The Effect of KWL Strategy, QARs Strategy, and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
Rita Meutia1*
1 English Applied Linguistics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 September 2021 | Published: 1 October 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: KWL and QARs are two teaching strategies which activate prior knowledge, retrieve information, and provoke students’ curiosity. Although both strategies have different procedures, they affect students’ reading comprehension achievement. To know the effect of both strategies and curiosity on students’ reading comprehension achievement, an experimental research with Two-Way ANOVA analysis is carried out. The data analysis of 120 students of SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, North Sumatera, Indonesia, shows that: (1) The students taught by KWL strategy have higher achievement in reading comprehension than those taught by QARs strategy (the mean score of group 1 is 74.2 while the mean score of group 2 is 73.3 with Fobserved = 6.74>Ftable = 3.92 at significance level = 0.05), (2) The students with high curiosity have higher achievement in reading comprehension than those with low curiosity (the mean score of group having high curiosity is 82.8 while the mean of group having low curiosity is 64.7 with Fobserved = 5.91>Ftable = 3.92 at significant level
= 0.05), (3) There is significant interaction between these two teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ reading comprehension achievement (Fobserved = 4.70>Ftable = 3.92 at significant level = 0.05). Among all variables tested by Tuckey-Test, the students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy and the students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy show the most significant interaction (Qobserved = 21.9>Qtable = 2.76 and Qobserved
=21.8>Qtable =2.76 at significant level = 0.05). So, KWL strategy is compatible to the students with high curiosity while QARs strategy is suitable for the students with low curiosity.
Keywords: KWL strategy, QARs strategy, curiosity
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Among other hobbies, reading becomes a great hobby which can genuinely change the life of its readers forever. People like reading for several reasons. Some read to enrich their knowledge, some read to kill boredom and get pleasure, and others read to get information.
Whatever reasons behind reading, reading will elevate one’s horizons to a higher level.
Students, principally, read to get more ideas, concepts, knowledge, and evidence (Harmer, 2001). To achive those goals, meaning extraction from the texts is needed to capture points transmitted by the writers. To accelerate such process, the teachers should not let them become independent readers. Yet, they have to find out suitable teaching strategies to increase students’
reading comprehension. Without suitable teaching strategies, it is quite difficult for the students to be informational literate. It means that the students are not only able to remember information, but they are also able to read with understanding, evaluate their ideas, and formulate creative alternatives to the questions which come accross their minds related to the texts they read.
In Indonesia, the students in Senior High School are required to know various text genres such as Recount, Explanation, Spoof, Anecdote, Analytical Exposition, Hortatory Exposition, Review, Report, or Description. This requirement is stipulated in the regulation of Minister of Education and Culture No. 24/ 2016. By learning those genres, it is expected that the students can be more explorative, creative, critical, and communicative for they know how those genres are ordered and how their ideas are alerted (Alderson, 2000). Accordingly, the detection of main ideas, explicit and implicit meanings, and additional information will be easier to be accomplished. In other words, having been exposed to text genres, the students should have better capability of decoding and comprehending the messages from the passages.
However, PISA test shows that 55 % of Indonesian students aged 16 years and above are functionally illiterate. They can read the text but they cannot comprehend the text. It is proved by their low scores in reading comprehension test (World Bank, 2018), Specifically, in SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, North Sumatera, Indonesia, most of the students’ scores in reading comprehension are still under Minimum Achievement Criteria (Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal:
KKM). The specific data can be presented as follow:
Table 1: Mean Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension Test in SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai School Year 2019/ 2020
Class Mean KKM
X 67 75
XI 66 75
XII 67 75
The data from the table show that reading comprehension scores of the students are still lower compared to KKM. This result might be controlled by reader (internal variable), or text, context, and writer (external variable). Cognition and strategy, prior knowledge, and personal characteristics of the readers refer to internal variable while the density of lexicons, the complexity of structures, modality, situational cues, and text producers refer to external variable. When the students are able to maximize the roles of both factors in comprehending a text, they will be good and strategic readers (Orasanu, 1986).
