TEXT READABILITY OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL’S TEXTBOOKS.

(1)

i ABSTRACT

Agustina, Makhraini. Registration Number: 8146112021. Text Readability of Senior High School’s Textbooks. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2016

The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the levels of text readability of Senior High School’s textbooks, (2) to select the highest and the lowest level of Text Readability and Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in the textbooks, and (3) to describe how the text readability is represented in those textbooks. The study was conducted by using descriptive qualitative method, particularly in content analysis. The sources of data were two English language textbooks; they are published by Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia 2014 and Erlangga. The data were12 texts from different publishers. In Erlangga’s textbook are 6 texts and in Kemendikbud are also 6 texts. All of the selected texts were analyzed by using Flesch Reading Ease Formula and Eggins’ Formula. The Flesch Reading Ease Formula is used to know the highest and the lowest level of the readability, while the Eggins’ Formula is used to know the highest and the lowest level of Grammatical Intricacy (GI), by seeing which one are the dominant, Simple Clause or Complex Clause. The results of this study were (1) the level of text readability in Erlangga’s textbook is easy and in Kemendikbud’s textbook is also easy. (2) a) the highest level of text readability on FRE Score in Erlangga’s textbook is text 6(narrative text) and the lowest level is text 2(descriptive text); however the highest level in Grammatical Intricacy is text 2(descriptive text) and the lowest level is text 3 (descriptive text), b) the highest level of text FRE Score in Kemendikbud’s textbook is text 5(recount text) and the lowest level is text 3(descriptive text). However, the highest level in Grammatical Intricacy is text 2(descriptive text) and the lowest level is text 6(narrative text). (3) In Erlangga’s textbook, there are 6 texts. Text 1 has simple grammar and short sentences (94.6/very easy);Text 2 has complex grammar and long sentences (54.2/fairly difficult);Text 3 has simple grammar but long sentences and words (87/easy); Text 4 has partially long sentences and partially short sentences (81.6/easy); Text 5 has short sentences and simple grammar (93.1/very easy); Text 6 has short sentences and simple grammar (97/very easy). In Kemendikbud’s textbook there are 6 texts. Text 1 has simple grammar and short sentences (94.1/very easy); Text 2 has complex grammar and quite long sentences (67.5/standard); Text 3 has a very complex grammar and very long sentences (58.3/fairly difficult); Text 4 has simple grammar and short sentences (86.7/easy); Text 5 has simple grammar and short sentences (99.6/very easy); and Text 6 has simple grammar and short sentences (87.2/easy). The conclusions were the reading materials in Erlangga’s textbook are more readable than in Kemendikbud’s textbook. Keywords : Readability, Textbooks, Grammatical Intricacy

(2)

ABSTRAK

Agustina, Makhraini. NIM: 8146112021.Text Readability of Senior High School’s Textbooks. Thesis: Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2016

