Olivia still struggled to employ several effective way to do the task better. She did not visually track as others learn or while writing
teacher instructi on to aid her comprehension. ―I sound it out‖ was her
simple explanation of the learning reading strategy he used in March. By the end of this study, Olivia stated that she was interested in reading a text
to tell of many local stories in Indonesia, especially Papuan stories, although he did not how to get the stories that she mentioned. She stated
that she only get 37 of the scanning questions during the study. Thus, she still struggles to answer the questions from other texts. She first
stated, ―I‘m a not good learner‖ in the January investigation. By March s
he was saying that, ―I want to get better on my reading ability.‖
8. Petronela
Her nick name is Nela, often some teachers called her. Nela presented as a quiet and positive member of the group. She was a good
listener and attempted all activities. Others in the group, whether working independently or with a partner, could distract Nela. Early on in the
sessions, she would avoid written reading tasks by asking to go to the washroom or by misplacing her pencil. When she felt comfortable with a
task, Nela began immediately. Occasionally she missed sessions because of poor attendance. For example, Nela was absent for her last learning
outcome assessment, hence it is not available for review.
Table 4.8 Data Collection Summary for Petronela
data collected Jan
Feb March
April attendance of
in study 86.8
time in study in class
79.4 92.8
reading ability L process
55 55
L outcome 1
sstreatment LT with sc
22 36
statistic LT with sk
1 2
miscue errors 46.7
10
indicates improvement, LT = Local Text, sc=scanning, sk=skimming
Table 4.8 displays the quantifiable data collected from January to March 2011, regarding Nela‘s reading ability attitudes and achievements
through local text with scanning and skimming. Nela showed improvement in some areas from January to March.
Nela ‘s attendance greatly improved. She stated that she learns 36 of the
scanning question given to her, compared to 22 in the January. Nela also signed out books from library regarding local text, Papuan or other
places in Indonesia. She got only one grade in skimming level, as was the case in January. She showed more self-monitoring for understanding
when doing the tasks in learning reading for the March miscue analysis than she did in January. Only 10 of Nela
‘s errors affected understanding how to answer scanning and skimming questions, compared to 46.7 of
her errors in January‘s assessment.
The observations and notes made in the writer learning log indicate that Nela also showed improvement in the qualitative data
collected. While Nela did not like to talk about her technique to answer the questions from the text quickly and correct, talking nonetheless helped
Nela to clarify her understanding; she was better able to complete tasks after engaging in an oral discussion about the learning reading material.
This contradicts Nela ‘s statement, on her interest this study that she did
not like to discuss what she reads or learns before. She was able to extract the important information into coherent jotted content map. Nela could
retell the important points from how to get main idea well from the texts. She chose more learning reading material from text book appropriate to
her interest and reading ability level by the end of this study. Nela stated that sometimes she was not enjoyed reading materials and learns at home.
She preferred to read comic version in the fantasy and humour genres, but learning reading materials expanded her choice during the study. Nela
moved from text books to local text sand increased her interests to include her fewer experience in answer the questions. When asked what she had
learned from the sessions, Nela l stated, ―I learned about how to organize
narrative text and recount text. These two similar texts are often making me confuse, especially to put particular
person and general one‖. Nela struggled with her reading anility in several areas.
Organizing her work into a written response was difficult. She liked listening to others read the questions and then answer and listening to
audiobooks, but she rarely used her content map to aid her comprehension. She did not communicate how she solved learning
reading problems. Nela read texts only what interested her; when her interest waned, so did her level of achievement.
9. Wellem