KWL (Know, Want to know, Learnt) and QARs (Question- Answer Relationships) are two teaching strategies which facilitate students to be good, strategic, and even independent readers.
KWL is very helpful in shaping independence, provoking engagement, and accelerating comprehension of the students. In K (Know) phase, prior knowledge activation takes place. In this phase, the students list all relevant information and ideas which they have known and experienced associated with the topic. Next, in W (Want to know) phase, expectation of new knowledge or experience acquisition related to the topic is elaborated. In this phase, the students may list their expectation as much as they can for they will be confronted to the results of learning after class time. L (learnt), as the last phase, covers students’ reflection on holistic process of learning. In this reflective phase, the students list all new experience or knowledge gained after reading the passage. When the students find gaps among phases, the teacher, as facilitator, facilitates their needs by reinforcing some crucial points or facilitating class sharing in meaningful way. Since KWL is a student- centered strategy, the students are more active than the students (Ogle, 1986; Hyde, 2006).
Different from KWL strategy, QARs strategy is teacher- centered. There are three steps of this strategy; reading the lines, reading between the lines, and reading beyond the lines. Reading
the lines is intended to get explicit information from the passage, reading between the line is done to discover implicit information from the passage, and reading beyond the line is meant to interpret information by using their own critical thinking. That is why the questions used in testing students’ reading comprehension in QARs strategy must cover these three steps. Hyde (2006) proposed three places of where the answers must be found; Right There (the answers to the questions are explicitly placed “Right There” in the passage), Think and Search (the answers are also placed in the passage, but they are quite harder to find because the answers are implicitly stated in the text), and On My Own (the answers will not be placed in the text but they are in students’ own heads. It depends on how the students interpret the information in the text and how they provide alternatives to convey that information). As QARs strategy is a teacher- centered strategy, the teachers have main roles in controlling students’ reading comprehension by providing series of questions. The students, in this strategy, rely on the questions provided by the teachers. They do not need to find out any information beyond the questions proposed by the teachers.
No matter how good teaching strategies are, they will not work when students do not have personal factors. Curiosity, as one of personal factors, is very beneficial in succeeding the process of students’ learning in the class. Once the students have high curiosity, they will show positive attitude and good attention to accomplish the tasks given by the teachers. In addition, they will have good awareness to control what they gain and what they assure by activating self- reflection. This self- reflection is used to confront what the students comprehend and experience from the passage to writers’ actual intention of writing that passages. Although both strategies are similar in terms of identifying and focusing attention on important information, they are different in some ways. KWL strategy is divergent (learners focus on input and process) while QARs strategy is convergent (learners focus on output/ results). Moreover, KWL strategy is student- centered (students monitor their own understanding) while QARs strategy is teacher- centered (teachers monitor students’ understanding).
Pertaining to antecedent explanations, it is clear that teaching strategies and level of curiosity affect students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Accordingly, KWL and QARs strategies, in this study, are associated with high and low levels of curiosity. Specifically, this study is aimed to examine; (1) whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension treated by KWL strategy is higher than those treated by QARs strategy, (2) whether students with high curiosity have higher achievement in reading comprehension than those with low curiosity, and (3) whether teaching startegies and curiosity have significant interaction on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
2. Literature Review
The Nature of Reading Comprehension
There are so many factors contributing to good reading comprehension. Word recognition, vocabulary development, awareness of text structure, and strategy are some factors which help readers in enhancing their ability in comprehending a text. In academic setting, reading comprehension is considered as a complicated process. The readers are not only required to comprehend the text, but they are also required to know writers’ purpose and intention in writing that text, compare information with another source of information, and use strategy to monitor their comprehension in order to infer writers’ messages literally, inferentially, or critically. In other words, the readers need to involve cognitive, decoding, and motivational processes to get good understanding when they read any text.
In classroom setting, students activate their cognitive process by involving series of conceptual, factual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge dimensions which cover the process of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson, 2001).
