THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND CURIOSITY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION.

(1)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND

CURIOSITY

ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING

COMPREHENSION

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

ANASTASIA RENOVA T. SIBUEA Registration Number: 8106112002

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2016

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, it is thankful for Jesus Christ who had given his blessing, health and luck so that I am able to finish this thesis successfully. This thesis appears in its current form also due to the assistance and guidance of several people. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all of them who made this thesis possible and unforgettable experience to me.

Then, I would like to say my sincere gratitude to my advisors Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd and Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd, who have supported me during my thesis completion with their patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. Beside my advisors, I would like to express my deep thanks to Prof. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, MS, and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed, as my reviewers and examiners for the valuable inputs to be inserted in this thesis.

Furthermore, I would like to express my high appreciation to Drs. Sangap Ginting, M.Pd as the head master of SMA Swasta Methodist Lubuk Pakam for allowing me conducting research in there. Thanks to the English teacher, Ms. Trisnawati Marpaung, SS, M.Hum, who helps me in conducting the treatment in the classroom. To all students of SMA Swasta Methodist Lubuk Pakam, especially for the Grade XI IPS 1 and XI IPS 2, thanks for the cooperative attitude and work during the research.

Acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, MS. Head and secretary of English Applied Linguistic Study Program for assistance in completing the administrative procedures, and Mr. Farid Ma’ruf as an administrator of LTBI who has given assistance in completing the

(6)

official administration to fulfill this thesis. And also all lectures who have given very valuable knowledge and science during my study at English Applied Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School of State University of Medan.

My time at LTBI UNIMED was enjoyable due to my lovely friends the member of class B LTBI XVIII that became part of my life, especially Ibu Delfina, Luhetri Muhdalifa Manalu, Julia Ratih, Hestika Ginting, Eka Dessy, Fitri Ayunisa, Ibu Hairani and the group members of line. I am grateful for the fun and memorable time we had. My gratitude is also to my partner in Sunday School HKBP P. Bulan, especially the teacher of “Horong IA”, Ms. Ida, Ms, Friska and Ms. Sondang.

Finally, I would like to express the profound gratitude from my deep heart to my beloved family; my mother, Dra. Ratna Uli Gultom; my brothers, Erick Sibuea and Tommy Sibuea for their endless love, prays and support both moral and material before, during and after my academic years at Postgraduate School Program of State University of Medan, and special my special thanks also go to Silaban’s big family, my beloved husband Rejeki Silaban, ST, my handsome boy Melkisedek Silaban and my little princess Tabita Silaban for their understanding, caring and support, without them this thesis would not have been completed.

Medan, February 2016

(7)

iii ABSTRACT

Sibuea, Anastasia R.T. 8106112002. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Program. State University of Medan. 2016.

The objectives of this study are to know whether: 1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using INSERT strategy is significantly higher than taught by using DRTA strategy. 2) Students’ achievement in reading comprehension having high curiosity is higher than having low curiosity, 3) there was interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. An experimental research with factorial design 2x2 is used in this study. There are 76 students from grade X of 2015/2016 academic year of SMA Methodist Lubuk Pakam as sample of this study. The students are divided into two groups. Each group consists of 38 students. The first group is treated by using INSERT strategy and the second group is treated by using DRTA strategy. Curiosity of the two groups is measured by giving questionnaire to classify the students having high and low curiosity. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension is measured by giving multiple choice tests. The data are analyzed by applying two-way ANOVA at the level significance α = 0.05. The finding of the data shows that: (1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using INSERT is higher than that taught by using DRTA, with Fobs (27.32) > Ftab (3.98), (2) students’

achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity was higher than those students with low curiosity with Fobs (6.92) > Ftab (3.98), (3) there was interaction

between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension with Fobs (15.43) > Ftab (3.98). After Tuckey test is done, it reveals

that students having high curiosity get higher score if they are taught by using INSERT strategy while students having low curiosity get higher scores if they are taught by using DRTA strategy.

