SUGGESTION - CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION - the use of fix-up strategy to improve the students

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

B. SUGGESTION

pre-test was classified as very poor. After applying treatment the students’

interpretative comprehension improved. It was proved by students’ mean score in post-test was classified as poor. Hence, the improvement of students’ interpretative comprehension was effective.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdullah, M, K. K. Dkk, 2013. The Importance of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awereness in Reading Compherension. English Language teaching, Vol. 6. No. 10, (http://ww.apjmr.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/APJMR-2015-3.4.5.09. Pdf. Acessed on August 1 2017)

Anggraeni, R, D. 2014 improving The Students’ Reading Comprehension Ability through visualization of the eight grade students of Smp Negeri 1 Pedanin the academiceyar of 2013/2014(Doctoral dissertation, Universitas negeri Yogyakarta)

Broek, P., & Espin, C. A. 2012. Connecting cognitive theory and assessment:

measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School

psychology review, Vol, 41, No. 3,

(http://www.nasponline.org/publications/periodical/spr/volume- 41/volume-41-issue-3/connecting-cognitive-theory-and-assessment- measuring-individual-differences-in-reading-comprehension.

Accessed on June 5 2017).

Brown, J. D. 2001. Teaching reading. Cambridge University Press. (online), (http://methodologyshumenextramurals.files.wordpress.com/2013/02 /brown-reading.pdf, Accessed on May 2 2017).

Depdikbud.1985.Garis-

garisBesarPengajaranBahasaInggris.Jakarta:Departement

Duffy, Gerrald G. 2009. Exolanning Reading. New York: The Guillford Publictions.

Erman, 2014. The Correlation Between Students’ Reading Motivation and Students’ Reading Comprehension, Indonesia: STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat

Fachrurrazy, 2014. Teaching English a foreign language for teacher in Indonesia.

State University of Malang press.

Fajriana, Asni Nurul. 2014. Using Chunking Technique to Improve Students Reading Comprehension. Makassar: Unismuh Makassar.

Fisher, D, Frey, N, & 8 Williams, D. 2002. Educational Leadership. Seven Literacy Strategy That Work.

Gay, I. R. 2006. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis Application dition. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Prentice Hall, A. Bell & Howell Company.

Grabe and Stoller. 2013. Teaching and researching reading. New york.

Routledge.

Harmer, J. 2007. How to teach English.

Indriati, A.2002. The Application of Communnicative Approach in Teaching Reading to First year Students of Madrasah Aliyah Negeri Model Makassar. Makassar: UIN Alauddin Makassar.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. 1998. Using Colllaborative Strategic Reading.

Teaching exceptional children, Vol. 30, No . 6, (http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-collaborative-strategic- reading, Acessed on June 31 2017)

Marsha. 2015. Effective Teaching Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension in K-3 Student. (online), (https://ww.districadministration.com/sites/districadministration/files /sites/dictricadministration/files/resources/improving_reading.3.pdf.

Accessed on June 31 2017)

Middelton.2011. Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension.(online).

(http;//etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu13131663336/onli ne, Accessed on May 1 2017).

Muliati. 2014. Improving the Student’ Reading Comprehension Through Fix up Strategy. Makassar. Unismuh Makassar.

Nejad, Batul. Shamsi&Shahrebabaki, Masoud. Mahmoodi.2015. Effects of English Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on the Reading Comprehension of Learning Approach (Calla), (online), Vol. 3, No.

2. (http://ijlet.com/Makaleler/1057147638_Masoud%20Mahmoodi- Shahrebabaki.pdf), Retrieved on Aufust, 5-2017.

Nunun Indrasari , 2012. The Effectiveness of Using Fix Up Strategy to Teach Reading Viewed from Students’ Self-confidence (An Experimental Research at the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Negeri 2 Temanggung in the Academic Year of 2011/2012). Thesis.

Surakarta. English Education Department of Graduate School, Sebelas Maret University. 2012.

Olviyanti, 2015. An. Analysis on the Abiltity Comprehending a Reading. Text by the Sixth Year Student. Jornal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, Vol. 4,

No. 1, (Online),

(http;//jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jpdpb/article/view/8523.

Accessed on May 1 2017).