Remembering process is needed when the teachers want to recall students’ memory in an exact form after the teaching materials are presented. When the teachers want to test transferability, they ask the students to interpret, exemplify, classify, summarize, infer, compare and contrast, or explain what they have learnt. Such forms of transferability are connected to applying process. Moreover, when the teachers want their students to use procedures to experiment or solve the problems, applying process takes place. Executing and implementing are two examples of applying process. Those procedures are classified into Low Order Thinking Skills—LOTS (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Analyzing, evaluating, and creating processes are grouped into High Order Thinking Skills—
HOTS (Grossen, 2001; Brookhart, 2010; Barnett & Francis, 2012). They play significant roles in shaping critical and creative readers. When the students are able to break materials into constituent parts and relate them to overall structure, they have good analyzing process. This process includes differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Moreover, evaluating process is needed when the teachers ask the students to make judgement based on set criteria and standards. Checking and critiquing are two categories of cognitive process in the area of evaluating process. The hardest process, creating, requires the students to put elements together to form coherent structures. Creating is generally related to students’ previous learning experiences which train them to provide possible solution as well as its plan.
Levels of Comprehension in Reading
When the readers are capable of identifying explicit and implicit information presented in the text, they can be categorized as successful readers. Successful readers commonly train their capabilities of comprehending the text by reading the lines, between the lines, and beyond the lines. Reading the lines is associated to literal comprehension, reading between the lines is the category of inferential comprehension, and reading beyond the lines is connected to critical comprehension. Literal, inferential, and critical comprehension, then, are used by many theorists to categorize levels of comprehension (Alderson, 2000; Fisher, 2001; Danielle, 2007).
When the readers are capable of capturing the message of the writers explicitly, they have good literal comprehension. Readers at the level of literal comprehension can easily answer the questions such as “what”, “who, “where”, and “when”. The readers, in addition, are capable of recognizing the content words which represent their understanding on the whole sentences.
Commonly, the readers can identify series of evidence, definition, and other memorized contents of the text. Then, inferential comprehension is defined as the capability of constructing and predicting writers’ logical inferences. The readers, then, are capable of ordering the flows of writers’ ideas and investigating the main points conveyed by the writers based on their personal intentions. Inferential comprehension comprises the ability of the readers to combine different information from different perspectives to prevent gaps in inferring main points.
The highest level of comprehension, critical comprehension, is associated to deep comprehension. At this level, the readers are capable of making inferences, connecting the ideas coherently, understanding the motives of writers’ ideas, and concluding the message by critical and pertinent knowledge of the world. Critical comprehension, according to Fisher (2001), is tightly connected to critical thinking skills. Fisher (2001) explained that critical readers must have been critical thinkers. They have to identify ideas, expressions, reasons, assumptions, values, and intentions of the writers in order to make judgement and draw
inferences. Briefly, critical comprehension will lead the readers to evaluate stages of the process to reach holistic comprehension.
The Concept of KWL (Know, Want to know, Learnt) Strategy
KWL strategy facilitates learners to activate prior or background knowledge, recall and construe information gained from the passages, and echoe and establish personal knowledge.
KWL strategy can help the students be active readers in seeking any information from the passages (Ogle, 1986; Paris, 1987). The teachers, in this strategy, facilitate students’ learning to record their own ideas and experiences by asking them to fill K (Know) column, express their expectation related to presented text by asking them to fill W (Want to know) column, and recall information obtained after reading the text by asking them to fill L (learnt) column.
K, W, and L columns are integrated in KWL table which can be drawn as the following:
Table 2: KWL Table K (What do you know?
W (What do you want to
know?) L (What you have learnt?)
The procedures of KWL strategy are as follow:
1) Ask the students to make KWL table
2) Tell the students the topic that is going to be read. Then, ask them to fill K column with their prior knowledge about the topic (what they have already known about the topic) 3) Ask the students to note information they want and need to know from the passages by
listing them in W column
4) After the students read the passage by themselves, ask them to list what they have obtained in L column
5) Ask the students to discuss their records with their friends to find out their similarities and differences
6) Finally, check personal students’ understanding on their reading comprehension by proposing some questions to know whether their prior knowledge (in K phase), curiosity (in W phase), and findings (in L phase) fit the purpose of learning.
