5. The class situation became totally lively and active by conducting competition
and giving rewards. It implied that rewards and competition can be alternatives to increase the students’ motivation and participation in the class.
Accordingly, it can be implied that English teachers can consider using this method if they want to facilitate students in reading comprehension as well as
to increase students’ interest and motivation towards teaching and learning process.
C. Suggestions
In accordance to the conclusions and implications above, there are some suggestions for English teachers and other researchers.
1. To the English teachers
It is important for the teachers to make some efforts to help the students having good reading ability. Activities involving schema activation can be a
preference to facilitate the students in reading comprehension. If the teachers are interested in applying this method, they should consider the topic that is close
with students’ life so that it can be more interesting for them to learn, and make sure that the students’ can follow each step of the method. The teacher should be
able to guide the students systematically through the steps. Additionally, the teachers should also consider providing some enjoyable activities so that the
students will not be bored and they can be more motivated to learn. 2.
To the other researchers The other researchers who are interested in applying ETR method should
understand the steps first. They should be able to guide the students systematically
through the cognitive processes in order to make sense of the written text. They also should be able to link each steps of the method by giving clear explanations,
instructions, and examples. Furthermore, this method can be also implemented to investigate some other issues from different perspectives. It is suggested for the
other researchers to conduct a better and more thorough research than this one.
REFERENCES
Ajideh, P. 2003. “Schema Theory-Based Pre-reading Tasks: A Neglected Essential in the ESL Reading Class”. The Reading Matrix, Vol.3, No.1.
Accessed from www.readingmatrix.comarticlesajideharticle.pdf
. Alderson, C.J. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Anderson, N.J. 1991. “Individual Differences in Strategy Use in Second
Language Reading and Testing”. In Nunan, D. 2003. The Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The MC Graw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
Au, K. 1979. “Using the Experience-Text-Relationship Method with Minority Children”. The Reading Teacher, 32:677-679.
Brown, D.H. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. San Francisco: Pearson education, Inc.
___________. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Fourth Edition. San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
___________. 2001. Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. San Francisco: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc. BSNP. 2006. Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan
Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: BSNP. Burns, A. 2010.
Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. Madison Ave, New York: Taylor Francis e-Library.
_______. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, D. E. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P.L. 1983. “Background Knowledge in Second Language Comprehension”. In Nunan, D. 2003. The Practical English Language
Teaching. New York: The MC Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. Carrell, P. L. 1984. “Evidence of a formal schema in second language
comprehension”. In Zhao, X., Zhu, L. 2012. “Schema Theory and College English Reading Teaching”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 5,
No. 11. Published online September 12, 2012 at http: dx.doi.org10.5539elt.v5n11p111.
100
Carrell, P.L. and Connor, U. 1991. “Reading Writing Different Genre. Paper presented at the twenty-fifth annual conference of TESOL”. In Nunan, D.
2003. The Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The MC Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Chamot, A. U. and OMalley, J.M. 1994. “The CALLA Handbook”. In Nunan, D. 2003. The Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The MC
Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. Duke, N. K. 2003. “Comprehension
Dificulties”. CIERA, 11. Accessed from http:www.ciera.orglibrarypresos2003 on November 4, 2014.
Duther, P. 1990. Authentic Reading Assessment. ERIC Digest ED328607. Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.;
American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. Edwards, P. 2003. Literacy Techniques. Victoria: National Library of Canada
Cataloguing in Publication Data. Goodman, K. 1970. Reading as a psychologistic guessing game. In H. Singer
and R. b. Ruddell . Eds. Theoretical models and Processes of Reading. Newark, N.J.: International reading Association.
Grabe, W. 2009. Reading in a Second Language Moving From Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
________. 1997. Discourse Analysis and Reading Instruction. In T. Miller Ed., Functional Approaches to Written Texts: Classroom Applications.
Washington, DC: USIA. Grabe, W. and Stoller, F. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. London:
Pearson Education Longman. Hollas, B. 2002. Teaching your below-grade level students how to become
strategic readers. Professional Development Inservice attended on October 16 at the Radisson Hotel in Knoxville, Tennessee.
International Reading Association, Inc. 2004. http: www-
tc.pbs.orgteacherlinecoursesmath405. Accessed on January 11, 2015 Jarmianik, J. 2013. “Improving Reading Comprehension Using Experience-
Text-Relationship ETR Method”. Jurnal FKIP UNS. Accessed from http:jurnal.fkip.uns.ac.idindex.php on January 11, 2015.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S. and Boardman, A. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The
Guilford Press. Kusumah, W. Dwitagama, D. 2009. Mengenal Penelitian Tindakan Kelas.
Jakarta: PT Indeks.
Mickulecky, B.S. 1990. A Short Course in Teaching Reading Skills. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Moreillon, J. 2007. Collaborative Strategies for Teaching Reading Comprehension. Chicago: American Library Association.
Nunan, David. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English. ___________. 2003. The Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The
MC Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. Richards, C. J. and Renandya, A. W. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching
An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samosir, D.N. 2013. “Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement In Narrative Text Through Experience-Text-Relationship
ETR Method”. Jurnal UNIMED. Accessed from
http:jurnal.unimed.ac.id2012index.phpjeltarticleview907 on January 11, 2015.
Smith, F. 1978 Understanding Reading: A psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stott, N. 2001. “Helping ESL Students Become Better Readers: Schema Theory Applications and Limitations”. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. VII, No.
11, November. Accessed from http:iteslj.orgArticlesStott-Schema.html on November 4, 2014.
Weaver, C. 1994. Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Westwood, P. 2008. What Teachers Need to Know about Learning Difficulties.
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Wiseman, D. G. 2008. “Schema Theory: Using Cognitive Structures in
Organizing Knowledge”. Research Brief 10, Biddle Center of Teaching and Learning at Spadoni College of Education, Coastal Carolina
University. Accessed from http:www.coastal.edueducation on
November 4, 2014. Wixson, K., Peters, C., Weber, E., Rober, I. 1987. “New Directions in
Statewide Reading Assessment”. The Reading Teacher, 40, 749-755. Zhao, X., Zhu, L. 2012. “Schema Theory and College English Reading
Teaching”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 11. Published online September 12, 2012 at http: dx.doi.org10.5539elt.v5n11p111.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
OBSERVATION
SHEET
FIELD NOTES
HASIL OBSERVASI KELAS
Hari : Senin
Tanggal : 13 April 2015
Waktu : 08.20 – 09.40
Tempat : SMP Negeri 9 Yogyakarta
No. Aspek yang Diamati
Deskripsi Hasil Pengamatan A.
Siswa
1. Jumlah siswa
34 orang 2.
Karakter siswa Siswa terdiri dari beberapa karakter,
diantaranya: -
Siswa cukup aktif, namun beberapa siswa tampak sangat menonjol dan
terkesan mendominasi kelas dalam menyampaikan pendapat,
mengkritik, bertanya, memberikan respon kepada guru dan siswa lain.
Beberapa siswa masih tampak kurang aktif berpartisipasi.
- Bertingkah laku sopan.
- Cukup mudah diatur dikendalikan.
- Beberapa siswa jika tidak tertarik
dengan pelajaran maka kurang memperhatikan.
- Beberapa siswa dapat menangkap
pelajaran dengan cepat, namun sebagian masih perlu bimbingan.
3. Bahasa yang digunakan
Bahasa Inggris dan bahasa Indonesia. Sedikit terdengar bahasa Jawa ketika
siswa berinteraksi dengan teman.
B. Guru dan Proses