Pangestu, A. W. 2015. Improving Students’ nglish Reading Skills by Using Peer Assisted Learning Strategies of grade Vii Students of smp 1

JogonalanKlaten in The Academic Years of 2013/2014(Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta)

Suryati, (2013). The Effect Of Using Fix-Up Strategy Towards Reading Comprehension Of The Second Year Students At Sman 2 Tapung Kampar Regency. Skripsi thesis, Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau.

Yuniarti, E. 2013. Improving the Students’ Reading Comprehension Trought Know-want-Learn Technique At The Eleventh Grade Of Sma Negeri 1 Sanden in The Academic Year Of 2012/2013(doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The List Name of the students of Class X.IPS 2 SMAN 1 Jeneponto

No. Sample Code

1. Agung Apriono Std 1

2. Ahmad Al Qadri Std 2

3. Ashabul Khafiri Std 3

4. Dani Std 4

5. Feri Std 5

6. Haikal Std 6

7. Haeruddin Jufri Std 7

8. M. Farid Alamsyah Std 8

9. Muh. Aidil Std 9

10. Muh. Aldyansyah Std 10

11. Muh. Nur Iksan Jaling Std 11

12. Nur Rafly Agusti Std 12

13. Sulaeman Std 13

14. Supomo Std 14

15. Yaldi Std 15

16. Andini Nurcahyani Std 16

17. Apriliyanti Maharani Std 17

18. Dinar Std 18

19. Hardiyanty Std 19

20. Nur Indriati Audini Std 20

21. Nur Okta Ningsih Ramadhani Std 21

22. Nurul Annisa Parawansa Std 22

APPENDIX B

The result of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in the term of main idea

Indicator ( Main Idea ) No. Name

Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2)

Point Score Classification Point Score Classification

1 Std 1 5 62,5 Fair 5 62,5 Fair

2 Std 2 2 25 Very Poor 3 37,5 Poor

3 Std 3 3 37,5 Poor 5 62,5 Fair

4 Std 4 2 25 Very Poor 2 25 Very Poor

5 Std 5 5 62,5 Fair 7 87,5 Very Good

6 Std6 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

7 Std7 4 50 Poor 7 87,5 Very Good

8 Std8 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

9 Std9 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

10 Std10 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

11 Std11 4 50 Poor 8 100 Excellent

12 Std12 4 50 Poor 4 50 Poor

13 Std13 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

14 Std14 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

15 Std15 5 62,5 Fair 4 50 Poor

16 Std16 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

17 Std17 5 62,5 Fair 5 62,5 Fair

18 Std18 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

19 Std19 5 62,5 Fair 7 87,5 Very Good

20 Std20 2 25 Very poor 2 25 Very Poor

21 Std21 5 62,5 Fair 3 37,5 Poor

22 Std22 5 62,5 Fair 7 87,5 Very Good

N=22 TOTAL 1200 1537,5

APPENDIX C

The result of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in the term of supporting details

Indicator (Supporting Details )

No. Name Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2)

Point Score Classification Point Score Classification

1 Std 1 5 62,5 Fair 3 37,5 Poor

2 Std 2 8 100 Excellent 5 62,5 Fair

3 Std 3 2 25 Very Poor 7 87,5 Very Good

4 Std 4 2 25 Very Poor 2 25 Very Poor

5 Std 5 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

6 Std6 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

7 Std7 2 25 Very Poor 8 100 Excellent

8 Std8 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

9 Std9 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

10 Std10 2 25 Very Poor 8 100 Excellent

11 Std11 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

12 Std12 2 25 Very Poor 1 12,5 Very Poor

13 Std13 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

14 Std14 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

15 Std15 5 62,5 Very Poor 5 62,5 Fair

16 Std16 2 25 Fair 6 75 Fairly Good

17 Std17 5 62,5 Very Poor 8 100 Excellent

18 Std18 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

19 Std19 8 100 Excellent 8 100 Excellent

20 Std20 1 12,5 Very Poor 1 12,5 Very Poor

21 Std21 5 62,5 Fair 6 75 Very Fairly

22 Std22 5 62,5 Fair 8 100 Excellent

N=22 TOTAL 1400 1750

APPENDIX D

The result of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in the term of make conclusion

Indicator ( Make Conclusion )

No. Name Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2)

