b. Students’ vocabulary mastery
According to Ward 1982, vocabulary mastery becomes the major problem which is faced by EFL learners. During the treatment, this problem also affected the
teaching learning process. Some students were frustrated because they did not know about the meaning of the words used in the reading passages. Even though the
researcher had reminded the students about the key vocabulary that they needed to understand and even though the students had learned about the topics before, yet they
told the researcher that it was difficult for them to remember the meaning of the words. This situation was based on the field notes written in each meeting of the
treatment. “As I walked around the class, I found some students were frustrated because
they did not know the meaning of some words. They complained to me that they forgot the meaning of some words in the reading passage.”
This situation affected the questions that the students made. Almost all questions produced in while reading activity were vocabulary questions. As a result,
it also affected the next activity, which was post reading activity. It was difficult for them to restate the content of the reading passages. Thus, students’ vocabulary
mastery influenced the process of the treatment. In conclusion, the researcher had explored the first research problem and the
factors triggering the implementation. The next discussion presents the answer to the second research problem.
B. The Pre-test and the Post-test Result
This section discusses the findings of pretest and posttest results in order to find out whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy as the treatment is
able to improve the seventh grade’s reading comprehension. It presents the data got from pretest and posttest done before and after the treatment. Each of them is
discussed and analyzed below.
1. Presentation of the Raw Data
In this part, the researcher presents the raw data got from pretest and the posttest. It is used to see the progress made by each student and to see whether there
is an improvement made by the students from the pretest score and the posttest score. The data of the pretest and the posttest result is presented below.
Table 4.2 Presentation of the Raw Data
SS Pretest Posttest
1 10 27
2 47 37
3 47 62
4 55 67
5 67 67
6 67 85
7 52 60
8 50 47
9 42 52
10 67 50
11 75 77
12 75 67
13 50 50
14 67 95
15 72 90
16 85 95
17 57 47
18 55 67
SS Pretest
Posttest
19 75 80
20 80 82
21 62 50
22 90 100
23 72 80
24 80 85
25 77 60
26 35 50
27 55 60
28 82 80
The table shows that most of the students made improvement in the posttest; it is seen from the posttest scores which are higher than the pretest scores. There were
18 students increased their scores between 2 to 20 points. Two students did not change their scores; they stayed at the same level. There were 8 students decreased
their scores from 2 up to 10 points.
2. Data Presentation of Pre-test
As it is mentioned in the previous chapter that the pretest aimed to get information about the students’ reading comprehension before they got the treatment.
In applying the treatment, the researcher took one class only without any consideration in choosing it because this study aimed to find out the improvement of
the students’ reading comprehension. The sample of this study was class A which consisted of 30 students.
However, in the first meeting, the day when the researcher gave the pretest, there were 2 students who were absent. Therefore, the students who joined the posttest but
did not join the pretest were not included as the sample. In other words, there were 28 students became the sample of the data.
Referring to the classification of scores Chapter III, the scores of the pretest were as follows.
Table 4.3 The Classification of The Pretest Scores
Category Scores Number of
students Percentage
1 Very good
9-10 1 3.6 2
Good 8 – 8.9
4 14.3
3 Sufficient
6.5 – 7.9 10
35.7 4
Bad 5.5 – 6.4
5 17.6
5 Very bad
…. 5.5 8
28.6
From the data above, it is obviously seen that there were various kinds of the students’ scores. The score ranged from 10 to 90. It means that there was a very big
gap. There was only one student or 3.6 from 28 students who was able to achieve very good predicate. In other words, there was only one student whose reading
comprehension was good. Four students or 14.3 of the whole class got 8 – 8.9, which means that they achieved good predicate. Most students of the class achieved
sufficient predicate. It was proved from the data that 10 students or 35.7 of the students got 6.5 – 7.9. Five students or 17.6 of the class were categorized in the
lower part. They got score 5.5 – 6.4, which means bad predicate. There were 8 students stayed in the lowest part. Their scores were below 5.5. It means that 28.6
