53 new topic” item 23, M = 3.07, SD = .94 and “taking big picture of what reading
are about” item 4, M = 3.10, SD = .61 were accounted as the lowest preference of GLOB strategy subscale. It was also found that two-top strategy usage was
gained by two- top numbers of the items such as “having purpose during reading”
item 1, M = 3.67, SD = .80 and “doing self-reflection to increase understanding” item 3, M = 3.53, SD = .78 and rated as high-usage level.
4.1.2 Frequency of Use of the Metacognitive Strategies
To answer the second research question, the study deliberately provides the list of the frequency of use of the metacognitve strategies
Table 4.5 List of highest and lowest strategies use Rank Item
Strategies Mean
SD 1
30 Using English and mother tongue to
understand 3.80
.81 2
25 Rereading to increase the understanding 3.73
.83 3
7 Reading slowly and carefully 3.70
.65 4
1 Having purpose during reading 3.67
.80 5
29 Translating English to native one 3.67
.96
26 14 Paying closer attention situationally
3.23 .68
27 21 Critically analyzing and evaluating the text
3.23 .63
28 4
Taking first the big picture of what reading are about
3.10 .61
29 23
Checking the understanding before coming across to the new topic.
3.06 .94
30 26
Asking oneself questions to get better understanding
2.83 .81
54 The table gives a demonstration of strategies usage ranking in range from
the highest to the least one. It was confirmed that the range of five-highest and five-lowest mean were about 3.67 to 380 and 2.83 to 3.23. Accordingly, it has
been found that “using English and mother tongue to understand the reading passage” item 30, M = 3.80, SD = .81, “rereading to increase the understanding”
item 25, M = 3.73, SD = .83 and “adjust the reading slowly and carefully” item 7, M = 3.70, SD = .65 came to be the most preferred strategy. Additionally,
strategy such “asking oneself questions to get better understanding” got to be the lowest preferred strategy item 26, M = 2.83, .81.
4.1.3 Students’ Level of Reading Comprehension
After distributing the respondents a test of reading comprehension, thus this study reported the data as below
Table 4.6 Statistics Dataset of Reading Comprehension Score
Statistics
TOEFL N
Valid 30
Missing Mean
428.00 Std. Error of Mean
7.48 Median
430.00 Std. Deviation
40.97 Minimum
350.00 Maximum
490.00 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
Figure 4.1 Histogram of Reading Comprehension TOEFL score According to the results of reading comprehension test, the range of
gained score was around 350 to 490. The study reported that the median of those TOEFL score was 430. The mean score of whole data was 428 and the standard
deviation point was 40.97. Hence, it was found that 15 students or 50 of total amount were below the average. The overall mean further indicates that the
students did not perform properly in the reading comprehension test. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
4.1.4 Correlation Between Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Reading
Comprehension
Particularly, the relationship between reading comprehension and
metacognitive reading strategies were partly displayed into three subcategories. It was revealed in Pearson correlation table as follows.
Table. 4.7 Pearson Correlation of Students’ Metacognitive Reading Strategies
Awareness and Reading Comprehension
Correlations
RComp PROB
SUP GLOB
Pearson Correlation
RComp 1.000
.619 .419
.476 PROB
.619 1.000
.654 .455
SUP .419
.654 1.000
.515 GLOB
.476 .455
.515 1.000
Sig. 1-tailed
RComp .
.000 .011
.004 PROB
.000 .
.000 .006
SUP .011
.000 .
.002 GLOB
.004 .006
.002 .
N
RComp 30
30 30
30 PROB
30 30
30 30
SUP 30
30 30
30 GLOB
30 30
30 30
a. Dependent Variable: Rcomp b. Predictors: Constant, GLOB, PROB, SUP
PROB Strategies were listed as the top independent variables that get significance level at .000 1-tailed p .05. Additionally, in Pearson
Correlation, the point was approaching in level .619 the strongest level is at point PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57 +1. Furthermore, SUP Strategies also got the definite relation to reading
comprehension with significant level .01 p .05 and Pearson Correlation level at .419 approaching +1. Eventually, Global Reading Strategies were reported as
independent variable, which gained positive relation to reading comprehension as well p = .004 and r = .476.
Table 4.8 Model Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis
Model Summary
b
Model R
R Square Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of
the Estimate 1
.658
a
.433 .368
32.57276 a. Predictors: Constant, GLOB, PROB, SUP
b. Dependent Variable: RComp
Table 4.8 showed how much of the variance in the reading comprehension was explained by metacognitive reading strategies. It was found that the value of
R Square was .433. It could be expressed into percentage multiply by 100 as 43 . It meant that metacognitive reading strategies explained 43 of the gain of
reading comprehension. Table 4.9
Analysis of Variance of Students’ Metacognitive reading strategies awareness and Reading Comprehension
ANOVA
a
Model Sum of
Squares df
Mean Square
F Sig.
1 Regression
21094.398 3
7031.466 6.627 .002
b
Residual 27585.602
26 1060.985
Total 48680.000
29 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