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah (1) untuk menemtukan tingkat keterbacaan dalam buku SMA, (2) untuk memilih tingkat tertinggi dan terendah dalam keterbacaan dan kerumitan tata bahasa di buku SMA, (3) untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana keterbacaan itu ditunjukkan dalam buku SMA. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif deskriptif, khususnya dengan menggunakan analisis isi. Sumber datanya adalah dua buku Bahasa Inggris yang diterbitkan oleh Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia 2014 dan Erlangga. Datanya adalah 12 teks dari penerbit yang berbeda. Di buku Erlangga ada 6 teks, dan di buku Kemendikbud juga ada 6 teks. Semua teks yang terpilih dianalisis dengan menggunakan Formula Flesch Reading Ease dan Formula Eggins. Formula Flesch Reading Ease digunakan untuk mengetahui tingkat tertinggi dan terendah pada keterbacaan, sedangkan Formula Eggins digunakan untuk mengetahui tingkat tertinggi dan terendah pada kerumitan tata bahasa, dengan melihat manakah yang lebih dominan, Simple Klausa atau Kompleks Klausa. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah (1) tingkat keterbacaan di buku Erlangga adalah mudah dan di buku Kemendikbud juga mudah. (2) a) tingkat keterbacaan tertinggi pada Skor FRE di buku Erlangga adalah teks 6 (teks naratif) dan tingkat terendah adalah teks 2 (teks deskriptif); tetapitingkat tertinggi dalam kerumitan tata bahasa nya ada pada teks 2 (teks deskriptif) dan tingkat terendah ada pada teks 3(teks deskriptif), b) tingkat keterbacaan tertinggi pada skor FRE di buku Kemendikbud adalah teks 5(teks recount) dan tingkat terendah adalah teks 3(teks naratif). Tetapi, tingkat tertinggi pada kerumitan tata bahasa nya ada pada teks 2(teks deskriptif) dan tingkat terendah ada pada teks 6(teks naratif). (3) di buku Erlangga ada 6 teks. Teks 1 memiliki tata bahasa yang simple dan kalimat yang pendek (94.6/sangat mudah); Teks 2 memiliki tata bahasa yang rumit dan kalimat yang panjang (54.2/agak sulit);Teks 3 memiliki tata bahasa yang simple tetapi memiliki kalimat dan kata yang panjang (87/mudah); Teks 4 memiliki sebagian kalimat yang panjang dan sebagian lagi kalimat yang pendek (81.6/mudah); Teks 5 memiliki kalimat yang pendek dan tata bahasa yang simple (93.1/sangat mudah); Teks 6 memiliki kalimat yang pendek dan tata bahasa yang simple (97/sangat mudah). Di buku Kemendikbud juga ada 6 teks. Teks 1 memiliki tata bahasa yang simple dan kalimat yang pendek (94.1/sangat mudah); Teks 2 memiliki tata bahasa yang rumit dan kalimat yang agak panjang (67.5/standard); Teks 3 memiliki tata bahasa yang sangat rumit dan kalimat yang sangat panjang (58.3/agak sulit); Teks 4 memiliki kalimat yang pendek dan panjang dan menggunakan tata bahasa yang simple (86.7/mudah); Teks 5 memiliki kalimat yang pendek dan tata bahasa yang simpel (99.6/sangat mudah); dan Teks 6 memiliki tata bahasa yang simpel dan kalimat yang pendek (87.2/mudah). Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa buku Erlangga lebih terbaca daripada buku Kemendikbud.

(3)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the Almighty who has given her blessing health, strength and patience in the process of her study until completing this thesis with the title Text Readability of Senior High School’s Textbooks as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan.

This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence without the help of many great people. The writer would like to express her gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd and Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd as her first and second adviser for their generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on supervising and guiding this thesis.

The writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M. Ed., and the secretary Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum and the staff, Farid Ma’ruf who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process of her study in the postgraduate program. Then, her thanks to all the lecturers of the English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan who have given their valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.

Thanks are due to her thesis proposal reviewers and examiners, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M. Ed and Dr. Zainuddin, M. Hum for their helpful commentaries and constructive suggestions to make her thesis better than before.

An unexpressible gratitude to her beloved parents, Hj. Linny Rustina Nasution, M. Hum and Endamora Parmata Daulay, for their love, patience, prays, and supports

(4)

financially and mentally in encouraging the writer to finish her study. Then to her beloved sister Enni Sahmora Daulay, S. Pd for her suggestions and supports in finish this thesis. A very special thanks to all of her best friends in LTBI B 1, Sartika Dewi Harahap, Hajar Affiah, Jien Rizki Magsara Rumahorbo, Frida Dian Handini, Orli Binta Tumanggor, Ina Swari Sijabat, Nur Alfi Syahri, Nurlaili Khaira Khalid, Edward Wilson Purba, Afer Jayanti Mendrofa, Isrami Andika Pebianti, Bahrin Simamora, Mairtati Dewi, Gabby Maureen Pricilia, Rahmat Huda, Saddam Syarif Nasution, Pranata Royganda Sihaloho, and Tita Nirmaliya Ginting, for their supports, sincere, love and help to the writer until finishing her study. And also the writer offers her regards and blessings to all of her friends in LTBI B 2 especially for Rika Dessy Nopa Sitepu and Matrejo, and all of her friends in UNIMED.