In short, KWL strategy helps learners be proactive and strategic readers in pre, while, and post- reading activity. Besides, this strategy also encourages the students become independent readers while the students read the passage individually and communicative and collaborative while the students discuss their findings with their friends.
The Concept of QARs (Question- Answer Relationships) Strategy
QARs strategy is developed to know how the students approach the tasks of reading passages and build their level of understanding. In QARs strategy, the students are trained to obtain literal, inferential, and critical understanding of the text. In QARs strategy, the teachers control students’ understanding by asking them several questions related to the text. In other words, the teachers guide the students to be proficient readers in reading the lines, between the lines, and beyond the lines (Raphael, 1985). Although QARs strategy is a teacher- centered strategy, the students are properly directed by clear instructions and questions. The answers to the questions provided by the teachers can be explicitly and implicitly found in one or more than one place in the text or they cannot even be found at all in the text for the answer is not text- based.
Dale (1966) and Raphael (1985) divided the process of students’ answer- seeking into three phases; Right There, Think and Search, and on My Own. In Right There phase, it is very easy for the students to find out the answers because they are in the text. In Think and Search phase, the students have to put different information on their head and associate them when it is needed because the answers to the questions may be found in more than one place. However, in On My Own phase, the students need to use their background knowledge or experiences to answer questions because the answers may not be text- based. It means that the students may produce different answers. Here, the more resourceful the students are, the more precise the answer are.
Specifically, Raphael (1985) suggested four stages used by the teachers in implementing QARs:
1) Stage 1: The students are given a passage and questions whose answers have been known. The students, in this stage, only discuss why the questions and answers represent particular relations.
2) Stage 2: The students are given other passages together with their answers. Then, they decide the relation between questions and their answers.
3) Stage 3: The students are given longer passages (75- 150 words). For each passage, there will be five questions. The students are asked to answer them and relate the questions and their answers in a group. Then, they will continue independently.
4) Stage 4: The students are given social and science chapters with 200 to 500 words. Six questions are prepared for each category. The students read the passage, respond to its questions, provide the answers, and identify their Question- Answer Relationships.
In QARs strategy, the teachers should provide equal explicit and implicit questions in order that the students can integrate clues from the passages and background knowledge or experiences.
The Nature of Curiosity
Simply, curiosity means a strong desire to learn or know something. The experts agreed that curiosity is a main ingredient in learning (Berlyne, 1960; Loewenstein, 1994). By having curiosity, learners will have high passion and appetite for knowledge, information, and understanding. In the area of reading comprehension, curiosity reflects readers’ attention to the text they read. When readers’ curiosity has been aroused, they will be pleasant to acquire knowledge, information, or ideas presented in the text. Then, the readers will broaden and deepen the scope of their understanding. Drive, Incongruity, Gap, and Tactile Theories are proposed by Jonathan (2012) to clarify the term “curiosity”.
First theory (Drive Theory) is associated to the requirement of staples foods for people to be fulfilled. In learning, this theory can explain that the more knowledge and experience the learners acquire, the more satisfied they will be in learning. So, Drive Theory is more biological in nature. The second theory, Incongruity Theory, explaines that when something works incompatible as the way it is, curiosity will be aroused. In learning, this theory determines how learners react to every infelicity. When the infelicities are minor, learners will accept them easily without much thought. But, when infelicities are major, the learners will be very curious on their causes and factors affecting them. So, the Incongruity Theory is more cognitive in nature. Then, the third theory, Gap Theory, considers curiosity as the reaction of losing something. It means that when learners find gap in knowledge or understanding, their curiosity will be provoked. The last theory, Tactile Theory, is associated to the environment. It means that environment really affects the physical engagement in changing a certain condition. The
interaction of learners and environment will encourage them to explore and search the answers for their curiosity. So, Tactile Theory is more motivational in nature.
