rk=
Notes: rk
: The reliability of the test r1
: The reliability of half test
And the criteria of the reliability as follow: 0.80-1.00
= very high 0.60-0.79
= High 0.40-0.50
= Average 0.20-0.39
= low 0.00-0.19
= very Low Hatch and Farhady, 1982:246
3.5.5. Level of difficulty
To know the level of difficulty of the test, the researcher used the following formula:
LD=
Notes: LD
:Level of Difficulty R
: Number of the students answer correctly N
: Total number of the students Here the criteria of the level of difficulty
0.30 : Difficult
0.30-0.70 : Average
0.70 : easy
Shohamy, 1985: 79 3.5.6 Discrimination Power
Discrimination is the consideration between the high group of students who get the items correct and the consideration of the low level students who get the items
correct.
Here is the formula used by the researcher:
DP=
Notes: DP
: Discrimination Power U
: Number of upper group who answer correctly L
: Number of lower group who answer correctly N
: Total of the students
And here there are the criteria of the discrimination power: DP
: 0.00-0.19 : Poor
DP : 0.20-0-39
: Satisfactory DP
: 0.40-0.69 : Good
DP : 0.70-100
: Excellent DP
: - Negative : Bed items be omitted
When the result is zero and the item has no discrimination power. The worst is when the result will be negative because the lower students can answer more
many than upper students, if the result positive, it will have discrimination power because upper students can answer while poor students cannot answer.
3.6 Scoring System
In this research, the researcher used Arikunto’s formula in scoring the result of the
test. The highest score is 100 and will use 40 multiple choice in order to find the objective of the result in this test. To scoring the result of the test, the researcher
use Henning’s Formula 1987. The formula is as follows:
Note: PS : Percentage Score
R : the total of right answer N : total item
3.7 Data Analysis
Knowing is there any significant increase of the students ’ reading comprehension
achievement after they taught by using small group discussion technique use anecdotes text, the researcher computed the
student’s score using the following
steps:
Firstly, the researcher scored the result of pre-test and post-test. After the scoring, she calculated the score of pre-test and post-test and tabulate the result of the test.
Then, the last steps is showing the conclusion from the tabulate result of the pre- test and post-test order, the data was statistically analyzed using statistical
computerization i.e. Statistical Package for Social Science SPSS version 17.0 for windows to test whether the increase of students gain is significant or not.
3.8 Hypothesis Test
After collecting the data, the researcher analyzed the data in order to find out whether there is significant increase of
students’ ability in reading comprehension by using small group discussion technique or not after the treatment.
There are two hypotheses; Zero hypotheses H
O
and Progressive hypotheses H
1
. H
: There is no significant increase of students ’ reading comprehension after
taught anecdote text use small group discussion technique at the third grade students of SMPN 1 Karya Penggawa Krui.
H
1
: There is significant increase of students ’ reading comprehension after taught
anecdote text using small group discussion technique at the third grade students of SMPN 1 Karya Penggawa Krui.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter describes the conclusions of the result of this research. It also describes the suggestions from the writer to the readers who want try to apply
small group discussion technique in teaching reading comprehension.
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the result of the data analysis and discussions, the researcher concludes that there is significant increase
of students’ reading comprehension achievement after the treatments using small group discussion technique. Small group
discussion technique give the students to share their opinion in comprehend the texts given by the teacher enthusiastically. It can be seen in the
students’ pretest and posttest score in experimental class. The result of this research indicated that
the increase of students’ reading comprehension scores in the experimental class after treatments was significant. It can be seen that the result of the computation
shows that t-value was 11.191 and the two tail significance show that p0.05 p=000. Referring to the criteria, that is, H
1
is accepted if t t
tab
and p0.05. Meaning that H
1
was accepted and H was rejected.
5.2 Suggestions
From the conclusions above, the researcher would like to give some suggestions as follows:
1. For the teachers
a. They should apply small group discussion technique because it is one of alternative technique for teaching reading.
b. The teacher should give more chance to the students to be more active, and let the students do several practices. The teacher should give the
students more chance to help them when they meet difficulties.
2. For the students
a. The students should learn and be more active in solving problems in reading comprehension in order to develop their abilities in reading
English. b. They should practice the language they have learned with their friends
or teachers.
3. For the school
a. The school should provide more English books to the students so that they can increase their knowledge to comprehend a text
b. The school should provide sufficient facility for students to practice their English competency.
REFERENCE
Afrilianti. 2012. Improving Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Through KWHL Technique at SMA Al-Azar 3 Bandar Lampung. Lampung:
Lampung University Allaiydrus, F. 2009. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Through
Questioning Technique at the Second Year of SMAN 1 Kota Bumi. Lampung: Lampung University
Arif, M. S. 2011. The Effectiveness of Teaching Reading Comprehension Through Small Group Discussion. Jakarta: Islamic University
Arikunto, S. 1997. Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Jakarta: Bina Aksara Bennett J, Lubben F, Hogarth S, Campbell B. 2004. A systematic review of the
use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11-18, and their effects on students’ under standing in science or attitude to science.
In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Betaria, E. 2012. The Implementation of Jigsaw Technique in Teaching Reading Comprehension at the Second Year Students of SMAN 1 Krui. Lampung:
Lampung University Bima, M. and Kurniati, C. 2005. Let’s Talk Grade VIII. BANDUNG: Pakar Raya
Brilhart, J. K., Galanes, G. J., and Adams, K. 2001. Effective Group Discussion.
Theory and Practice. New York: Mc Grow- Hill International Brookfield, S. and Preskill, S. 1999. Discussion as a Way of Teaching. SRHE
Open University Press: Buckingham. Brown, HD. 1994. Teaching by Principle an Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy, San Fransisco State University. Dallman, R. L. 1982. Teaching of Reading. Washington: CBS College Publishing.
Direct Instruction in Persuasion on Sixt-Grade students’ Writing and Attitudes.
http:drum.umd.edudspacebitstream190327001umi-uumd- 2628.pdf. December 23 2011
Grabe, W., and Stoller, F. L. 2002. Teaching and researching reading. New York: Longman.
Hararit. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies to Student with Learning Disabilities: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational
Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hasnova, S. 2011. The Influence of Using Anecdote Towards Students Speaking
Ability at the Second Semester of the Seventh Grade of SMPN 1 Adiluih Pringsewu in 20102011. IAIN: Bandar Lampung.
Hatch, E. And Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Los Angeles: Newbury House Publisher.
Henning, G. 1987. A guide to Language Testing. Los Angeles: New Bury House Publisher
Hill. D. B. 1994. Teaching by Principle and interactive approach to Language Pedagogy. San Fransisco: State University
Hill, L. A. 1980. Elementary Anecdotes in American English. New York: Oxport University Press.
http:cte.uwaterloo.cateaching_resourcestipsgroup_work_types_of_small_grou ps.htmlhttp:cte.uwaterloo.cateaching_resourcestipsgroup_work_types_of_
small_groups.html acsessed on Saturday on November, 22, 2013 09:00 pm
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teaching. Great Britain, Glasgow: combridge University Press
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Holubec, E. 1981. Cooperative in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kathleen, Mc Worther. 1986. Guide to college reading. New York: Little Brown and Company.
Kenz, M. A. and Greg, J. B. 2000. Effective in Theory and Practice. Massachusetts: A Person Education Company.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S. 1998. Using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Teaching Exceptional Children. TESOL Quarterly.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Arguelles, M. E. 1999. Sustaining research based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and
Special Education. TESOL Quarterly