Medan, 2 Agustus 2016 The writer

Makhraini Agustina Reg. number: 8146112021

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………. i

ABSTRAK ……….. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……… v

LIST OF TABLES ... vii

LIST OF FIGURE ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2The Problems of the Study ... 5

1.3The Objectives of the Study ... 6

1.4The Scope of the Study ... 6

1.5The Significance of the Study ... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8

2.1Reading ... 8

2.1.1 The Nature of Reading ... 9

2.1.1.1 Process and Product ... 9

2.1.1.2 Levels of Understanding ... 10

2.2 Text Readability ... 11

2.2.1 Grammatical Intricacy (GI) ... 14

2.2.1.1 Clause ... 16

2.2.1.2 Clause Complex ... 17

2.2.2 The Characteristics of Text Readability ... 17

2.2.2.1 High Readability Level ... 17

2.2.2.2 Low Readability Level ... 18

2.2.3 The Flesch Reading Ease Formula ... 18

2.3 Paragraph ... 21

2.4 Sentence ... 22

2.5 Word ... 23

2.6 Textbook ... 24

2.6.1 The Characteristics of Senior High School’s Textbooks ... 25

(6)

2.6.1.2 The Textbook published by Kemendikbud RI 2014 ... 27

2.6.2 Text ... 28

2.6.2.1 Linking of units of information... 30

2.6.2.2 Ambiguity ... 30

2.6.2.3 Contextual (background) knowledge ... 32

2.6.3 Types of genre ... 32

2.6.3.1 Narrative ... 33

2.6.3.2 Recount ... 35

2.6.3.3 Descriptive ... 36

2.7 The Relevant Studies ... 36

2.8 Conceptual Framework ... 40

CHAPTER IIIRESEARCH METHOD ... 43

3.1Research Design... 43

3.2The Data and Source of Data ... 43

3.3The Technique of Data Collection ... 44

3.4The Technique of Data Analysis... 45

3.5The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 46

CHAPTER IV THE DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 50

4.1 The Data ... 50

4.2 Data Analysis ... 50

4.2.1 The Calculations of Text Readability and Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in Erlangga’s textbook ... 51

4.2.2 The Calculations of Text Readability and Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in Kemendikbud’s textbook ... 55

4.3 Findings... 59

4.4 Discussions ... 61

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 64

5.1 Conclusion ... 64

5.2 Suggestion ... 65

REFERENCES ... 66 APPENDICES

(7)

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Pages Table 2.1 The Flesch Reading Ease Score ……… 19 Table 4.1 The Flesch Reading Ease Score and GI Level of Erlangga’s

textbook ……….. 51

Table 4.2 The Explanation of each text in Erlangga’s textbook ……….. 54 Table 4.3 The Percentage of Text Readability in Erlangga’s textbook ………… 55 Table 4.4 The Flesch Reading Ease Score and GI Level of Kemendikbud’s

textbook ……….. 55

Table 4.5 The Explanation of each text in Kemendikbud’stextbook …………. 58 Table 4.6 The Percentage of Text Readability in Kemendikbud’s

(8)

LIST OF FIGURE

Page Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework Diagram ... 42

(9)

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

Buku Bahasa Inggris Penerbit Erlangga Pages

Text 1He has Hazel Eyes………. 69

Text 2 Wakatobi Resort……… 73

Text 3 Tower of London………... 77

Text 4 My Experience………... 81

Text 5 What Happened Yesterday?………... 85

Text 6 Kelingking……….. 89

APPENDIX 2 Buku Bahasa Inggris Penerbit Kemendikbud RI 2014 Text 1 My Best Friend ……….. 95

Text 2 Tanjung Putting National Park ……….. 98

Text 3 The Secrets of Stonehenge ……… 101

Text 4 Meeting My Idol ……… 105

Text 5 Keeping a Diary ………. 109

(10)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

Reading is an essential part to success in school and lifelong learning. It is crucial because students need to read to improve their vocabulary and communication skills. It clearly shows that reading understanding is needed by students to get success in academic. It is an important skill for success in the 21st global century.

The ability to comprehend ideas and information effectively expressed by others in writing depends on good reading skills. The level of language used in teaching and in textbooks play a major role in the academic success of learners. Reading is a process of transfer knowledge from text (the author) to the reader. In order to convey the message from the writer to be understood by the reader.

Reading as an important part in getting successful in academic is difficult for students. It can be seen from the Daftar Kumpulan Nilai (SMA Negeri 1 Medan: 2015) the students’ scores of reading are still low, the average of their score is 60, meanwhile the standard minimum of reading is 75. It is clear that students’ reading is low, and the curriculum expectation is not achieved yet. There are many factors which cause students’ reading ability is low, such as the textbook which is difficult to be understood, low readability of textbook, inappropriate teaching methods and students’ interest, etc.