Point Score Classification Point Score Classification

1 Std 1 0 0 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

2 Std 2 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

3 Std 3 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

4 Std 4 1 25 Very Poor 0 0 Very Poor

5 Std 5 1 25 Very Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

6 Std6 2 50 Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

7 Std7 1 25 Very Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

8 Std8 1 25 Very Poor 2 50 Poor

9 Std9 1 25 Very Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

10 Std10 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

11 Std11 1 25 Very Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

12 Std12 0 0 Very Poor 0 0 Very Poor

13 Std13 2 50 Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

14 Std14 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

15 Std15 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

16 Std16 2 50 Poor 2 50 Poor

17 Std17 2 50 Poor 2 50 Poor

18 Std18 2 50 Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

19 Std19 1 25 Very Poor 3 75 Fairly Good

20 Std20 0 0 Very Poor 0 0 Very Poor

21 Std21 1 25 Very Poor 2 50 Poor

22 Std22 1 25 Very Poor 1 25 Very Poor

N=22 TOTAL 600 975

APPENDIX E

The calculation of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in term of main idea

Indicator (Main Idea) No. Name

Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2) X2-X1

(X₁) (X₁)² (X₂) (X₂)² D(X₂-X₁) D(X₂-X1)2

1 Std 1 62,5 3906,25 62,5 3906,25 0 0

2 Std 2 25 625 37,5 1406,25 12,5 156,25

3 Std 3 37,5 1406,25 62,5 3906,25 25 625

4 Std 4 25 625 25 625 0 0

5 Std 5 62,5 3906,25 87,5 7656,25 25 625

6 Std6 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

7 Std7 50 2500 87,5 7656,25 37,5 1406,25

8 Std8 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

9 Std9 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

10 Std10 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

11 Std11 50 2500 100 10000 50 2500

12 Std12 50 2500 50 2500 0 0

13 Std13 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

14 Std14 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

15 Std15 62,5 3906,25 50 2500 -13 169

16 Std16 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

17 Std17 62,5 3906,25 62,5 3906,25 0 0

18 Std18 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

19 Std19 62,5 3906,25 87,5 7656,25 25 625

20 Std20 25 625 25 625 0 0

21 Std21 62,5 3906,25 37,5 1406,25 -25 625

22 Std22 62,5 3906,25 87,5 7656,25 25 625

Total 1200 68.995 1537.5 119.531.25 337 12.356.5

APPENDIX F

The calculation of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in term of supporting details

Indicator ( Supporting Details ) No. Name

Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2) X2-X1

(X₁) (X₁)² (X₂) (X₂)² D(X₂-X₁) D(X₂-X1)2

1 Std 1 62,5 3906,25 37,5 1406,25 -25 625

2 Std 2 100 10000 62,25 3906,25 -38 1444

3 Std 3 25 625 87,25 7656,25 62,25 3906,25

4 Std 4 25 625 25 625 0 0

5 Std 5 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

6 Std6 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

7 Std7 25 625 100 10000 75 5625

8 Std8 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

9 Std9 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

10 Std10 25 625 100 10000 75 5625

11 Std11 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

12 Std12 25 625 12,5 156,25 -13 169

13 Std13 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

14 Std14 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

15 Std15 62,5 3906,25 62,25 3906,25 0 0

16 Std16 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

17 Std17 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

18 Std18 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

19 Std19 100 10000 100 10000 0 0

20 Std20 12,5 156,25 12,25 156,25 0 0

21 Std21 62,5 3906,25 75 5625 12,5 156,25

22 Std22 62,5 3906,25 100 10000 37,5 1406,25

Total 1400 111250 1750 159.062.5 349 25.675.5

APPENDIX G

The calculation of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of reading comprehension in term of make conclusion

