THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND CURIOSITY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION.

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING SRTATEGIES AND CURIOSITY ON

STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For Magister Degree

By:

UZIANA

Registration Number: 8116112018

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2017

A Thesis

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND CURIOSITY ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

By:

Uziana

Registration Number: 8116112018

English Applied Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School State University of Medan

This Thesis was examined on 12th Januari 2017 by the Board of Examiners Approved by

Adviser Commission Advisor I Advisor II

Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum NIP. 19570615 198203 1 005 NIP. 19700522 200112 2001

The Head of English Applied The Director of Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School

Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd NIP. 19620629 198803 1 002 NIP. 19650910 199102 1 001

APPROVAL

This thesis was examined on 12th January 2017 by the Board of Exeminers. Board of Exeminers

1. Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd _______________ NIP. 19570615 198203 1 005

2. Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum _______________ NIP. 19700522 200112 2001

3. Prof. Busmin Gurning, M. _______________ NIP. 19590713 198601 1 001

4. Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed _______________ NIP. 19620629 198803 1 002

5. Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd _______________ NIP. 19660616 199403 1 006

i

ABSTRACT

Uziana. Registration Number:8116112018. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. State University of Medan. 2016

The objectives of this experimental research are to find out whether: 1) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using the Directed Reading Thinking

Aactivity (DRTA) strategy was higher than taught by using the Questions-Answer Relationship(QARs) strategy. 2) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with

high curiosity was higher than that The students with low curiosity, and 3) there was interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on The students’ achievement in reading comprehension. The population of this research was the students in grade XI of MAN Kampung(MAN KP) TeungohLangsa in 2016/2017 school year. The total number of population of this research was 160 students. There were 6 classes. Two classes were chosen consist of 30 students of each class so 60 students were selected as sample of this research by applying multistage cluster random sampling. The research design was experimental research by using factorial design 2x2. The XI IPA2 class was taught by using Directed Reading Thinking Activity and XI IPS1 was taught by using Questions-Answer Relationship (QARs) Strategy. Curiosity questionnaire was conducted for classifying the students upon the high and low curiosity. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension was measured by using reading comprehension test. The data were analyzed by applying two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the level of significant∝= 0.05. The results of the data analysis proved that: 1) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy is higher than students achievement in reading comprehension taught by Questions-Answer Relationship(QARs) Teaching strategy, with µ=36 > µ= 29.29. 2) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity was higher than those students with low curiosity, with µ=65.29 > µ= 57.46, and 3) there was interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension, with sig= 0.456 > 0.05. Moreover, Levene–test result also showed that high curiosity students got higher achievement if they were taught by using directed reading thinking activity strategy while low curiosity students got higher achievement if they were taught by using Questions-Answer Relationship (QARs) teaching strategy.

ii

ABSTRAK

Uziana. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan keinginantahuan siswa terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca.Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016

Penelitian eksperimen ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah: (1) kemampuan siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi Directed Reading Thinking Activity(DRTA) lebih tinggi daripada kemampuan siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi

Questions Answer Relationship(QARs),(2) kemampuan siswa dalam membaca yang memiliki

keinginantahuan tinggi lebih tinggi daripada kemampuan siswa dalam membaca yang memiliki keingintahuan rendah, dan (3) ada interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dengan keinginantahuan terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam membaca. Populasi penelitian meliputi seluruh siswa kelas sebelas MAN KP. Teungoh ajaran 2016/ 2017. Jumlah populasi penelitian adalah 160 siswa. Jumlah sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah 60 siswa yang diambil dengan menggunakan teknik cluster random sampling. Desain penelitian adalah penelitian eksperimen dengan faktorial 2x2. Siswa dibagi ke dalam dua kelompok eksperimen. Kelompok eksperimen pertama(XI IPA2) diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran. Directed Reading thinking Activit(DRTA) dan kelompok eksperimen kedua(XI IPS1) diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran Questions Answer Relationship(QARs). Tes kuisioner keingintahuan dilaksanakan untuk mengelompokkan siswa ke dalam kelompok siswa dengan keinginantahuan tinggi dan rendah. Kemampuan siswa dalam membaca teks diukur dengan menggunakan tes pemahaman membaca.Data penelitian dianalisa dengan

menggunakan ANAVA dua jalur pada taraf signifikansi α=0.05. Hasil penelitian

menunjukkan bahwa (1) kemampuan siswa dalam membaca teks yang diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran DTRA lebih tinggi daripada kemampuan siswa dalam membaca teks yang diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran QARs dengan hasil µ=36 > µ= 29.29. (2) kemampuan siswa dalam membaca teks yang memiliki keinginantahuan tinggi lebih tinggi daripada kemampuan siswa dalam membaca teks yang memiliki keinginantahuan rendah dengan hasil µ=65.29 > µ= 57.46, dan (3) terdapat interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dengan keinginantahuan terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam membaca dengan sig = 0.456 > 0. Hasil Test Levene menunjukkan menunjukkan bahwa siswa yang memiliki keinginantahuan tinggi memperoleh kemampuan dalam membaca yang tinggi bila diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran Directed Reading Thinking activity(DRTA) dan siswa yang memiliki keinginantahuan rendah memperoleh kemampuan dalam membaca yang tinggi bila diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran Questions Answer Relationship(QARs).

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Mean Score of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension of MAN KP

TeungohLangsa, School Year of 2013/ 2014………... 2

Table 2.1 Characteristics of High and Low Curiosity…...………..………...……27

Table 3.1 Factorial Research Design (2x2)………..………..38

Table 3.2. Specification of Reading Comprehension Test.….……….40

Table 3.3 Specification of Curiosity Statements……….42

Table 3.4. the Procedure of DRTA and QARs strategies………..……..43

Table 3.5 validity of the test………...…….48

Table 3.6 The Difficulty Index Criteria……….………...………50

Table 3.7 The Discrimination Index Criteria……….………….51

Table 4.1 Summary of data analysis………..………..55

Table 4.2.Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using DRTA Strategy……….………56

Table 4.3. Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using QARs Strategy………..………..………58

Table 4.4. Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity……….………...60

Table 4.5. Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity Taught by Using DRTA Strateg………62

Table 4.6. Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with High Curiosity Taught by Using DRTA Strategy……….………..64

Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with Low Curiosity Taught by Using DRTA Strategy………66

Table 4.8. Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity Taught by using QARs Strategy ………..68

Table 4.9. Frequency Distribution of students’ Achievement……….70

Table 4.10. The Result of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test ………..72

Table 4.11. Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Teaching Strategies ………..72

Table 4.12. Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Curiosity………..………..74

Table 4.14. Summary on Calculation Result of Two-way ANOVA………... 75 Table 4.15 Summary of the Tests of Between-Subjects Effects………... 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Histogram of Students’ Achievement Taught by using DRTA ……. ………. 57

Figure 2 Histogram of Students’ Achievement Taught by using QARs………. 59

Figure 3 Historiogram of Students’ Achievement with High Curiosity ……….. 61

Figure 4 Historiogram ofStudents’ Achievement with Low Curiosity ..………. 63

Figure 5 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity Taught by using DRTA Strategi…………..……….…………. ………... 65

Figure 6 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity Taught by using DRTA ……….……….. 67

Figure 7 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Curiosity Taught by using QARs...……….…………. 69

Figure 8 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Curiosity Taught by using QARs ..……….………….………... 71

LIST OF APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A - Reading Comprehension t est………..91

APPENDIX B - Curiosit y Questionnaire………93

APPENDIX C - Lesson Preparat ion Sheet (DRTA)……….95

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Background of the Study

Reading is one great habit that can truly change the life forever. Reading can entertain and enrich people with knowledge—the only thing that does not decay with time. Nowadays reading is the key to education so that is why when people read any literatures related to any fields of study, their lives are rewarded by others.

Reading means different for different people. Some people read to get feeling and pleasure while the others read to get ideas, and information. For students, particularly, they read to have general understanding, specific and detailed information (Harmer, 2001). It means that when the students read any texts, they learn to extract meaning from the text. In order to make sense of any texts, they try to understand what the words mean, see the pictures painted by the words, engage with what they are reading to respond to the content, and catch the message conveyed by the writer. Due to those reasons, the students need to be taught by appropriate and suitable teaching strategies to increase their reading comprehension.

Brown (2000: 185) states that reading is arguably the most essential skill for success in all educational contexts and remains a skill of paramount importance as one creates assessment of language ability. Reading also has one overriding purpose to get meaning from a text. By giving reading activity in the

2

language learning, teacher actually activates students’ schemata. If the students have limited knowledge, they automatically will not be able to write something or speak something even though they master the structure of English well.

Alderson (2000) argues that knowledge of text genres, in terms of how texts are organized, how information is signalled and how changes of content might be marked, has long been thought to be of importance in comprehending reading. In other words, knowing where to look for the main idea in a paragraph, being able to find determinant meanings (author intent and implicit meaning of text), and being able to identify how subsidiary ideas are marked really help the students process the information and comprehend the whole text. Being familiar with text genres—taught since the first grade of Senior High School, ideally, the students have good ability on decoding and comprehending the text. But in fact, it is found that only 65.29 % of students from public senior high school and 64.73 % of students from private school are able to reach the score above 4.0—fixed score decided by Depdikbud(2012). Further more, in MAN Kampung(MAN KP) Teungoh Langsa, it is found that the major achievement of students in reading comprehension is still under Minimal Passing Grade Criteria (KriteriaKetuntasan Minimal: KKM). The data can be seen in table-1-1.

Table 1.1

Mean Score of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension of MAN KP TeungohLangsa, School Year of 2014/ 2015

Class Mean KKM

X 67 70

XI 66 72

XII 67 72

3

The result shown by the table indicates that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension is very low. The lowness of students’ achievement in comprehending a text is influenced by some factors. Orasanu (1986: 33) identifies two factors that affect the reading comprehension: internal and external factors. Internal factors, called reader variable, refers to everything related to the readers that includes cognitive ability and strategy, background knowledge, and affective characteristics such as self- esteem, self- efficacy, willingness, curiosity, interest, and motivation. External factors, called text variable, context variable, and writer variable, refer to all factors external to the reader. Text variable includes such elements as text modality and text-characteristics such as lexical density and structural complexity, context variable refers to all situational elements such as the time of reading and the place of reading, and writer variable refers to the text-producer. Both factors interact to each other.

The interaction between internal and external factors that affect reading comprehension achievement will lead the readers to interaction conception regarded meaning as a product of the information encoded in text and the knowledge and experience of the reader. It means that it was acknowledged that the reader’s background influenced the perception of the text and the meanings generated (McNeil, 1992). In other words, the closer the match between what the reader already knew and the content and structure of the text, the greater the comprehension.

As cited above, the teachers should have effective reading instruction strategies to improve students’ reading comprehension, because effective reading instruction strategies beyond literal and inferential comprehension by challenging

4

students to make inferences about text, to think critically about the material they read, and to creatively transform the text they encounter into other format and form. Moreover, effective instruction in comprehension should be designed in way that challenge students to think creatively and to display their creative thinking to work in ways that are engaging, authentic, and enjoyable. And the effective strategies are chosen by the researcher in this study that can be used by teacher to accommodate these skills and improve the students’ reading comprehension are directed reading thinking activity (DRTA) and QARs.

One of personal factors that provide motivational fuel for learning reading comprehension is curiosity. Curiosity is considered to be an information- seeking process that directs and motivates learning (Loewenstein, 1994). When the students are exposed to DRTA and QARs strategies in comprehending a text, they, actually, are treated to be information- seekers since they must be aware of what they know and what they believe by self- questioning and they must confront what they know and believe with the information conveyed by the writers in a text by self- clarifying. So, it is undeniable that DRTA and QARs can provoke curiosity in comprehending a text for the students.

Based on the explanation above, it is believed that The teaching strategies and the level of students’ curiosity significantly affect reading comprehension achievement of students. That is why in this research, DRTA and QARs strategies will be associated with high and low levels of students’ curiosity.

5

1.2. The Problems of Study

In relation with the background, therefore it is concluded that the problems of this research are formulated as the following:

1. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using DRTA strategy higher than taught by QARs strategy?

2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension having high curiosity higher than having low curiosity?

3. Is there any significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension?

1.3. The Objectives of the Study

The primary objectives of this study are to answer the questions that mentioned in the problem of the study, they can be listed as follow:

1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy is significantly higher than QARs strategy.

2. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity is significantly higher than with low curiosity.

3. To find out whether there is a significant effect between teaching strategies and curiosity in students’ achievement on reading comprehension.

1.4. The Scope of the Study

Achievement in reading comprehension is caused by many factors namely internal and external factor, including teaching strategies and curiosity. In this

6

study, the researcher restricts the study to two teaching strategies, namely Directed Reading Thinking Activities (DRTA) Strategy and QARs Strategy in reading comprehension. The students, in this study, are only given explanatory texts in grade XI. Then, the researcher will identify the level of students’ curiosity text. By knowing the level of curiosity of the students whether they have high or low curiosity, it is expected that this research will give clear description on the effect of teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

1.5. The Significance of the study

First of all, findings are expected to be useful for development of theory and practice. Theoretically, this study will give positive input for teaching in overcoming problem in area of reading comprehension either to the teachers, students, or researchers through value finding in the area of teaching reading. Practically, the finding of this research will provide students to improve their reading comprehension and to be more enjoyable when reading process and also teachers with series of guides of reading strategies (DRTA and QARs) related with reading comprehension. So, they can practice both strategies in their classroom when they are teaching reading. Then, it is also hoped that the finding of this study will lead the teachers, students, and other researchers to multi- dimensional perspectives and give beneficial solution to the problem faced by them so that they can follow up the strategies in other settings.

85

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on data analysis, hypotheses testing, research findings, and discussion, it can be concluded that :

1) Reading comprehension achievement of students taught by using DRTA strategy is significantly higher than those taught by using QARs strategy. 2) Reading comprehension achievement of students having high curiosity is

significantly higher than those having low curiosity.

3) There is significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Students having high curiosity showed significant effect in their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using DRTA strategy while students having low curiosity showed significant effect in their reading comprehension if they were taught by using QARs strategy.

5.2 Implications

The findings of this study gives implication to the students who want to improve their reading comprehension achievement and to the teachers who want to develop reading comprehension skill of their students when learning and teaching process takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two reading strategies, namely DRTA and QARs. They are applied to students with high and

86

low curiosity in order to know which teaching strategy is more suitable for them in improving their reading comprehension achievement.

The first finding of this research shows that students with high curiosity have higher achievement in reading comprehension when they were taught by using DRTA strategy. it implies that English teacher should try to apply this strategy for it can activate students’ prior knowledge, retrieve information from the text, interpret it, and reflect their understanding by creating their personal knowledge. This strategy really helps the students become active readers. Moreover, DRTA strategy also can make English teachers become easier in managing learning activity because they just function as facilitator. At the end of DRTA session, the teachers clarify the findings of the students during reading process. Therefore, this strategy can be a good choice for English teacher in teaching reading comprehension.

The second finding of this research showed that reading comprehension achievement of students with high curiosity is higher than those with low curiosity. It gives implications for English teacher that before teaching reading comprehension, the teacher should identify their students’ curiosity. The identification of students’ curiosity can determine the teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different curiosity is the key to success in teaching reading comprehension since the teachers can choose which strategy is more suitable to apply in the classroom.

The third finding of this research reveals that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in

87

reading comprehension. It implies that any teaching strategy applied by the teachers should be related to the levels of students’ curiosity. The way the teachers provoke students’ curiosity determine the attitude of the students in learning reading comprehension. Finally, it is suggested that DRTA strategy is applied to students with high curiosity while QARs is applied to students with low curiosity in order that they can achieve their reading comprehension achievement significantly.

5.3Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions presented in previous chapter, it is suggested that:

1) English teachers are recommended using DRTA and QARs strategy because both strategies can improve students’ reading comprehension achievement.

2) English teacher should provoke and encourage students with low curiosity to participate more active in the classroom in order that they can achieve better achievement in reading comprehension.

3) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of DRTA and QARs strategies in order to improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

88

REFERENCES

Alderson, Charles. J. 2000. Assessing Reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, W. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England: Longman.

Adams, M. J. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ary, Donald. Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.

Brown, A. 1982. Learning How to Learn from Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Brown, D.H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education. Inc.

Dale, Edgar. 1966. The Art of Reading. The Newsletter, 32, 1-4.

Danielle, S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions,

and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2007. Standar Isi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan

Pendidikan. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan SMA.

Diba, Fara. 2010. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Driscoll, M. P. 1994. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dweck, C. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. 1999. How Motivation Fits Into a Science of

Reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.

Haller, E. P., 1998. Can Comprehension Be Taught? A Quantitative Synthesis of Question- Answer Relationship. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8. Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Longman.

89

Hyde, Arthur. 2006. Comprehending Math: Adapting Reading Strategies to Teach

Mathematics. Portsmouth: Hainemann. Inc.

Jamal, Abedi. Exploring DRTA Strategy for EFL Learners. National Center for

Research on Evaluation, Standard, and Students’ Testing (CREEST).

TEFL Quarterly, 26 (4), 731-738.

Jonathan, Rowson. 2012. The Power of Curiosity. UK: RSA Centre.

Kintsch,W., & Kintsch, E. 2005. Children’s Reading Comprehension and

Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lai, Emily. R. 2011. Metacognition: A Literature Review. Pearson’s Research Report Series: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research. Retrieved on July 14th, 2012.

Laufer, B. 1989. What Percentage of Text- Lexis is Essential for Comprehension? Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Loewenstein, G. 1994. The Psychology of Curiosity: A review and

Reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1):75-98.

McNeil, John. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension. USA: Harper Collins Publsihers.

Merriam, S. B. 2002. Quantitative Research in Practice San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, B. 1975. The Organization of Prose and Its Effect on Memory. New York: North Holland.

Ogle, D.M. 1986. DRTA Teaching Model for Active Reader. The reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

Olivia. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Motivation on Students’

Reading Comprehension Achievement.

Orasanu, J. 1986. Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paran, A. 1996. Reading in EFL: Facts and Fictions. ELT Journal 50/1.

Paris, Scoot G. 1987. Reading and Thinking Strategies. Lexington: DC. Heath.

Perkins, K.1987. The Relationship Between Nonverbal Schematic Concept

Formation and Story Comprehension. Research in Reading English as a Second Language. Washington DC: TESOL.

89 89

90

Pearson, P. David. 1978. Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston.

Ramayani. 2011. The Effect Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Raphael, Taffy E. 1985. Teaching Question- Answer Relationships. New Orleans: International Reading Association.

Ross, S. 1993. Self- Assessment in Second Language Testing. Languge Testing 15 (1), 1-20.

Siegel, L. S.1993. Phonological Processing Deficits as the Basis of a Reading

Disability. Developmental Review, 13(3), 246–257.

Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading: A psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading

and Learning to Read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Suherman. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on Students’

Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Urquhart, A.H. The Effect of Rhetorical Ordering on Readibility. London: Longman.

Wu, Manfat. The Relationship between The Use of QARs strategy and Language

Learning Motivation among EFL learners at a Vocational School in Hongkong. The Asian Journal Quarterly, 9 (3), 93-117.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on data analysis, hypotheses testing, research findings, and discussion, it can be concluded that :

1) Reading comprehension achievement of students taught by using DRTA strategy is significantly higher than those taught by using QARs strategy. 2) Reading comprehension achievement of students having high curiosity is

significantly higher than those having low curiosity.

3) There is significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Students having high curiosity showed significant effect in their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using DRTA strategy while students having low curiosity showed significant effect in their reading comprehension if they were taught by using QARs strategy.

5.2 Implications

The findings of this study gives implication to the students who want to improve their reading comprehension achievement and to the teachers who want to develop reading comprehension skill of their students when learning and teaching process takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two reading strategies, namely DRTA and QARs. They are applied to students with high and

low curiosity in order to know which teaching strategy is more suitable for them in improving their reading comprehension achievement.

The first finding of this research shows that students with high curiosity have higher achievement in reading comprehension when they were taught by using DRTA strategy. it implies that English teacher should try to apply this strategy for it can activate students’ prior knowledge, retrieve information from the text, interpret it, and reflect their understanding by creating their personal knowledge. This strategy really helps the students become active readers. Moreover, DRTA strategy also can make English teachers become easier in managing learning activity because they just function as facilitator. At the end of DRTA session, the teachers clarify the findings of the students during reading process. Therefore, this strategy can be a good choice for English teacher in teaching reading comprehension.

The second finding of this research showed that reading comprehension achievement of students with high curiosity is higher than those with low curiosity. It gives implications for English teacher that before teaching reading comprehension, the teacher should identify their students’ curiosity. The identification of students’ curiosity can determine the teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different curiosity is the key to success in teaching reading comprehension since the teachers can choose which strategy is more suitable to apply in the classroom.

The third finding of this research reveals that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ achievement in

reading comprehension. It implies that any teaching strategy applied by the teachers should be related to the levels of students’ curiosity. The way the teachers provoke students’ curiosity determine the attitude of the students in learning reading comprehension. Finally, it is suggested that DRTA strategy is applied to students with high curiosity while QARs is applied to students with low curiosity in order that they can achieve their reading comprehension achievement significantly.

5.3 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions presented in previous chapter, it is suggested that:

1) English teachers are recommended using DRTA and QARs strategy because both strategies can improve students’ reading comprehension achievement.

2) English teacher should provoke and encourage students with low curiosity to participate more active in the classroom in order that they can achieve better achievement in reading comprehension.

3) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of DRTA and QARs strategies in order to improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

REFERENCES

Alderson, Charles. J. 2000. Assessing Reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, W. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England: Longman.

Adams, M. J. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ary, Donald. Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.

Brown, A. 1982. Learning How to Learn from Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Brown, D.H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education. Inc.

Dale, Edgar. 1966. The Art of Reading. The Newsletter, 32, 1-4.

Danielle, S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2007. Standar Isi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan

Pendidikan. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan SMA.

Diba, Fara. 2010. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Driscoll, M. P. 1994. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dweck, C. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

Fisher, Alec. 2001. Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. 1999. How Motivation Fits Into a Science of Reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.

Haller, E. P., 1998. Can Comprehension Be Taught? A Quantitative Synthesis of Question- Answer Relationship. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8. Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Longman.

Hyde, Arthur. 2006. Comprehending Math: Adapting Reading Strategies to Teach Mathematics. Portsmouth: Hainemann. Inc.

Jamal, Abedi. Exploring DRTA Strategy for EFL Learners. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standard, and Students’ Testing (CREEST). TEFL Quarterly, 26 (4), 731-738.

Jonathan, Rowson. 2012. The Power of Curiosity. UK: RSA Centre.

Kintsch,W., & Kintsch, E. 2005. Children’s Reading Comprehension and Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lai, Emily. R. 2011. Metacognition: A Literature Review. Pearson’s Research Report Series: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research. Retrieved on July 14th, 2012.

Laufer, B. 1989. What Percentage of Text- Lexis is Essential for Comprehension? Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Loewenstein, G. 1994. The Psychology of Curiosity: A review and Reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1):75-98.

McNeil, John. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension. USA: Harper Collins Publsihers.

Merriam, S. B. 2002. Quantitative Research in Practice San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, B. 1975. The Organization of Prose and Its Effect on Memory. New York: North Holland.

Ogle, D.M. 1986. DRTA Teaching Model for Active Reader. The reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

Olivia. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Motivation on Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement.

Orasanu, J. 1986. Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paran, A. 1996. Reading in EFL: Facts and Fictions. ELT Journal 50/1.

Paris, Scoot G. 1987. Reading and Thinking Strategies. Lexington: DC. Heath.

Perkins, K.1987. The Relationship Between Nonverbal Schematic Concept Formation and Story Comprehension. Research in Reading English as a Second Language. Washington DC: TESOL.

89 89

Pearson, P. David. 1978. Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston.

Ramayani. 2011. The Effect Teaching Strategies and Curiosity on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Raphael, Taffy E. 1985. Teaching Question- Answer Relationships. New Orleans: International Reading Association.

Ross, S. 1993. Self- Assessment in Second Language Testing. Languge Testing 15 (1), 1-20.

Siegel, L. S.1993. Phonological Processing Deficits as the Basis of a Reading Disability. Developmental Review, 13(3), 246–257.

Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading: A psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Suherman. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension.

Urquhart, A.H. The Effect of Rhetorical Ordering on Readibility. London: Longman.

Wu, Manfat. The Relationship between The Use of QARs strategy and Language Learning Motivation among EFL learners at a Vocational School in Hongkong. The Asian Journal Quarterly, 9 (3), 93-117.