Since reading is crucial to academic success, textbook is also a crucial teaching and learning material composed of text and/or images that is used in many schools for facilitating sequences of learning activities. Therefore, the role

(11)

of textbook is dominant in the teaching and learning process because it is developed on the curriculum, so it can be useful as a guideline either for the teachers or the students. So, textbooks should be readable to learners to make the teachers’ intent transmittable to the intended learners.

Textbooks have many texts that should be read and learned by students. Every text has different length of sentences and words. The sentences length, the words length, unfamiliar words and grammatical complexity (intricacy) make the text is difficult to understand. According to Nababan (2003: 72), the average sentence length is 14 belong to the category of quite easy. Grammatical complexity in the text can lead the students have difficulty in understanding the text. Textbook discourse with a high level of legibility will support the achievement of education quality. The texts are difficult to read means it has low readability levels, those that are easy to read have high readability levels. As Sakri (1993: 135) defines that a text which has a high readability level is easy to understood, and on the contrary, text in a low readability level is difficult to be understood.

In addition, Chavkin (1997) identifies that the most strongly associated factors to readability are word difficulty and sentence length. One factor which makes reading material unreadable is the complexity of language. In a way of difficulties in reading, automatically, the students will hard to find the main ideas and answer some questions from the text.

The low readability of the English reading textbook, such as grammatical complexity and the length of sentences or words which cause low text readability can be seen from the example below.

1) What do the findings at Durrington Walls have to do with Stonehenge? Parker Pearson believes there is a connection between the two places

(12)

and he cites his recent studies of the Malagasy cultures in Madagascar. (Taken from Reading Text 4 entitled “The Secrets of Stonehenge”, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia, 2014) 2) This is called a park, but unlike any park that you have seen in your

city, this is a jungle! It is a real jungle, which is home to the most incredible animals in the world: orang utans and proboscis monkeys! The male proboscis monkeys are interesting because they have enormous snout. (Taken from Reading Text 2 entitled “Visiting Ecotourism Destination”, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia, 2014)

From the example (1), it can be seen that the sentences are too long, it makes the students difficult to understand easily. From the example (2), it can be seen that the sentences are too complex, it causes difficult for many students to understand easily what the intention of the sentence is. Actually the sentences can be separated by cutting clause per clause to make the readers understand.

The other factor is the inappropriate text to students’ level. It cause students cannot read a text because it does not reach students’ grade or level. The text in a textbook is not suitable for their grade and it is complicated for them. As a result, they do not understand what the content of the text is and they will be difficult to answer some questions of the text.

The text must be suitable for the students, as Flesch (1948) stated in his readability score, the suitable level for Senior High School’s students depends on the text. If in the score the text show that it is suitable for students‘ grade or level, it means that they can learn and understand it easily. Therefore, the authors of textbook must be concern to the text that they write, to make it suitable for the students’ grade or level.

It is clear that the textbook must have high readability to get success in academic and learning process. The text which has high readability according to Dubay (2004:2) states that the criteria of high readability applied in text must be: use short sentences or words, simple sentences or words, put some familiar words,

(13)

avoid jargon, use culture and gender-neutral language, use correct grammar, punctuation and spelling, active voice and present tense, begin instructions in the imperative mode by starting sentences with an action verb, use simple graphic such as bulleted lists and number steps to make information visually accessible.

Fulcher (1997) asserted that readability is one of important considerations for all those who need to provide the suitability of a given text for a pedagogic purpose, which is more practically oriented. Sometimes, the reading materials presented in the English textbooks are too easy, so that the sudents get bored. On the other hand, some textbooks include the reading materials that are too difficult for students. It will make the students frustrated, so that they cannot understand the material faster and easier. It is because the readers (students) are very concerned with text readability. As Neil (1992:212) stated that the students’ success in understanding a passage depends more on what they already know about topic. Each age level (grade) needs different readability in understanding the text. Hence, the readability of text need to understand in each level. Readability of text is very different from primary until Senior High School’s students.

Readability studies aim to analyze texts to find the right fit between students and texts. In previous research about Readability Level of Science Book for Junior High School Year VIII in English Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Surakarta (2014), it is found that the lexis used contain of many unfamiliar and new words for the students. In terms of grammatical complexity of the sentence it is found that the complexities are quite high with an average sentence length of 14 words per sentence. The complexity of lexis and

(14)

grammar in the book Science affects the students understanding, although the students have a good enough background of English mastery.