Types of Curiosity
Berlyne (1960) divided curiosity into natural curiosity and nurtural curiosity. Natural curiosity is genetically brought by humans since they were born to the world while nurtural curiosity is gained by human during raising period. Natural curiosity is static. Humans with good natural curiosity are identified through good sociality, tolerance, initiatives, interest, enjoyment, and interaction. Moreover, nurtural curiosity is dynamic. It can be influenced by external conditions such as environment, family, or peer factors.
Specifically, in teaching and learning process, curiosity is needed to provoke learners’
readability. When they have good readability, they are eager to actively involve in any activity and task set by the teachers. Whereas, when they have no readability in learning, they are reluctant to participate in the process and the demand of task accomplishment in learning.
Dweck (2006) categorized curiosity into four types:
1) Perceptual- Diversive. This type of curiosity is inconstant. Students’ curiosity is determined by the number of environmental cues and interaction between them. This type of curiosity will stimulate students to wander through something they collide upon and take new ways to find out the alternatives and solution.
2) Perceptual- Specific. This type of curiosity makes the students want to explore new experience in learning. Commonly, this type of curiosity is affected by students’
creative thinking. In learning, they desire for new sensation directed towards answering certain questions.
3) Epistemic- Diversive. This type of curiosity is determined by exploratory behavior of students about different topic. This type of curiosity will encourage the students to pick information, store it in their mind, and compare it to another source.
4) Epistemic- Specific. This type of curiosity is marked by the desire of the students to search specific information or knowledge no matter how hard and complicated it is.
The students with good Epistemic- Specific curiosity will explore the source maximally to expand their thoughts.
In summary, curiosity is a fundamental trait to activate motivation, perceive information, learn new things, and foster learning process in a classroom. Curiosity, in classroom settings, can be maintained by varying instructional approaches, group activities and demonstration, assigning the students to solve the problems, and exposing them to various sources of learning (Driscoll, 1994).
3. Methodology
This study is carried out by applying experimental research. The design used in this study is 2x2 factorial design. This design is chosen because two teaching strategies (KWL and QARs) are compared to two levels of students’ curiosity (High and Low). The description of the design can be presented as follow:
Table 4: 2x2 Factorial Design Teaching
Strategies/
KWL (A1) QARs (A2)
Curiosity
High (B1) A1B1 A2B1
Low (B2) A1B2 A2B2
120 students of SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, School Year 2019/ 2020 are the samples of this study. They are taken randomly by using cluster random sampling technique. They are divided into 2 groups; group 1 which consists of 60 students is treated by KWL strategy and group 2 which also includes 60 students is treated by QARs strategy. To determine students’ level of curiosity, questionnaire was given before treatments. To collect the data, this study uses 2 instruments; reading comprehension test and curiosity questionnaire. Multiple choice technique is used to measure students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Then, Likert scale is used to classified the students with high or low curiosity. The validity of reading comprehension test and questionnaire is measured by Pearson Product Moment Formula while the realibility of them is measured by Kuder Richardson 20 Formula (for reading comprehension test) and Alpha Cronbach Formula (for questionnaire).
