of 28 students were considered weak with very bad predicate. It showed that their ability in comprehending texts was still weak.
Having known the data of the pretest result, which showed that very few students achieved good scores, the researcher wanted to see whether the treatment,
which is the implementation of self-questioning strategy, could improve the students reading comprehension. It could be seen by the data got from the posttest result. If the
scores of the posttest were higher than the scores of the pretest, it means that the treatment could bring positive effects to the students’ reading comprehension.
3. Data Presentation of Post-test
The posttest was conducted to gain the information about the students’ progress or achievement after they got the treatment. All students came on the day
when the researcher gave the posttest. However, two of them did not join the pretest. As a result, their scores were not included to the data. Before the students did the
posttest, the researcher gave a small review about steps in doing self-questioning strategy.
The questions of the posttest and the scoring were the same as those of the pretest’s. There were 20 questions which consisted of 10 open-ended reading
comprehension questions or short-answer questions and 10 multiple choices. As mentioned before, there were three reading passages with three different topics in the
tests; family, jobs, and things in the house.
In the pretest, the students read the reading passages without implementing self-questioning strategy, but in the posttest the students read the reading passages by
using self-questioning strategy. Therefore, the students did not directly answer the comprehension questions in the posttest, but they had to read the three passages by
applying self-questioning strategy first and then answered the provided comprehension questions. The students seemed familiar with the steps that they
usually did on the days when the researcher gave the treatment. First, they read the title of the passage and made up questions or predictions based on what they wanted
to know from the passage; second, while they were reading the passage, they jotted down questions that came up to their mind and found out whether the questions that
they had made were answered, and then each time they read a new paragraph, they made up questions or predictions about what would be expressed in the next
paragraph; third, they wrote the main idea of the passage or summarize a bit about what they had read. After they read the passage by applying self-questioning
strategy, they started to answer the comprehension questions. The difference between the pretest and the posttest were the title of the
passages and the characters stated in the passages. However, the content of the passages and the questions both in the pretest and the posttest were the same. Having
followed the treatment, the scores of the posttest were as follows.
Table 4.4 The Classification of the Posttest Scores
Category Scores Number of
students Percentage
1 Very good
9-10 4 14.3
2 Good
8 – 8.9 6
21.4 3
Sufficient 6.5 – 7.9
5 17.6
4 Bad
5.5 – 6.4 4
10.7 5
Very bad …. 5.5
9 32.1
The score ranged from 100 to 27. The highest score was 100 and the lowest score was 27. There were 4 students or 14.3 of the whole class who were able to
achieve very good predicate since they stayed in the category 1. In the second category, six students or 21.4 of the whole class who were able to achieve good
predicate, their scores were between 8 - 8.9. Five students or 17.6 of the whole class were in the third category that was between 6.5 and 7.9. They achieved
sufficient predicate. The fourth category was positioned by 4 students or 10.7 of the whole class. Their scores were between 5.5 and 6.4. In the lowest part, there were
nine students or 32.1 stayed in very bad category; their scores were below 5.5. Having discussed the data got from the posttest result, the researcher would
discuss the comparison of the data obtained from the pretest and the posttest. The detailed discussion is presented as follows.