(8)

iv ABSTRAK

Sibuea, Anastasia R.T. 8106112002. Pengaruh Strategi Membaca dan Rasa Ingin Tahu Siswa dalam Pemahaman Membaca. Tesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk menguji apakah : 1) hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi INSERT lebih tinggi dari pada yang diajarkan dengan strategi DRTA. 2) hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang memiliki rasa ingin tahu yang tinggi akan lebih baik dari siswa yang memiliki rasa ingin tahu yang rendah, 3) terdapat interakssi antara strategi pengajaran dan rasa ingin tahu siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas X SMA Methodist Lubuk Pakam T.A. 2015/2016. Jumlah populasi pada penelitian ini 152 siswa. Ada 4 kelas dan 2 kelas telah dipilih sebagai sampel. Kedua kelas ini terdiri dari 38 students, jadi jumlah sampel pada penelitian ini 76 siswa. Penelitian ini menggunakan eksperimental design dengan menggunakan factorial design 2x2. Kelas 2 diajar dengan menggunakan strategi INSERT dan kelas X-3 diajar dengan menggunakan strategi DRTA. Instrument yang digunakan untuk mengukur pemahaman membaca ialah pilihan berganda dan rasa ingin tahu siswa diukur dengan menggunakan angket untuk mengetahui tinggi rendahnya rasa ingin tahu siswa. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan ANOVA dua arahdengan level signifikan α = 0.05. berdassarkan analisa ditemukan bahwa : (1) hasil belajar siswa yang diajar dengan menggunakan strategi INSERT lebih tinggi daripada yang diajar dengan menggunakan strategi DRTA, dimana Fhitung (27.32) > Ftab

(3.98), (2) hasil belajar siswa yang memiliki rasa ingin tahu yang tinggi lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang memiliki rassa igin tahu yang rendah, dimana Fhitung

(6.92) > Ftab (3.98), (3) terdapat interaksi antara strategi pengajaran dan rassa

ingin tahu terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca, dimana Fhitung (15.43) > Ftab (3.98). Dan hasil Tuckey-test juga menunjukkan bahwa siswa

yang memiliki rasa ingin tahu yang tinggi akan mendapat hasil yang lebih tinggi jika diajar dengan menggunakan strategi INSERT sedangkan siswa yang memiliki rass ingin tahu yang rendah akan mendapat hasil yang lebih tinggi jika diajar dengan menggunakan strategi DRTA.

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………. i

ABSTRACT ……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………... v

LIST OF TABLES ……….. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ……… ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ……… x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ……….. 1

1.1 Background of the Study………. 1

1.2 Problem of the Study………... 6

1.3 Objective of the Study………. 6

1.4 Scope of the Study………... 7

1.5 Significance of the Study………. 8

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE……….. 9

2.1 Theoretical Framework……… 9

2.1.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension……….. 9

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension………. 10

2.1.3 Levels of Reading Comprehension………. 13

2.1.4 The Assessment of Reading comprehension………... 15

2.1.5 Genre………... 16

2.2 Teaching Strategies……….. 18

2.2.1 INSERT Strategy……… 20

2.2.1.1 The Procedures of INSERT Strategy………... 21

2.2.2 DRTA Strategy………... 23

2.2.2.1 The Procedures in DRTA………. 25

2.3 Curiosity……….. 27

2.3.1 Types of Curiosity……….. 29

2.3.2 High and Low Curiosity of Students in Learning……….. 32

2.4 Relevant Studies ………. 33

2.5 Conceptual Framework……… 35

2.5.1 The Differences between Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using INSERT and DRTA Strategy… 35 2.5.2 The Differences between Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension having High and Low Curiosity…………...……. 39

2.5.3 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension………... 40

(10)

