy the students more understand about main idea and supporting details, can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.1Students’ Literal Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy No. Literal Reading
Achievement
The Students’ Score Achievement Pre-test Post-test (%)
1. Main Idea 5.6 8.9 59
2. Supporting Details 5.6 8.6 54
5.6 8.8 56
The data on the table 4.1 shows that the improvement of literal reading achievement main idea 59% from the score 5.6 in pre-test to be 8.9 in post-test.
Then, the ncreasement of literal reading achievement supporting detail 54% from 39
the score 5.6 in pre-test to be 8.6 in post-test In applied inference strategy in the class, the data collected through the test and shows that the used of inference strategy could increased the students’ literal reading achievement. After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’ achievement in literal reading achievement was increase 56% from the mean score 5.6 to be 8.8 on post- test.
chart 4.1.Students’ literal reading achievement using Inference Strategy
The data on the chart 4.1 shows that the mean score of student literal achievement increased from the mean score 5.6 in pre-test to be 8.8 in post-test.
After calculating the mean score, the researcher found that the students’
achievement in literal reading achievement was increase 56% from the mean score 5.6 in pre-test to be 8.8 on post-test.
After calculated the frequency and the rate percentage of pre-test and post- test of students’ literal and interpretative reading achievement were classified into the following table.
5.6
8.8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pre-test post-test
Literal Achievement
Literal Achievement
Table 4.2 Percentage Literal Reading Achievement in Pre-test and Post-test
No. Classification Pre-test Post-Test
F % F %
1. Excellent (90-100) 0 0 16 59,2
2. Very good (80-89) 0 0 10 37
3. Good (70-79) 0 0 1 3,7
4. Fair (60-69) 12 44 0 0
5. Poor (0-59) 15 55,5 0 0
Total 27 100 100
The data on the table 4.2 shows that the classification of students’
increasement of literal reading achievement. In pre-test there were 12 (44.4%) students got fairly, 15 (15.5%) got poor, and then none of them got excellent, very good, and good. After doing treatment, the students’ score classification in post- test changed 16 (59.2%) students got excelent, 10 (37%) students got very good, 1 (3.7%) students got good and then none of them got fairy and poor.
2.Students’ Interpretative Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy To answer the research question in the previous chapter, the researcher administeres a test. Firstly, pre-test was given before the treatment. Secondly, post-test was given after the treatment. The result of the students’ interpretative reading achievement in pre-test and post-test presented in the table below:
Table 4.3 Students’ Interpretative Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy
No. Interpretative Reading Achievement
The Students’ Score Achievement (%) Pre-test Post-test
1. Conclusion 4.7 8.5 81
4.7 8.5 81
The data on the table 4.3 shows that the score of Interpretative 81% from the mean score 4.7 in pre-test to be 8.5 in post-test. In applied inference strategy in the class, the data collected through the test and showed that the used of inference strategy could increased the students’ interpretative reading achievement.
Chart 4.2.Students’ interpretative reading achievement Using Inference Strategy
The data on the chart 4.2 shows that the mean score of student interpretative reading achievement increased from the mean score 4.7 in pre-test to be 8.5 in post-test. After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
4.7
8.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pre-test Post-test
Conclusion
Conclusion
interpretative reading achievement increased 81% from the mean score 4.7 to be 8.5 on post-test.
4.4 Percentage Interpretative Reading Achievement in Pre-test and Post-test
No. Classification Pre-test Post-Test
F % F %
1. Excellent (90-100) 0 0 1 3,7
2. Very good (80-89) 0 0 23 85,1
3. Good (70-79) 1 3,7 3 11,1
4. Fair (60-69) 9 33,3 0 0
5. Poor (0-59) 17 62,9 0 0
Total 27 100 27 100
The data on the table 4.4 shows that the classification of students’
increasement of Interpretative Reading Achievement in pre-test there were 1 (3.7%) students got good, 9 (33.3%) students got fairly, 17 (62.9%) students got poor, and then none of them got excellent and very good. After doing treatment, the students’ score classification in post-test changed 1 (3.7%) students got excellent, 23 (85.1%) students got very good, 3 (11.1%) students got good and then none of them got fairy and poor.