In conclusion based on the results of the research is the Science book: Students book for Junior High School Year VIII levels is less appropriate for Junior High School’s students. The level of complexity of the sentence in the book is suitable with the level of students, but the lexis used, foreign and new words, causes the students difficult in understanding the existing discourse in the book.

It is clear that readability is an important issue and finding the right fit between students’ reading ability and text difficulty is an important and challenging task for teachers (Armbruster : 1984). So, textbook plays an important role in academic success. As mentioned before that the textbook must be readable to make students can be successful in learning process. It means that text readability is crucial in students’ academic success. Based on the reasons above, the researcher wants to investigate text readability of Senior High Schools’ textbooks. The researcher will research about the readability and the Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in a reading text.

1.2The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the following questions are forwarded as the research problem:

1. What are the levels of text readability of Senior High School’s textbooks?

2. What kind of text are the highest and the lowest level of text readability and Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in the textbooks?

(15)

3. How is text readability represented in the selected texts in Senior High School’s textbooks?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are:

1) to investigate the levels of text readability of Senior High School’s textbooks.

2) to select the highest and the lowest level of text readability and Grammatical Intricacy (GI) in the textbooks.

3) to describe how the selected texts are represented in Senior High School’s textbooks.

1.4The Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is limited on the textbooks. There are many textbooks that can be used in Senior High School, such as Erlangga, Yrama Widya, Yudhistira, Tiga Serangkai, Grafindo, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia 2014, etc. However, the researcher only choose two of them, they are Erlangga and Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia 2014, because those textbooks are used by the students and teachers in teaching and learning process and it is based on the curriculum 2013. Besides, there are some problems that faced by the students, such as sentences length, words length, the complexities of grammar and unfamiliar words.

1.5 The Significance of the Study

A study which is designed to cover some intended result should have the significances. The findings of this study deals with two main significances, theoretical and practical significances.

(16)

Theoretically, the readability of a text can be applied in Senior High Schools’ textbooks. Text readability refers to how easily a written text can be read and understood. Sometimes, a textbook contains of sentences length, words length and unfamiliar words, it makes the students difficult to understand.

Practically, the findings are expected to be useful for :

1. the teachers, who wants to match the textbooks with the grade level of students by counting the formula of text readability.

2. the students, to know what kind of text that appropriate for them by using readability formulas and Eggins’ formula.

3. the writers/publishers, in order to design the appropriate textbooks for students’ grade, particularly for 10th

grade. And also to design the appropriate text as their knowledge about Grammatical Intricacy based on the Eggins’ Formula.

4. the researchers, as their reference to investigate text readability in a textbooks, especially in Senior High School’s textbooks.

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

The study is conducted to find and compare the readability level of two English language textbooks used in the tenth grade of Senior High School. The textbook are published by Erlangga (Buku Penilaian Autentik/Bupena) and Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia 2014. Based on the analysis in the previous chapter, the results of the study shows that the two textbooks have different readability score based on Flesch Reading Ease Formula.

Based on the analysis, the conclusions are stated as the following:

1. The reading materials in Erlangga’s textbook are more readable than in Kemendikbud’s textbook.

2. a) The highest level in Erlangga’s textbook based on the Flesch Reading Ease Score is narrative text and the lowest level is descriptive text. However, based on Eggins’ Formula the highest and the lowest level are descriptive text.

b) In Kemendikbud’s textbook based on the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the highest level is recount text and the lowest level is narrative text. However, based on the Eggins’ Formula the highest level is descriptive text and the lowest level is narrative text.

3. The text that has long sentences, long words, complex grammar, complex clause and unfamiliar words; it was categorized as low readability. Meanwhile, the text that has short sentences, short words, simple grammar, simple clause and familiar words; it was categorized as high readability.

(18)

5.2 Suggestion

It is suggested to those who concerned with the text readability of Senior High School’s textbook, particularly:

1. For the teachers, the result of the score can help them to select the reading material that appropriate for their students. If the reading materials is match to the students’ grade, they will be motivated to read the text, so that the reading comprehension can be achieved.

2. For textbooks writers and publishers, it will help them to conceptualize the material that match to the students’ grade.

3. For the students, they can calculate the text readability using readability formulas by themselves. The purpose is to know the suitable text for them. 4. For the researchers, as their reference to investigate text readability in all

(19)

REFERENCES

Agnihorti, R.K., & Khanna, A.L. 1992. Evaluating the readability of school text books: An Indian study. Journal of Reading 35, 282-288.