Data, Data Analysis and Discussion
From the two groups of students treated by KWL and QARs strategies, the group treated by KWL strategy had higher score than the group treated by QARs strategy. When those groups were separated into students with high and low curiosity, students with high curiosity performed better than those with low curiosity. The detailed results of students’ achievement in reading comprehension of both groups can be displayed in the following table:
Table 5: Data Description
Statistical Value A1 A2 B1 B2 A1B1 A1B2 A2B1 A2B2
N 60 60 60 60 30 30 30 30
Highest Score 92 89 90 70 92 70 89 70
Lowest Score 50 60 70 50 73 50 73 60
Mean 74.2 73.3 82.8 64.7 84.8 63.7 80.8 65.8
Median 72.3 71.5 84.6 67.1 85.7 63.6 81.07 66.3
Mode 88.1 81.2 88.3 67.1 86.4 65.3 85.8 87.5
Standard
Deviation 15.08 8.6 5.6 4.01 4.6 4.03 4.6 4.1
Variance 227.7 75.4 31.9 16.1 21.3 16.3 21.5 17.1
A1 = Group of students taught by KWL strategy A2 = Group of students taught by using QARs strategy B1 = Group of students with high curiosity
B2 = Group of students with low curiosity
A1B1 = Group of high curiosity students taught by KWL strategy A1B2 = Group of low curiosity students taught by KWL strategy A2B1 = Group of high curiosity students taught by QARs strategy A2B2 = Group of low curiosity students taught by QARs strategy
The data distributed in the table present that the highest score of students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy is 92 while the lowest score of students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy is 70, the highest score of students with low curiosity taught by KWL strategy is 70 while the lowest score of students with low curiosity taught by KWL strategy is 50, the highest score of students with high curiosity taught by QARs strategy is 89 while the lowest score of students with high curiosity taught by QARs strategy is 73, and the highest score of students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy is 70 while the lowest score of students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy is 60. Further explanations on those findings will be discussed in the next section.
Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by KWL Strategy with High and Low Curiosity
The specific data distribution of students’ achievement with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy can be presented in the following figure:
Figure 1: Histogram of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having High Curiosity Taught by KWL Strategy
Poor : <65 Moderate : 65- 74 Good : 75- 84 Excellent : 85- 100
The histogram shows that from 30 students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy, there was none of the students has poor and moderate achievement in reading comprehension. 40 % of the students (12 students) have good achievement in reading comprehension and 60 % of the students (18 students) have excellent achievement in reading comprehension.
Then, the specific data distribution of students’ achievement with low curiosity taught by KWL strategy can be displayed in the following figure:
Figure 2: Histogram of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having Low Curiosity Taught by KWL Strategy
Students with low curiosity did not perform well when they were taught by KWL strategy. The above histogram shows that none of the students has good and excellent reading comprehension achievement. In fact, There were 17 students or (56.7 %) have poor reading comprehension achievement and 13 students (43. 3 %) have moderate reading comprehesion achievement.
0 2 4 6 8 10
73-75 76-78 79-81 82-84 85-87 88-90 91-93
0 2 4 6 8 10
50-52 53-55 56-58 59-61 62-64 65-67 68-70 Score
Frequency
Score
Frequency
Those results confirm the imperative role of curiosity in implementing KWL strategy. Students with high curiosity completed the stages of KWL strategy smoothly. They activated their prior knowledge, retrieved and interpreted information from the text, and reflected and created personal knowledge easily. The activity of stimulating background knowledge and construing the text were gained by learners when they listed information in K column in pre- reading.
Reflecting personal knowledge was reached by them when W column was filled. This column accomodated the learners with forecast and hope in relation to what they want and need to learn from the passage before continuing reading. Then, recalling, interpreting, and building personal experience or knowledge were attained by learners when they filled L column. This column comprises present knowledge in post- reading. Students with low curiosity did not show good performance in the second stage (filling W column). They filled this column with limited information. When the students did not expect to know what the text concerns about, they will have passive initiatives which lead to poor comprehension.
Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by QARs Strategy with High and Low Curiosity
Frequency distribution of students’ achievement in reading comprehension having high curiosity taught by using QARs strategy can be shown in the following figure:
Figure 3: Histogram of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having High Curiosity Taught by QARs Strategy
Poor : <65 Moderate : 65- 74 Good : 75- 84 Excellent : 85- 100
The histogram explained that when students having high curiosity were taught by QARs strategy, their achievement in reading comprehension was increased. But, their results were not significant. From 30 students taught. There was still 1 student having poor reading comprehension achievement. Then, 2 students (6.7 %) were in moderate level. The students having good comprehension in reading were 17 students (56.7 %) and the numbers of students at excellent level were 10 students (33.3 %). In addition, the data distribution of students having low curiosity taught by QARs strategy is presented in the following figure:
0 2 4 6 8
73-75 76-78 79-81 82-84 85-87 88-90 Score
Frequency
Figure 4: Histogram of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having Low Curiosity Taught by QARs Strategy
The histogram showed that 12 students (40 %) had poor achievement in reading comprehension and 18 students (60 %) had moderate achievement in reading comprehension. None of the students with low curiosity had good and excellent levels of comprehension when they were exposed to QARs strategy.