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……… 43

3.1 Research Design………... 43

3.2 Population and Sample………. 44

3.2.1 Population……….... 44

3.2.2 Sample………. 44

3.3 Procedure of Treatment……… 45

3.4 Control of Treatment ………... 46

3.4.1 Internal Validity ………. 46

3.4.2 External Validity………. 48

3.5 The Instrument of Data Collection………... 48

3.5.1 Questionnaire of Curiosity……….. 49

3.5.2 Reading Comprehension Test………. 50

3.6 Instrument Validation..………. 50

3.6.1 Validity of Reading Comprehension Test………..…. 50

3.6.2 Reliability of Reading Comprehension Test………..…. 51

3.6.3 Validity of Curiosity Questionnaire……….……… 51

3.6.4 Reliability of Curiosity Questionnaire………... 52

3.7 The Technique of Analyzing Data………... 52

3.8 Statistical Hypotheses……….. 53

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION… 55 4.1 The Data Description……….. 55

4.1.1 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught by using INSERT Strategy………... 55

4.1.2 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught by using DRTA Strategy……….. 57

4.1.3 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students with High Curiosity……….………... 58

4.1.4 Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students with Low Curiosity……….………... 59

4.1.5 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity and Taught by using INSERT Strategy………. 60

4.1.6 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity and Taught by using INSERT Strategy……….….... 61

4.1.7 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity and Taught by using DRTA Strategy…………...………. 62

4.1.8 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity and Taught by using INSERT Strategy……… 63

4.2 Requirement of Data Analysis………... 64

4.2.1 Normality of the Test……….... 64

(11)

vii

4.2.2.1 Groups of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity………... 65

4.2.2.2 Groups Interaction……… 65

4.3 Testing of Hypotheses………... 66

4.3.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension that was taught By Using INSERT is Higher than by Using DRTA Strategy…….. 67

4.3.2 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity is Higher than with Low Curiosity.……….. 67

4.3.3 Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension……… 68

4.4 Discussion………. 71

4.4.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension that was taught by Using INSERT is Higher than by Using DRTA Strategy…….. 71

4.4.2 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity is Higher than with Low Curiosity.………. 73

4.4.3 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension……… 74

4.5 Limitation of Research……….. 75

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION 76 5.1 Conclusions……… 76

5.2 Suggestions ………... 76

5.3 Implications ……… 77

(12)

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Reading Comprehension Score of X Grade Level Students of SMA

Swasta Methodist Lubuk Pakam 2014/2015………... 3

Table 2.1 INSERT Chart……… 22

Table 2.2 The Differences between INSERT and DRTA as Reading Strategy……….. 26

Table 2.3 The Nature of Curiosity………. 27

Table 2.4 Characteristic of High and Low Curiosity………. 32

Table 2.5 INSERT Symbols..………. 36

Table 3.1 Factorial Research Design 2x2……….……….. 43

Table 3.2 The Procedures in reatment……… 45

Table 3.3 Specification of Students’ Curiosity……….……….. 49

Table 3.4 The Outline of the Students’ Reading Comprehension Test.……. 49

Table 3.5 The Format of Two Way ANOVA……… 52

Table 4.1 Summary of Research Data Description………... 54

Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students Taught by Using INSERT Strategy………... 55

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students Taught by Using DRTA Strategy……….. 56

Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with High Curiosity………. 57

Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with Low Curiosity………. 58

Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with High Curiosity and Taught by Using INSERT Strategy.……….... 59

Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with Low Curiosity and Taught by Using INSERT Strategy …..……….. 60

Table 4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with High Curiosity and Taught by Using DRTA Strategy .………..….... 61

Table 4.9 Frequency Distribution of the Score of Students with Low Curiosity and Taught by Using DRTA Strategy .……….. 62

Table 4.10 Summary on the Result of Normality Test ………... 63

Table 4.11 The Result of Homogeneity Variance by Using F-test…………. 64

Table 4.12 Summary on the Result of Homogeneity Test by Using Barlett Test……… 64

Table 4.13 Result of Homogeneity Test on each Sample Groups………….. 65

Table 4.14 Two –Way ANOVA……….………...……… 65

Table 4.15 Summary on Calculation Result of Two –Way ANOVA………. 66

(13)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Histogram on Student Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught by Using INSERT Strategy………... 55 Figure 4.2 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught by Using DRTA Strategy……... 56 Figure 4.3 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with

High Curiosity ……….. 57

Figure 4.4 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with Low Curiosity ……….. 58 Figure 4.5 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with

High Curiosity and Taught by Using INSERT Strategy……….. 59

Figure 4.6 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with Low Curiosity and Taught by Using INSERT Strategy.……….. 60 Figure 4.7 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with

High Curiosity and Taught by Using DRTA Strategy …………. 61 Figure 4.8 Histogram on Students Reading Comprehension Achievement with

Low Curiosity and Taught by Using DRTA Strategy ………….. 62 Figure 4.9 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Curiosity……. 67

(14)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Reading Comprehension Test…………..………... 82

Appendix B Curiosity Questionnaire………... 92

Appendix C The Validity of Reading Comprehension Test……… 94

Appendix D The Validity Reading Comprehension Test Result……… 100

Appendix E Reliability of Reading Comprehension Test………... 101

Appendix F The Validity of Curiosity Questionnaire………. 102

Appendix G The Validity Questionnaire Result………. 104

Appendix H The Reliability of Questionnaire……….……… 105

Appendix I Description of Students’ Score……….…….. 106

Appendix J Description of Basic Statistic Calculation………... 107

Appendix K Normality Test of the Data…... 113

Appendix L Homogeneity Test of Variance……… 117

(15)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

Reading has different meaning for different people. Some people read to get feeling and pleasure while the others read to get ideas and information. For students, particularly they read to have general understanding, specific and detail information (Harmer, 2003). It means that when the students read any texts, they try to understand what the words mean, see the pictures painted by the words, engage with what they are reading to respond to the content, and catch the message conveyed by the writer.

Reading is one of the four language skills in language learning. Its role is realized as very substantial not only for the language competency mastery but also for the knowledge mastery. By giving reading activity in the language learning, teacher actually has opened students’ schemata or horizon. In further condition, the knowledge they got from reading will give big impact for other language skills such as writing and speaking.

Thus, knowledge is actually the product of doing reading in the language learning which does not come suddenly without any process at the previous. The processes are started by the interaction between the readers and the text such as looking at the print, deciphering in some sense of the marks on page. Then, the readers try to think what they are reading. Next, they think what is meant to them, how it relates to other things they have read, and how they connect it with their prior knowledge so that they are able to gather the new knowledge from the text.

(16)

In fact, the knowledge will not be reached by students if they lack of comprehending a text. It is because reading is not only as the process of communication between writer and reader through written symbols in the text but also as an activity which must enable the students as the readers to grasp the information implied in the text by activating their thinking process so that the reading comprehension is earned.

It is as what is argued by Light and McNaughton (2012). They uttered that the reading comprehension is require the learner to decode or recognize by sight the words in the written text, understand the meaning of the words/sentences, relate the meaning of the sentences to the rest of the text, activate prior knowledge and experience about the topic, use this prior knowledge to infer meaning and support understanding, monitor understanding of the text continually.

Learning reading comprehension, nowadays, is a complicated task to do by the students of Senior High School since Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) requires them to know various text genres based on their levels, for example; Recount, Narrative, Procedure, Descriptive, News Item, Report, exposition, Anecdote, Spoof, Explanation, Discussion and Review. By knowing those genres, it is hoped that the students are being informational literate in terms of knowledge elevation in accordance with their needs in their lives as stated in Content Standard (Standar Isi, 2006) of KTSP. And as the evaluation, Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP) will formulate genre-based questions to test students’ reading comprehension in State – Examination (UN). Even, the reading comprehension takes dominant point among the other kinds of questions.

(17)

Form 40 questions tested, only 15 questions are aimed at testing listening skill while the rests are aimed at testing reading comprehension skill.

Those all the effort done by the government expects that students will read many texts as the preparation before facing the national examination. In further effect, it will train students about how gather knowledge from a text. This activity must be started from the daily teaching-learning process. So in hope, the students will not have difficulties in comprehending the text when they are in national examination.