Table 4.5 Students’ Literal and Interpretative of Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy
No. Indicator The Students’ Score Achievement Pre-test Post-test (%)
1. Literal Achievement 5.6 8.8 56
2. Interpretative Achievemnt 4.7 8.5 81
5.1 8.6 69
The data on the table shows that the result of data analysis from pre-test and post-test of students’ reading literal achievement and interpretative reading achievement the mean score of indicator of reading for main idea and supporting details in pre-test was 5.6, which classified as fairly good, in countrary the mean score in post-test was 8.8, which classified as good and the improvement of students was 56%. The mean score of reading for conclusion in pre-test was 4.7, which is classified as fair, in contrary the mean score in post-test was 8.5 and the achievement of students were 81%.
Chart 4.3. Students’ interpretative reading achievement using Inference Strategy
The data on the chart shows that the result of data analysis the mean score from pre-test and post-test of students’ on literal reading achievement and interpretative reading achievement of calculating both of indicator was 5.1 in pre- test which was classified as fair and 8.6 which was classified as good in post-test
5.1
8.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Pre-test Post-test
Literal and Interpretative Achievement
Literal and interpretative
with 69%. It means that the students’ literal and interpretative Reading achievement had increase after treated by using inference strategy.
3. Hypothesis Testing
To know the level of significant of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used t-test analysis on the level of significant (P) = 0.05 with the Degree of Freedom (df) = N-1, where N= Number of subject (27 Students) then the value of t-table was 1.706 the t-test statistical, analysis for independent sample was applied.
The result of the data analysis t-test of the students’ reading achievement through inference strategy table below.
Table 4.6 The Comparision of T-test and T-table Score of the Students Reading Achievement
Variable T-test T-table
Literal Reading Achievement 15.8 1.706
Interpretative Reading Achievement
12.5 1.706
14 1.706
The data on the table shows that the value of t-test was higher than the value of t-table. The t-test value of main idea and supporting details were greater than t- table (15.8>1.706) and t-test value of conclusion were greather than t-table (12.5>1.706). The result of calculating t-test of the indicators in the students’ t-
table in literal and interpretative reading achievement was greater than t-table (14>1.706). It were more clearly shown in chart:
Chart 4.3.Students’ literal reading achievement using Inference Strategy
The data on the chart shows that the value of the t-test was greater than t- table. The score in variable of reading achievement was (14>1.706). It was said that the null hypothesis ( ) rejected and the alternative hypothesis ( ) accepted.
It mean that there was a significant difference between the result of the students’
literal and interpretative reading achievement in reading through Inference Strategy.
If the t- test value was higher than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree freedom (df) 27 (N-1 = 27-1), thus the alternative hypothesis ( ) accepted and null hypothesis ( ) rejected. In contrary, if the value was lower than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree freedom 26, thus the alternative hypothesis rejected and null hypothesis accepted.
B. Discussion
14 1.706
0 1 2 3 4 5
T-test T-table
Hypothesis Test
Literal Reading Interpretative Reading
The description the analysis of the data from reading test as explaines in the previous section showed that the students’ increasement in literal and interpretative reading achievement. It examines the result of treatment teaching and learning process toward the effectiveness of inference strategy to increase reading achievement dealing with literal and interpretative reading achievement at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Muhammadiyah Sungguminasa which conducted with pre-test, treatment and post-test during fourth (6) meeting.
The students’ mean score after teaching Reading Achievement using Inference Strategy was better than before the treatment was given to the students.
Before giving treatment, the students’ achievement in literal and interpretative were poor. After giving the treatment, their achievement was significantly increased and categorized as good.