As QARs strategy did not provoke students’ curiosity since the beginning of the activity, the students were not very enthusiastic to dig information from the text. They are merely tied to questions presented by the teachers. Specifically, the students only extract certain information.
Although there were so many supplementary ideas found in the text, they neglected them. Thus, whenever they face critical questions, they were in trouble to answer them. From three stages of QARs strategy, the students paid much attention to literal questions (Right There) and they paid less attention to inferential (Think and Search), and critical (On My Own) questions. Their decisions were understandable for this strategy did not facilitate them to activate their background knowledge and curiosity before reading. So, the students with high curiosity could not deeply explore the information. Though QARs strategy is intended to increase the level of reading comprehension, it will not work whenever the students do not have this exploratory behavior.
The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
Teaching strategies and curiosity are crucial factors which affect students’ achievement in reading comprehension. No matter how good and interactive teaching strategies are, they will not give significant impact to the students in state of the absense or lowness of curiosity. To investigate the interaction of those factors, Two- Way ANOVA calculation is completed:
Table 6: Two-way ANOVA with 2 X 2 Factorial Design Teaching Strategy/
Curiosity KWL QARs Total
High
n = 30
∑ X = 2543 X = 84.8
n = 30
∑ X = 2423 X = 80.8
n = 60
∑ X = 4966 X = 82.8
Low
n = 30
∑ X = 1910 X = 63.7
n = 30
∑ X = 1974 X = 65.8
n = 60
∑ X = 3884 X = 64.7 0
2 4 6 8 10 12
60-61 62-63 64-65 66-67 68-69 70-71
Score
Frequency
Total
n = 60
∑ X = 4453 X = 74.2
n = 60
∑ X = 4398 X = 73.3
n = 120
∑ X = 8850 X = 73.8
To test whether teaching strategies and levels of curiosity significantly affect students’ reading comprehension achievement, the further calculation of Two- Way ANOVA was done:
Table 7: Summary of of Two-way ANOVA Calculation Source of
variance Df SS MS Fobserved Ftable
Description ( = 0.05)
Means of
treatment 1 652687.5 652687.5 Teaching
strategies 1 9756 9756 6.74 3.92 Significant Curiosity 1 172.7 172.7 5.91 3.92 Significant Interaction 1 135.6 135.6 4.70 3.92 Significant
Error 116 3347.2 28.8
The data above showed that students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by KWL strategy is higher than taught by QARs strategy. It was proved by the mean of each group (the mean of group taught by using KWL strategy was 74.2 while the mean of group taught by using QARs strategy was 73.3). Then, Fobserved of both teaching strategies, curiosity, and interaction were higher than Ftable at level of significance = 0.05. (6.74 >3.92, 5.91 >3.92, and 4.70 >3.92).