The reality is that there are so many students who are able to read texts with the appropriate pronunciation but they do not know what they are reading about. It is because they do not apply the way they use when reading in their native language to reading in foreign language they are learning. They just spent their time to earn the meaning word by word, then consult the unknown vocabularies, continue with the meaning of each sentences. Actually, what it is done by them just touch the linguistic knowledge. This is actually the phenomenon teacher faced in the class included in SMA Swasta Methodist Lubuk Pakam. The phenomenon is seen in the following table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Reading Comprehension Score of X Grade Level Students of SMA Swasta Methodist Lubuk Pakam 2014/2015

Semester Means of students’ achievement in language learning

Reading Speaking Listening Writing

I 60 70 65 72

II 65 72 70 75

As long as the academic year 2014-2015, it is found that the average score of students’ achievement in reading comprehension in the first semester on 2014/2015 of school year is 60 and the second semester on 2014/2015 of school

(18)

year is 65 whereas the completeness scores of students’ achievement in reading comprehension is 75. It means that the students’ achievement in reading is still under Minimal Passing Grade Criteria (Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal: KKM)

The lowness of students’ achievement in comprehending a text is caused the students get bored directly when the text is given to them. As a result, they are less interested in further activities related with the reading text. The fact shows that strategies which are challenging the students are needed so that they are more curios in reading class.

According to Alexander (1998), reading comprehension is influenced by many factors, among others are reading material, the total program of reading instruction, the children own personality, attitudes, interest, motivation, habits and his out of school environment influence the development of reading comprehension.

It is clear that reading is not easy as people think. It is not easy to have the ability of drawing meaning from the printed page and interpret the information. That is why the teaching strategies are needed.

However, not all teaching strategies are applicable for reading comprehension. The teaching strategies needed are those are able to connect the students’ prior knowledge with the new information in given text.

One of the strategies is INSERT, this strategy stands for Interactive Notation System for Effective Reading and Thinking. It uses symbols or notation such as check mark or plus sign as a way for the reader to respond to the text while reading. It is used by relating what they know previously to new

(19)

information that is found in the text. It also helps them to identify what they do not know or are confused about text during reading.

Another strategy is DRTA (Directed Reading-Thinking Activity). This strategy based on the students centered and constructivism learning theories while the teacher as facilitator. In DRTA lesson teacher encourage to stimulus and develop the comprehension by activating students’ background knowledge, having them predictions, and answer question.

Despite of teaching strategy another factor that influence of reading comprehension is the student own personality. One of student personality that includes and related in learning process is curiosity. Curiosity, undoubtedly, is a personal factor that really affects the success of teaching and learning in the classroom. When learner’s curiosity is well provoked, they will have great wander through the tasks given by the teachers, new sensation directed towards the process of learning, positive behavior and better concentration and attention while teaching and learning process occur. Those attitudes, of course, are considered as strong motivators to facilitate cognitive, affective, and psychomotor developments in teaching and learning any skills, including reading comprehension.

Moreover, curiosity is considered to be an information-seeking process that directs and motivates learning (Loewenstein, 1994). When the students are exposed to INSERT and DRTA strategies in comprehending a text, they, actually are treated to be information seekers since they must be aware of what they know and what they believe and they must confront what they know and believe with the information conveyed by the writer in a text.

(20)

Based on the explanation above, it is believed that teaching strategies and the level of students’ curiosity significantly affect reading comprehension achievement of students. Therefore, in this study the researcher is interested in discovering the effect of INSERT and DRTA strategies in improving the students’ reading comprehension for those who have high and low curiosity.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

Based on the background above, the problems of this study are formulated in questions such as the following;

1. Is the students’ reading comprehension achievement taught by using INSERT strategy significantly higher than that taught by using DRTA strategy?

2. Is the students’ reading comprehension achievement with high curiosity higher than that with low curiosity?

3. Is there any significant interaction between teaching strategies and students’ curiosity?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In the line with the problems, the objectives of the study are:

1) to find out whether the students’ reading comprehension achievement taught by using INSERT strategy is higher than taught by using DRTA strategy.