1. Students Literal Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy
Students literal reading achievement supported by the score of students on pre-test in main idea was 5.6 and 8.9. before applied Inference Strategy the student could not decide clearly identified main idea by providing strong evidence, details relating to the main idea. But after applied Infence Strategy the students easly for deside main idea with applied asking question related about the content of the text and the most important detail were the top.
The mean score pre and post test of supporting details before applied Inference Strategy the students could not complete important information with obvious and key issue unsupport of supporting details. But after applied Inference
Strategy they were could tell and quality detail of important information of the text in supporting details.
After calculating the students’ score of the indicator of Literal Reading Achievement in pre-test and post-test also explain the classification of students’
increasement of literal reading achievement. In pre-test there were 12 (44.4%) students got fairly, 15 (15.5%) got poor, and then none of them got excellent, very good, and good. After doing treatment, the students’ score classification in post- test changed 16 (59.2%) students got excelent, 10 (37%) students got very good, 1 (3.7%) students got good and then none of them got fairy and poor.
Based on the finding above in applied inference strategy in the class, the data collected through the test as explained in previous finding section showed that the students’ achievement in the literal was significantly increased. The data on the table 4.1 showed that the score of literal increased 56% from the mean score in pre-test 5.6 to be 8.6 in post-test. The score of the students’ post-test was higher than the main score of the students’ pre-test. Therefore, it can be concluded that Inference Strategy could increased the students achievement in literal reading achievement.
2. Students Interpretaive Reading Achievement Using Inference Strategy Students’ interpretative reading achievement supported by the score of students on pre-test in making conclusion was 4.7 and 8.5. before applied Inference Strategy the student could not decide clearly determined conclusion by providing strong evidence, details relating to the conclusion. But after applied Infence Strategy the students easly for deside conclusion with applied asking
question related about the content of the text. then, the Strategy Inference can maximally encourage students to found information given by the reading text and understanding about the content of the text. The mean score pre-test and post-test of conclusion before applied Inference Strategy the students could not completed important information with obvious from the test and make a draw conclusion from their perior knowledge. But after applied Inference Strategy they were could Make connections between conclusions they draw and other important information of the text.
After calculating the students score of the indicator of Interpretative Reading Achievement in pre-test and post-test also expalained the classification of students’ increasement of Interpretative Reading Achievement. In pre-test there were 1 (3.7%) students got good, 9 (33.3%) students got fairly, 17 (62.9%) students got poor, and then none of them got excellent and very good. After doing treatment, the students’ score classification in post-test changed 1 (3.7%) students got excellent, 23 (85.1%) students got very good, 3 (11.1%) students got good and then none of them got fairy and poor.
Based on the finding above in appliying inference strategy in the class, the data was collected through the test as explains in previous found section showed that the students’ achievement in the literal was significantly increased. The data on the table 4.2 showed that the score of interpretative was increased 81% from the mean score in pre-test 4.7 to be 8.5 in post-test. The score of the students’
post-test was higher than the main score of the students’ pre-test. Therefore, it can
be concluded that Inference Strategy could increase the students achievement in Interpretative reading achievement.
3. The Significant Difference of T-test and T-variable
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)= 26 indicated that t- table value was 1.706 and t-test value was 14. Therefore, it can be concluded that statistically hypothesis of was rejected. It means that the using of Inference Stratey could increase the students’achievement of reading.
Inference Strategy was process of drawing personal meaning from a text to help students draw conclusion from their own prior knowledge of the relationship between explicitly stated information and implied information. Inference Strategy applied asking question related about the text to make connections between conclusions they draw and other beliefs or knowledge or clue from the text.
inference strategy as guiding to help reader to found the supportig details about the text that give more information about the topic and help readers remember important information from the text to idetify main idea.
By seeing the effectiveness of the students’ literal and interpretative achievement in reading skill. it concluded that Inference Strategy increase the students’ achievement literal and interpretative in reading. It could showed from the students’ reading test in pre-test and post-test. In pre-test, some students were difficult to answer the question and find out main idea, supporting details and conclusion. But the students’ reading achievement in post-test, which the content