Result of the Pretest

48 For inference and reference, rather surprisingly, the number of students who faced difficulty was of smaller percentage, i.e. 33.33 respectively. In terms of reference, these students seemed to struggle more to connect pronouns to their nouns than their friends did, while in terms of inference, they might belong to those who are stronger in deductive thinking rather than in inductive thinking. After administering the pretest, the researcher conducted the treatment. In giving the treatment in Class VIIIA, the researcher herself became the teacher, replacing the regular teacher. The procedures of each meeting and the materials used followed the lesson plans that had been prepared previously see Appendix 4. In this first meeting of the treatment, the students‘ difficulty in understanding the text was observed in terms of finding detailed information, determining main idea, and understanding the meaning of the new words that they found in the text. To help the students, the teacher guided them to deal with such problems. In determining main idea, for example, the teacherwas explaining to the students that the main idea of a paragraph is commonly found in the first sentence. The teacher also assisted the students by rereading the text for them. Here, the function of the teacher in TPS technique in the classroom was to motivate students and to provide them with assistance when they were facing difficulties. In the second meeting of the treatment, the students showed better understanding of the material. Those who had difficulty in the previous meeting in determining main idea, finding detail information and understanding the meaning of new vocabulary, had shown improvement. They were able to give correct responsesto the reading comprehension questions. Until the last or the third meeting of the 49 treatment, TPS technique appeared to bring about improvement in the students ‘ reading comprehension. The difficulties that they had in the previous meetings were gradually solved. After the series of treatment, the posttest was administered in the next meeting. The items in which the students had difficulty are summarized below. Table 11. Summary of the Students‘ Difficulties in the Posttest Reading Specification Items The number of students who have difficulties Determining main idea 4, 24, 29 12 students 40 Inference 2, 30 8 students 26.67 Reference 3, 7, 12, 13, 16, 18, 22, 28 8 students 26.67 Finding detailed information 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27 12 students 40 Vocabulary 8, 10, 21, 25, 26 10 students 33.33 Taking into account the percentages of students who have difficulties in the pretest and posttest, we can deduce increases or improvements concerning the students‘ ability in the reading comprehension components. The table below sums up these increases. Table 12. Increases or Improvements in the Students‘ Ability Concerning Reading Comprehension Components Components Pretest Posttest Increase Improvement Determining main idea 40 70 30 Inference 26.67 33.33 6.66 Reference 26.67 33.33 6.66 Finding detailed information 40 60 20 Vocabulary 33.33 50 16.67