(21)

2) to find out whether students’ reading comprehension achievement of high curiosity is higher than reading comprehension achievement of low curiosity, and

3) to find out whether there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and students’ curiosity in students’ achievement on reading comprehension.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

There are many strategies which are probably used by teacher for improving the students’ achievement in teaching reading comprehension, but in this case, the scope of the study is intended to discuss only on INSERT strategy and DRTA strategy. Dealing with these strategies, the curiosity of students will be also investigated. By knowing high and low curiosity of students this study is expected to give clearer description on the effect of teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

And the types of text that would like to be used as the sample of reading comprehension is exposition text. Since the text often appears in National Examination and mostly the students give the wrong answer to the questions on this type of the text. The students’ achievement in reading comprehension will tested deals with taxonomy of comprehension, they are: literal, inferential and critical comprehension.

(22)

8 1.5 Significance of the Study

The findings are expected to be useful for development of theory and practice. Theoretically, it is able to give positive contributions for teaching in overcoming problem in reading through value finding in the area of teaching reading. Moreover, this study will extend students’ knowledge, develop their knowledge of decoding skills and expand their ability to comprehend what they read.

Meanwhile, practically the results of this study are hoped to be useful for English teacher, especially, because it can be used as an alternative in varying the English teaching related with reading comprehension. In hope, this research will be able to change paradigm saying that reading is as boring activity. Hopefully, by these strategies reading is able to be an interesting activity to be done by anyone.

(23)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, SUGGESTION AND IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the data analysis, some conclusions are derived from meaningful of discussion of this study in the following:

1. INSERT strategy and DRTA strategy give the different effect on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension that taught by using INSERT strategy is higher than students taught by using DRTA strategy.

2. The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity is higher than that of students with low curiosity.

3. There is significant interaction between teaching strategy and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Students have high curiosity showed significant effect on their achievement in reading comprehension if they were taught by using INSERT strategy. While students have low curiosity showed significant effect on their achievement in reading comprehension if they were taught by using DRTA strategy.

5.2 Suggestions

In connection with the conclusions, some suggested stated as follows:

1. English teachers are recommended using INSERT and DRTA in reading

comprehension since both strategies can improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.`

(24)

77 2. English teachers should encourage low curiosity students to participate in

study English in order to get better achievement in reading comprehension.

3. This study only focuses on the aspect of curiosity. Meanwhile there are many aspects that can influence students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Thus, future researcher should examine other personality variables.

5.3 Implications

The findings of this study give implication to English teachers and students who want to improve their achievement in reading comprehension. This study has tested reading comprehension teaching strategies; they are INSERT and DRTA. They were applied on students have high students and low curiosity in order to know which teaching strategy are suitable for them in improving their achievement in reading comprehension.

The first result of this study showed that students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using INSERT is higher than students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using DRTA. Because INSERT strategy provides students with the ability to read and learn to apply practice of good readers, and learn to carefully observe, communicate and participate. Through INSERT students is guided to be independent learner and given freedom to improve and develop their ability. The teacher only gives direction how to use the symbols and students themselves develop their mind and hoped the students can understand all the information since learning process rather than memorization.

(25)

78 The second result of this study showed that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that high curiosity is higher than students’ achievement in reading comprehension of low curiosity. It gives implication to the English teacher that they should be aware of students’ curiosity. The identification of students’ curiosity can determine the teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different curiosity is the key to success in teaching since teachers can choose which teaching strategy is suitable to apply for students.

The third result of this study showed that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and students’ curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. It implies that any teaching strategies applied by teachers should be related to the levels of students’ curiosity. By knowing the students’ curiosity, the teachers can help their students to overcome their problem in teaching learning process. English teacher is suggested by using INSERT for high curiosity in order to improve their achievement in reading comprehension since high curiosity have their own desire that serves to activate or organize their curiosity of something by some steps that included in INSERT. For low curiosity students, English teacher is suggested using DRTA, teacher provide modeling of desired behavior, offering explanations, inviting students participation, verifying students understanding.

