32
3.6.4 Discrimination Power
This index refers to the extent to which the item able to differentiate between high and low levels students on the test. A good item according to this criterion is one that
good students get good score and get bad score. To see the discrimination index, the researcher uses the following formula:
=
Shohamy, 1985: 81 Notes:
DP : discrimination power U
: the proportion of upper group students who answer correctly L
: the proportion of lower group students who answer correctly N
: total number of students The criteria are:
1. If the value is positive, it has discrimination because a large number of more knowledgeable students than poor students get the item correct if the value is zero.
It means no discrimination. 2. If the value is negative, it has negative discrimination because more low-level
students than high level students get the item correct. 3. In general, the higher discrimination index, the better, in the classroom situation
most items should be higher than 0.20 indexes Shohamy, 1985: 82.
33
3.7 Data Analysis
The researcher computed the students score in order to find out the students increasing in reading comprehension ability of short functional text through
questioning technique by using the following steps:
1. Scoring the pre-test and post-test 2. Tabulating the results of the test and calculating the score of the pre-test and post-
test. 3. Drawing conclusion from the tabulation result of the pre-test and post-test
by using statistical computerization, Repeated Measure T-Test of Statistical Package
for Social Science SPSS version 17.0 to test whether the increase of students gain is significant or not, in which the significance determined by p0.05, it used
as the data come from the one sample Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 117.
3.8 Hypothesis Testing
After collecting the data, the researcher analyzed them in order to find out whether there is any significant difference in students’ reading comprehension ability of short
functional text or not after the treatment. The researcher used Repeated Measure T- Test to know the level of significance of the treatment effect.
By seeing the probability level p which is shown by two tail significance as the value of significance, we can draw the conclusion Setiyadi, 2006: 172.
34
H
1
is approved if p α. The research uses level of significance i.e. 0.05, and the probability of error in the hypothesis is 5.
Therefore, the hypothesis which would be cited is as follows: H
1
: There is any significant difference of students’ reading comprehension ability before and after being taught by using questioning technique.
H : There is no significant difference of students’ reading comprehension ability
before and after being taught by using questioning technique. Besides that, to investigated the students’ activities in teaching learning process using
questioning technique, the researcher analyzed the observation data and concluded
the result after the observation sheets completed by the observer. The data were analyzed by using statistical computerization Repeated Measures t-test
of SPSS 17 for Windows i.e. t = to test whether the difference between
pretest and post test is significant or not, in which the significance is determined by p0.05 Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 114. Whereas:
. t =
SD =
Where: = standard error of differences between two means
35
SD = standard deviation
n = number of students
= mean score pre test = mean score post tes
t = test
Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 116
1
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter describes two major points, conclusion and suggestion.
5.1 Conclusions
In relating to the result of data analysis and discussion the following conclusions are drawn as follows:
1. There is any significant difference of students’ reading comprehension ability before and after being taught by using questioning technique. This could be
seen from the pretest and post test scores which showed that the students’ mean score of post test in experimental class 65.00 was higher than pre test
52.54 with the gained score of 10.48. In which significance value was determined by p0.05. The t-test revealed that the result was significant
p=000. Thus, the hypothesis was accepted. It means that questioning technique can be used to increase students’ reading comprehension ability.
2. According to the result of the research, the students’ reading comprehension ability is better after being taught using questioning technique. This technique
is better because can increase the students’ critical responses and active in their learning process.
57
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions above, some recommendation can be made: 1. An English teacher should apply questioning technique as one of alternative ways
to help the students do their classroom activities. 2. An English teacher is suggested to use questioning technique, especially in reading
skill to make students more comfortable in learning process and automatically can increase their reading comprehension ability. The teacher should be able to give
some rules and control during the teaching learning process well since the biggest problem for the teacher when using questioning technique maybe the noisy
classroom and time consuming. 3. The students should be more active in practicing reading. They should use
questioning technique to learn effectively and enjoy reading. So they can increase their reading comprehension ability.
4. The future researcher, who will conduct the similar research, should conduct it by considering the time allocation for the treatments. Because of the limitation of
time, the target material may not be explained fully when the class is not in a good condition
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfarani, V. 2008. Increasing students reading comprehension achievment through contextual clues training at the first year students of SMUN 3 Kotabumi.
Unila: Unpublish student’s script. Allaydrus, F. 2009. Increasing students reading comprehension through
questioning technique at the second year of SMAN 1 Kotabumi North Lampung. Unila : Unpublish student’s script.
Anwar. 1992. Reliabilitas dan validitas. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Cotton, K. 1989. Classroom questioning school improvement research series.
Northwest Regional Educational. From : http:www.nwrel.orgscpdsirs3cu5.html. accessed on Sept 14, 2013.
Dallman, R. L. 1982. Teaching of reading. Washington: CBS College Publishing. Dewi, R.A. 2013. the effect of using pre questioning on students’
reading comprehension achievement at second grade of SMPN 1 Seputih Banyak.
Unila Journal of English Teaching. Hartman, H. 2002. Self questioning strategy. Inquiry to learning fall.
From: http:condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu~group2research20paper.txt. Accessed on Sept 14, 2013.
Harvey. 2008. Questioning strategy. New York: The Dryden Press. Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research design and statistics for applied linguistic.
Los Angeles: New Bury House Publisher
Kategori