Those results indicated that KWL strategy, QARs strategy, and curiosity had significant effect on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
To know which interaction has better achievement in reading comprehension, Tuckey- test was applied:
Table 8: Tuckey- Test Calculation
Statistical Hypotheses Qobserved Qtable
( = 0.05) Ho : μA1B1= μA1B2 Ha : μA1B1 > μA1B2 21.9
2.76 Ho : μA1B1= μA2B1 Ha : μA1B1 > μA2B1 4.1
Ho : μA2B1= μA2B2 Ha : μA2B1 > μA2B2 15.6 Ho : μA2B2= μA1B2 Ha : μA2B2 > μA1B2 21.8 Ho : μA1B1= μA2B2 Ha : μA1B1 > μA2B2 19.7 Ho : μA2B1= μA1B2 Ha : μA2B1 > μA1B2 17.8 Ho : μA1= μA2 Ha : μA1 > μA2 3.02 Ho : μB1= μB2 Ha : μB1 > μB2 18.8
The summary of Tuckey- test calculation showed that the students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy and the students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy had significant difference among others (Their Qobservedwere 21.9 and 21.8, higher than Qtable (2.76)at level of significance = 0.05). It means that KWL strategy had significant interaction when it was combined with high curiosity. On the other hand, QARs strategy had significant interaction when it was combined with low curiosity. In other words, it is suggested that the teachers use KWL strategy to the students with high curiosity and the students with low curiosity are
compatible to QARs strategy. Those alternatives will increase students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
Students’ curiosity is well- provoked in KWL strategy. The phase of W (Want to know) in KWL strategy facilitates students’ exploratory behavior to seek information or knowledge presented in the text and answer particular questions related to the text. When the students find gaps in learning in terms of what they have already known in K (Know) phase and what they expect to know in W (want to know) phase are not relevant to what they have gained in L (Learnt) phase, they will explore the text more to confirm them. Those phases, of course, will enhance curiosity to higher level which impact good reading comprehension. In case that the students have low curiosity, the teachers can implement QARs strategy by which the teachers control and force students’ comprehension by providing literal, inferential, and critical questions through Right- There, Think and Search, and On My Own stages. Briefly, both strategies significantly affect students’ achievement in reading comprehension in different ways. That is why before they are implemented to the students, the teachers should consider the students’ levels of curiosity.
4. Conclusion
KWL and QARs strategies are two teaching strategies which maximize the process of activating background knowledge, retrieving and reflecting information or knowledge.
Although both strategies impact students’ achievement in reading comprehension, they have different procedures. KWL strategy requires students’ prior knowledge activation in the beginning of reading process (in K (know) phase) while QARs strategy activates students’ prior knowledge at the end of reading activity (in On My Own) phase). Then, KWL strategy is student- centered while QARs strategy is teacher- centered. Specifically, the students activate their curiosity by themselves (in W (want to know) phase) while the teachers activate students’
curiosity by providing inferential and critical questions in Think and Search and On My Own phases.
So, the students taught by KWL strategy and having high curiosity perform better in reading comprehension. Then, there is significant interaction among KWL strategy, QARs strategy, and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Among other variables tested, the students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy and the students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy show the most significant interaction. These findings lead to the suggestion that teachers can implement KWL strategy to the students with high curiosity.
If the students have low curiosity, QARs strategy is more suitable to be implemented.
References
Alderson, C. J. (2000). Assessing Reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, L. W. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England:
Longman.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York:
Longman.
Barnett, J. E., & Francis A. L. (2012). Using Higher Order Thinking Questions to Foster Critical Thinking: A Classroom Study. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Curiosity and Learning. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom.
Alexandria, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dale, E. (1966). The Art of Reading. The Newsletter, 32 (2), 1-4.
Danielle, S. (2007). Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grossen, B. (2001). The Fundamental Skills of Higher Order Thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(6), 343-353.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Longman.
Hyde, A. (2006). Comprehending Math: Adapting Reading Strategies to Teach Mathematics.
Portsmouth: Hainemann.
Jonathan, R. (2012). The Power of Curiosity. United Kingdom: RSA Centre.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Permendikbud No. 24 Tahun 2016. Jakarta:
Direktorat Pembinaan SMA.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.
Ogle, D.M. (1986). KWL Teaching Model for Active Reader. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564- 570.
Orasanu, J. (1986). Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G. (1987). Reading and Thinking Strategies. Lexington: DC. Heath.
Raphael, T. E. (1985). Teaching Question- Answer Relationships. New Orleans: International Reading Association.
World Bank. (2018). Perkembangan Triwulanan Perekonomian Indonesia: Pendidikan untuk Pertumbuhan. Washington DC: World Bank.
