Students’ Level of Reading Comprehension

58 a. Dependent Variable: RComp b. Predictors: Constant, GLOB, PROB, SUP As noted previously, this study was aimed to investigate the relationship between stu dents’ reading comprehension and awareness in utilizing metacognitive reading strategies. Then, the data of correlation was provided in the table 4.9. The table Analysis of Variance ANOVA revealed that coefficient of multiple correlation was relevantly significant in level .002 p .05. F-test was also conducted to test the statistical significance. It was found that F value was 6.76. Afterwards, the F value was compared with the value of F table 2.98. It meant F value was higher that F table 6.76 2.98. Hence, the null hypothesis H0 of hypothesis number one cannot be accepted. Table 4.10 Multiple Regression Coefficients Coefficients a Table 4.10 showed a report of regression coefficients as well as correlation among explanatory variables. By means of 95 confidence intervals of the Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0 Confidence Interval for B Correlations Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero- order Partial Part Tolera nce VIF 1 Constant 146.856 64.228 2.286 .031 14.834 278.878 PROB 59.648 21.606 .548 2.761 .010 15.236 104.059 .619 .476 .408 .553 1.808 SUP -6.812 18.322 -.077 -.372 .713 -44.473 30.848 .419 -.073 -.055 .512 1.952 GLOB 27.854 18.374 .266 1.516 .142 -9.915 65.622 .476 .285 .224 .710 1.408 a. Dependent Variable: RComp 59 analysis, alpha in level .05 was set up. To Asses the influence of PROB toward reading comprehension t-test was also conducted. It was found that t value of PORB was higher than the value of t-table 2.76 1.71. For this reason, the alternative hypothesis H1 of hypothesis number two was accepted. It meant that PROB strategies came to be strategies that had significant influence toward reading comprehension gains p = .010 and t = 2.76. The next subcategory of metacognitive reading strategies was GLOB. It was found that the t value of GLOB was lower than t-table -.37 1.71. it was also found that the p value of GLOB was .713 .05. It meant that the null hypothesis of hypothesis number was accepted. The last subcategory was SUP strategies. The study found that t-value of SUP was 1.52. This value was lower than the value of t-table 1.52 1.71. It was also found that p value of SUP was .142 or more than alpha level .05. Hence, null hypothesis of hypothesis number four was accepted. It meant that SUP did not reflect that there was significant influence toward reading comprehension gains.

4.2 Discussion

The present study was intended to look over stu dents’ metacognitive awareness in using reading strategies. It was also aimed to conduct an investigation into correlation between stu dents’ metacognitive awareness and their reading comprehension. In this segment, the discussion sections are partly presented in accordance with proposed research questions. There were four main topics to discuss. The first point was stu dents’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies. Then the second point was 60 related to studen ts’ reading comprehension. It was further continued by the discussion about a number of metacognitive reading strategies students rarely or mostly use. Eventually, correlation between both variables metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension were discussed as well.

4.2.1 Stu

dents’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies The findings suggested that moderate-usage level of metacognitive reading strategies was moderately used see table 4.1. PROB strategies got to be the leading category with highest means score. Then, the study also found that the GLOB strategies fell into the lowest preference and were categorized on moderate-usage level. Generally, these findings became evidence that those students were relatively aware of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience. These findings the rank of three subcategories confirmed the previous studies that investigated stu dents’ awareness in utilizing metacognitive reading strategies via SORS Alsheikh Mokhtari 2011, Mokhtari Reichard 2002, Hong-Nam Page 2014 and Pammu et.al 2014. In accordance with the overall means of SORS score, the study also reported that PROB strategies were the most-preference reading strategies with the highest level of precedence. Strategies such as “manipulating the reading speed”, “intending the focus on reading”, “pausing the thinking about reading”, “rereading the material to increase the understanding” and “guessing for unknown word” were the most preferred strategies and utilized at high-usage level. Yet, the students also reported medium- usage level at strategies such as “paying closer attention situationally”, “adjusting reading speed” and “picture and visualize the information”. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI