listening to the teacher or to other students answering the questions. Herry had some success taking notes, yet struggled to summarize important
concepts from the learning reading material. He also understood more if an oral discussion followed a reading session, even though he said He
stated that a good learner : ―learns a lot and use other ways to achieve the
goal .‖ Herry said that he learns at night but also he said that he does not
like to learn at home.
6. Insorakhi
Her full name is Insorakhi but some of her friend called her Sora. Sora was a quiet and positive member of the group. She was a good
listener and attempted all activities. She worked more slowly to complete her tasks but demonstrated a good effort. In March, the writer discovered
that this student had an IEP Individual Education Plan for language. As a result, the expectations in the classroom were reduced to support her
slower processing rate of language-based tasks. Others in the group, whether working independently or with a partner, could distract her.
Table 4.6 Data Collection Summary for Insorakhi
data collected Jan
Feb March
April attendance of in study
100 time in school
in class 98.5
99 reading ability
L process 65
68 L outcome
1 2 2
ss treatment LT with sc
100 statistic
LT with sk 6
miscue errors 38.9
60
indicates improvement, LT = Local Text, sc=scanning, sk=skimming Table 4.6 displays the quantifiable data collected from January to
March 2011, regarding Sora‘s reading ability attitudes and achievements. Sora showed improvement in some areas from January to March.
She made steady progress in her learning process for reading ability and she continued to show improvement in her learning outcome assessments.
There were other qualitative indicators of her improvement in the area of reading ability through local text with scanning and also
skimming. Sora said that ―reading is important and reading is interesting.‖
Sora was able to extract important information when answer the questions with scanning and skimming technique. When encouraged, Sora used her
English teacher‘ way in doing the task. She stated that she liked listening. Sora also stated that he enjoyed reading poetry in Indonesian language,
and adventures.
At first glance, her treatment statistic data in Table 4.6 makes it appear as though her interested in local text with skimming and scanning
not improve during the course of this study. Sora was the only student in the group who did not like to the task much. When the researcher asked
her about it, the writer learned she had done the entire task that given before from home and from her own classroom. Thus, she had continued
to do the task throughout the month, but did not obtain his experience from the text book. Since she did not do the tasks in class, The researcher
could not measure the change in doing skimming questions that she done during the process. The local text with skimming indicated that she liked
to do the task to get main idea than she recorded in January. The interview and the interesting toward local text with skimming thus
contradicted in her treatment statistics‘ data. The researcher felt that she
showed improvement in these areas. Sora continued to struggle with fluency when he done some texts.
She showed very little self-monitoring for understanding when doing the task during the miscue analysis tasks. She could describe some simple
ways to answer the questions correctly. Sora made more errors 60 that affected understanding of doing the task in March than she did in January
38.9. She s aid, ―it is too hard to answer the questions using why and
how‖.
7. Olivia