Indicator (Make Conclusion) No. Name

Pre-test ( X1) Post-test (X2) X2-X1

(X₁) (X₁)² (X₂) (X₂)² D(X₂-X₁) D(X₂-X1)2

1 Std 1 0 0 25 625 25 625

2 Std 2 25 625 25 625 0 0

3 Std 3 25 625 25 625 0 0

4 Std 4 25 625 0 0 -25 625

5 Std 5 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

6 Std6 50 2500 75 5625 25 625

7 Std7 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

8 Std8 25 625 50 2500 25 625

9 Std9 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

10 Std10 25 625 25 625 50 2500

11 Std11 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

12 Std12 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Std13 50 2500 75 5625 25 625

14 Std14 25 625 25 625 0 0

15 Std15 25 625 25 625 0 0

16 Std16 50 2500 50 2500 0 0

17 Std17 50 2500 50 2500 0 0

18 Std18 50 2500 75 5625 25 625

19 Std19 25 625 75 5625 50 2500

20 Std20 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Std21 25 625 50 2500 25 625

22 Std22 25 625 25 625 0 0

Total 600 21250 975 59375 425 19375

APPENDIX H

CALCULATING MEAN SCORE

1. The Mean Score Of Students’ Pre-Test And Post Test In Literal Comprehension Focused Main Idea

A. The mean score of students’ pre-test ∑

b. the mean score of students’ post-test ∑

2. The Mean Score Of Students’ Pre-Test And Post-Test In Literal Comprehension Focused On Supporting Details.

a. The mean score of students’ Pre-test ∑

b. The mean score of students’ post-test ∑

,54

3. The mean score of students’ pre-test and post-test in interpretative comprehension focused on make conclusions

a. The mean score of students’ pre-test ∑

b. The mean score of students’ post-test ∑

APPENDIX J

1. Calculations the T-test Analysis

A. Calculating the T-test Analysis of Literal Comprehension Focused on Main Idea

D t = √^∑^∑

15,31

t =

√

15,31

t =

√

15,31 t =

√

15,31 t =

√

15,31 t = √ t = t = 3,88

B. Calculating the T-test Analysis of literal comprehension focused on main idea

D √

∑

15,86 √

15,86

√

15,86 √

15,86

√

t =

√

t =

2,40

C. Calculating the T – test Analysis of Interpretative Comprehension Focused on Make Conclusion

t =

√

19,31

t =

√

19,31

t =

√

19,31

t =

√

19,31 t = √ t =

t = 3,93

APPENDIX I

1. The Improvement of Students’ Score in Literal Comprehension Focused on Main Idea

p =

x 100%

p =

x 100%

p = 28,12%

2. The Improvement of Students’ Score in Literal Comprehension Focused on Supporting Details

p =

x 100%

p =

x 100%

p = 25%

3. The Improvement of Students’ Score in Interpretative Comprehension Focused on Make Conclusion

p = x 100%

p =

x 100%

p = 62,48%

APPENDIX K

TABLE DISTRIBUTION OF T-VALUE a (for two groups sample)

\df

0, 50 0,20 0,10 0,05 0,02 0,1

a (for two groups sample)

0,25 0,10 0,05 0,02 0,01 0,005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1,000 0,816 0,765 0,741 0,727 0,718 0,711 0,706 0,703 0,700 0,697 0,695 0,694 0,692 0,691 0,690 0,689 0,688 0,688 0,687

3,078 1,886 1,638 1,533 1,476 1,440 1,415 1,397 1,383 1,372 1,363 1,356 1,350 1,345 1,341 1,337 1,333 1,330 1,328 1,325

6,314 2,920 2,353 2,132 2,015 1,943 1,895 1,860 1,833 1,812 1,796 1,782 1,771 1,761 1,753 1,746 1,740 1,734 1,729 1,725

12,706 4,303 3,182 2,766 2,571 2,447 2,365 2,306 2,262 2,228 2,201 2,178 2,160 2,145 2,132 2,120 2,110 2,101 2,093 2,086

31,821 6,965 4,541 3,747 3,365 3,143 2,998 2,896 2,821 2,764 2,718 2,681 2,650 2,624 2,623 2,583 2,567 2,552 2,539 2,528

63,657 9,925 5,841 4,604 4,032 3,707 3,499 3,355 3,250 3,169 3,055 3,055 3,012 2,977 2,947 2,921 2,898 2,878 2,861 2,845

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 40 60 120

0,66 0,686 0,685 0,685 0,684 0,684 0,684 0,683 0,683 0,683 0,681 0,679 0,677 0,674

1,323 1,321 1,319 1,318 1,316 1,315 1,314 1,313 1,311 1,310 1,303 1,296 1,289 1,282

1,721

1,717 1,714 1,711 1,708 1,706 1,703 1,701 1,699 1,697 1,684 1,671 1,658 1,645

2,080 2,074 2,069 2,064 2,060 2,056 2,052 2,048 2,045 2,042 2,021 2,000 1,980 1,960

2,518 2,508 2,500 2,492 2,485 2,479 2,473 2,467 2,462 2,457 2,423 2,390 2,358 2,326

2,831 2,819 2,807 2,797 2,787 2,779 2,771 2,763 2,756 2,750 2,704 2,660 2,617 2,676

APPENDIX L DOCUMENTATION

Dalam dokumen the use of fix-up strategy to improve the students (Halaman 66-89)