(26)

REFERENCES

Afdhalina. 2011. The Effect of Reading Strategies and Learning Style on the

Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Al Odwan, T. Abd.Al-Hameed. 2012. The Effect of The Directed Reading Thinking Activity through Cooperative Learning on English Secondary

Stage Students’ Reading Comprehension in Jordan. International Journal

of Humanities ans Social Science. Vol. 2 No. 16, pp. 138-151

Anderson, W.2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England:

Longman.

Alexander, J.E. 1988. Teaching Reading 3 Ed. Boston, Scott: Foresman.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2003. Prosedur penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka

Cipta.

Ary, D, Lucy C. Jacob and Asghar Razaviah. 1979. Introduction to Research in

Education. 2nd_Ed._{Holt. Rinehart and Winston.}

Berlyne, DE. 1998. Curiosity and Learning. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Blair, h and Ruplay, H. 1981. Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading 5th

Edition. Colombus: A Bell & Howell Commpany.

Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of Education Objectives, handbook I: Cognitive

Domain. New York: David McKay.

Brassel, Danny and Rasinsky, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works (Taking

Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension).

Huntington Beach: Corinne Burton.

Brown, H Douglas. 2004. Principle of Language learning and Teaching (5th

Edition). London: Longman.

Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading

Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7.

Charles, Alderson, J. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge

University.

Coldwell, Jo Anne Schudut. 2008. Comprehension Assesment. London: The

Fuilford Press.

Cunningham, P, Moore. S, Cunningham, J & Moore, D. 2000. Reading and

(27)

Danielle, S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions,

and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Diba, Fara. 2010. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

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.

Echevarria, J, Vogt, M & Short, D. 2008. Making Content Comprehensible for

English Learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Gerot, L. and Peter Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar.

Australia: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Harris, Karen. R and Graham, Steve. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to

Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Gilford.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:

Longman.

Jonathan, Rowson. 2012. The Power of Curiosity. UK: RSA.

Klingner, Janette K, Sharon Vaughn and Alison Boardman. 2007. Teaching

Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. NewYork: The Guildford Press.

Lems, K, et al. 2010. Teaching Reading to English Language Learners. New

York: The Guilford Press A Division of Guilford Publication.

Light, Janice and McNaughton, David. 2012. Literacy Instruction for Individuals

with Autism cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities.

Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University.

Loewenstein, G. 1994. The Psychology of Curiosity. A Review and

Reinterpretation 116 (1) 75-98.

Lyon, G.R. 1998. Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership,

(28)

McNeil, John. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension (New Direction for Classroom

Practice: Third Edition). New York: Harper Collins.

Moore, P.J. 1988. Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Comprehension: a Review.

Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 11, pp 3-14

Ramayani. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Techniques and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Richard, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, D. 2000. Teaching Elementary Language Arts: A Ballanced Approach (6th

edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Salkind, Neil.J. 2008. Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Vol 1&2. USA:

Sage Publication. Inc.

Saricoban, Arif. INSERT Reading Strategy Employed by ELT at the Advance

Level. Kelvin Grove: Queensland University.

Stauffer, R. G. 1969. Directing Reading Maturity as a Cognitive Process. New

York: Harper and Row.

Suhermansyah. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Strategy and Intrinsic Motivation on

the Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Thomas, Linda Viola. 1991. "The Effects of inserted questions and story retelling

on comprehension of narrative text by fourth graders". Dissertations from

Pro Quest. Paper 2986.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/dissertations/2986

Torgesen, J.K. 2000. Individual differences in response to early intervention in

reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities research and Practice, 15 (1): 55-64

Travers, John. P. 1970. Fundamental of Educational Psychology. Scrantom, Pensilvania: International Textbook Company.

Vaughn, J. & Estes, T. (1986). Reading and reasoning beyond the primary

(29)

(1)

2. English teachers should encourage low curiosity students to participate in study English in order to get better achievement in reading comprehension.