Alderson, J. C. 2001. Assesing Reading. United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press

Anderson, M & Anderson, K. Text types in English. London Macmillan. 2003 Anderson, J. C. 2000. Assessing Reading. Retrieved November 2nd. 2011. Taken

from www.englishaustralia.com.au

Ardini, L . 2010. “Pengaruh Kompetensi, Independensi, Akuntabilitas, Dan Motivasi Terhadap Kualitas”. Majalah Ekonomi. No.3 Desember 2010. Hal 329-349.

Armbruster, R.B. 1984. The Problem of “inconsidered text”. In: DUFFY, G.C.,

ROEHLER, L. & MASON. J. (Eds.) Comprehension instruction, perspectives and suggestions. New York: Longman

Bailey, K. 1994. Methods of Social Research. Fourth edition. New York: The Free Press

Bailin, A & Grafstein, A. 2015. Readability : text and context. Palgrave

Macmillan St Martin’s Press LLC,175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY

10010.

Bogdan, R. C & Biklen, S.K. 1992. Qualitive Research for Education. An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chavkin, L. 1997. Readability and reading ease revisited: State-adopted science textbooks. The Clearing House. 70 : 3-10

Dale, E. & Chall, J. S. 1949. The concept of readability. Elementary English, 26, 23.

Davies, A. 2002. Dictionary of Language Testing. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Denzin & Lincoln. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication

Dubay, W. H. 2004. The principles of readability. California: Impact Information. Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Second

Edition. New York-London: MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall

Essem Educational Limited, 2007. Readability: How readable are your texts. Retrieved from www.readability.biz/indices.html, on 13/2/13

Flesch, R. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233.

(20)

Fulcher, G. 1997. Text difficulty and accessibility: Reading formulae and expert judgement. System 4, 404-519.

Funk & Wagnalls. 1972. Finding Information from Textbook. London : Longman Gray, W. S. 1960. The major aspects of reading. In H. Robinson (ed), Sequential

development of reading abilities (Vol. 90, pp. 8-24). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Deakin University

Halliday, M.A.K., and Matthiesen, C. 2004. An Introduction to functional grammar. (3rd edition). London: Arnold

Janan, D. & Wray. D. 2013. Exploring the Readability of Assessment Tasks: The Influence of Text and Reader Factors. Journal of Educational Research Vol. 3 No. 1 February 2013 pp. 69-95

Klare, G. R. 1963. The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University Press Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park,

California: Sage Publications.

Lunsford, A & Robert C. 2003. The St. Martin’s Handbook, Annotated Instructor’s Edition. 5th Ed. New York: St. Martin’s.

McLaughlin, G. H. 1969. “SMOG grading – a new readability formula”. Journal of Reading 22:639-646

Moleong, L. J. 1992. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya

Morley, G. D. 2000. Syntax in Functional Grammar: an introduction to lexicogrammar in systemic linguistics

Neil, M. J. 1992. Reading Comprehension. Harper Collins Publisher. USA

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publisher

Payne, G. & Payne, J. 2004. Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 532 pp

Pikulski, J. 2002. The Journal of Reading Behavior. University of Delaware Houghton Mifflin Company. USA

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. 1992. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Richards. J. C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press

Rosenblatt, L. 2004. The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, and N.J. Unrau (Eds). Theoretical models and processes of

(21)

reading (5th ed., p. 1363-1368). Newmark, DE: International Reading Association

Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed, p. 1149-1180). Newmark, DE.

Rumelhart, D.E. 2004. Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Sakri, A. 1993. Daftar Kata Bahasa Indonesia. Bandung : ITB

Siahaan, S & Shinoda, K. 2008. Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta : Graha Ilmu Slobin, D.I. 1979. Psycholinguistics. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman

Stephens, C. 2000. All about Readability. Retrieved from http://www.plainlanguage.com>newreadability

Stiggins, R. J. 1987. Design and Development of Performance Assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,6: 33-42

Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Tulip, D. & Cook, A. 1991. Comparison of Author Intentions and Student Perceptions about Textbook Characteristics. Netherland: Springer Ur, Penny. 1999. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. UK:

Cambridge University Press

Urquhart, A. H. 1992. Draft band descriptors for reading (Reports to the IELTS Research Committee). Plymouth: College of St Mark and St John.

Van Dijk, T. 1977. Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.

Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

(1)