5.3 Implications

(2)

The second result of this study showed that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that high curiosity is higher than students’ achievement in reading comprehension of low curiosity. It gives implication to the English teacher that they should be aware of students’ curiosity. The identification of students’ curiosity can determine the teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different curiosity is the key to success in teaching since teachers can choose which teaching strategy is suitable to apply for students.

(3)

REFERENCES

Afdhalina. 2011. The Effect of Reading Strategies and Learning Style on the

Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Al Odwan, T. Abd.Al-Hameed. 2012. The Effect of The Directed Reading Thinking Activity through Cooperative Learning on English Secondary Stage Students’ Reading Comprehension in Jordan. International Journal of Humanities ans Social Science. Vol. 2 No. 16, pp. 138-151

Anderson, W.2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England: Longman.

Alexander, J.E. 1988. Teaching Reading 3 Ed. Boston, Scott: Foresman.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2003. Prosedur penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Ary, D, Lucy C. Jacob and Asghar Razaviah. 1979. Introduction to Research in

Education. 2nd_Ed._{Holt. Rinehart and Winston.}

Berlyne, DE. 1998. Curiosity and Learning. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Blair, h and Ruplay, H. 1981. Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading 5th

Edition. Colombus: A Bell & Howell Commpany.

Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of Education Objectives, handbook I: Cognitive

Domain. New York: David McKay.

Brassel, Danny and Rasinsky, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works (Taking Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension).

Huntington Beach: Corinne Burton.

Brown, H Douglas. 2004. Principle of Language learning and Teaching (5th

Edition). London: Longman.

Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7.

Charles, Alderson, J. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Coldwell, Jo Anne Schudut. 2008. Comprehension Assesment. London: The Fuilford Press.

Cunningham, P, Moore. S, Cunningham, J & Moore, D. 2000. Reading and

(4)

Danielle, S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions,

and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Diba, Fara. 2010. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

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.

Echevarria, J, Vogt, M & Short, D. 2008. Making Content Comprehensible for

English Learners. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gerot, L. and Peter Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Harris, Karen. R and Graham, Steve. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to

Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Gilford.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Jonathan, Rowson. 2012. The Power of Curiosity. UK: RSA.

Klingner, Janette K, Sharon Vaughn and Alison Boardman. 2007. Teaching

Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. NewYork:

The Guildford Press.

Lems, K, et al. 2010. Teaching Reading to English Language Learners. New York: The Guilford Press A Division of Guilford Publication.

Light, Janice and McNaughton, David. 2012. Literacy Instruction for Individuals with Autism cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities.

Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University.

Loewenstein, G. 1994. The Psychology of Curiosity. A Review and Reinterpretation 116 (1) 75-98.

Lyon, G.R. 1998. Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55 (6): 14-18

(5)

McNeil, John. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension (New Direction for Classroom

Practice: Third Edition). New York: Harper Collins.

Moore, P.J. 1988. Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Comprehension: a Review.

Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 11, pp 3-14

Ramayani. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Techniques and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Richard, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, D. 2000. Teaching Elementary Language Arts: A Ballanced Approach (6th

edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Salkind, Neil.J. 2008. Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Vol 1&2. USA: Sage Publication. Inc.

Saricoban, Arif. INSERT Reading Strategy Employed by ELT at the Advance

Level. Kelvin Grove: Queensland University.

Stauffer, R. G. 1969. Directing Reading Maturity as a Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row.

Suhermansyah. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Strategy and Intrinsic Motivation on

the Students Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Medan: UNIMED.

Thomas, Linda Viola. 1991. "The Effects of inserted questions and story retelling on comprehension of narrative text by fourth graders". Dissertations from

Pro Quest. Paper 2986.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/dissertations/2986

Torgesen, J.K. 2000. Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities research and Practice, 15 (1): 55-64

Travers, John. P. 1970. Fundamental of Educational Psychology. Scrantom, Pensilvania: International Textbook Company.

Vaughn, J. & Estes, T. (1986). Reading and reasoning beyond the primary

(6)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND CURIOSITY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION.