THE EFFECT OF THINK-PAIR-SHARE TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG

THE EFFECT OF THINK-PAIR-SHARE TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND

YEAR OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

By

DHONA KARTIKA 0913042036

ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM

THE DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINNING AND EDUCATION

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY BANDAR LAMPUNG

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF THINK-PAIR-SHARE TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND

YEAR OF SMAN 8 BANDAR LAMPUNG

BY

DHONA KARTIKA

This research was conducted from a situation in which there were still many students who got low reading comprehension achievement. There were many things influenced their problems in comprehending text. One of strategies which are helpful to give a good effect on the increase on students’ reading comprehension achievement is think-pair-share technique. Thus, this researcher was intended to find out whether there was a significant increase of students’ reading comprehension achievement when they are taught by using think-pair-share technique.

This quantitative research which was one group pretest-posttest was conducted at SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung. The data were collected and analyzed by using Paired Samples T-Test with SPSS version 20.0.

Based on the calculation of the test, the results showed that the students’ mean score of posttest (84.22) in experimental class was higher than the pretest (50.16) with the gain was 34.06. The results of t-test indicated that the significant (2-tailed) value was 0.000 in α level was p<0.05). It showed that the hypothesis was accepted, since there was a significant increase of students’ reading comprehension achievement. Thus, it can be conclude that think-pair-share can be applied and recommended as a reference to teach English in reading class.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. Research Schedule………. 62

2. Try Out Test………...… 63

3. Distribution of Try Out Test……….. 71

4. Reliability of Try Out Test………. 73

5. The Computation of Reliability of Try Out Test………...… 75

6. Difficulty Level of Try Out Test……… 76

7. Discrimination Power of Try Out Test……….. 78

8. Pretest………. 80

9. Posttest………..… 85

10. Students’ Score of The Experimental Class ……….…… 90

11. Students’ Reading Aspects Score of Experimental Class ……… 91

12. Table of Frequency of Experimental Class ….……….…… 93

13. The Analysis of Pretest and Posttest in Experimental Class ………… 97

14. Normality Testing of Experimental Class...………..… 98

15. Homogeneity Testing………. 100

16. Hypothesis Testing……… 102

17. Lesson Plan 1 for Experimental class.………..…… 106

18. Lesson Plan 2 for Experimental class.……….……. 111

19. Lesson Plan 3 for Experimental class..………. 116

20. Students’ Worksheets……… 120

LIST OF FIGURES

Table Pages

1. The Graphic of the Comparison between Pretest and Posttest Mean

Score ………... 42

2. The Graphic of the Comparison between Pretest and Posttest Sub

Skills Score ………. 43

3. Photo of Think Time student’s performance in the experimental

class ……… 53

4. Photo of Pair Time Student’s Performance in the Experimental

Class ……….. 54

5. Photo of Share Time Student’s Performance in the Experimental

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pages

1. Specification The Distribution Frequency of Students’ Pretest

Scores in the Experimental Class ………... 35 2. The Distribution Frequency of Students’ Posttest Scores in the

Experimental class ……….. 35

3. Statistics Computation of Pretest Scores ……… 36 4. Specification The Distribution Frequency of Students’ Pretest

Scores in the Experimental Class ………... 36 5. The Distribution Frequency of Students’ Posttest Scores in the

Experimental class ……….. 37 6. Statistics Computation of Posttest ……….. 37 7. The increase of the Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement ₃₈

8. Normality Test ……… 39

9. The Analysis of Pretest and Posttest Score in the Experimental

1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of The Problem

English has been taught in Indonesian educational institutes as an obligatory subject in junior high schools as well as in senior highs since Indonesia proclaimed its independence in 1945 (Alisyahbana, 1990). English has become more significant in Indonesia education in recent decades than in earlier periods (Coleman, 1997). It can be seen that there are many students learn English in Indonesian educational institutions.

Based on the researcher’s pre-observation at second year in SMAN 8 Bandar

Lampung, she found that there were many students who had some problems in learning English, especially in reading. It is said so because their reading competence was still low. It could be seen when the researcher asked ten students at the second year to do a reading test consisting of ten questions. The result shows that five out of ten students got lower score than the minimal mastery criterion (KKM) of school, that is, 68. Most of them found some difficulties in determining main idea, finding inference and understanding features of text forms.

Based on the statement above, students are expected to understand every kind of information that is provided in English written form. The guideline KTSP states that the standard competence of the senior high school for reading are the

2 students should be able to identify the main idea, specific information, inference, the word meaning, phrase and sentence of functional text and simple essay. It can be seen that reading is one of important skills that have to be mastered by the student and it influences the researcher to conduct a research about reading.

All of students who learn English are expected to be able to master all language skills, listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with reading skills as the main skill. Why reading is pointed as the main skill that students should master may be seen from many tests that students face mostly contain of reading text. Reading is one of the favorite skills that mostly appear in many kinds on test, for instance, there are almost all kind text that appear in students final semester examination even in the National Examination. Many kind of questions that must be answered by the students based on the text given.

The researcher’s decision to choose think-pair-share technique is that researcher

wants to investigate reading class whether it can be an active learning not a passive one. Think-pair-share technique is one of the cooperative learning’s techniques found by Lyman in 1981. Think-pair-share gives the students opportunity to discuss their problem in comprehending a text to another, so they can solved the problem together. There are some research that use think-pair-share technique in order to increase student’s reading comprehension achievement.

In addition, Ahyarudin (2008) found that think-pair-share technique could also

increase the student’s reading comprehension achievement. He compared

3 that the students’ score within experimental class which used TPS increased significantly (54.29 to 80.71), while there was no significant increase in the control group that used GTM (55.67 to 61.75 point). Based on his finding, he confidently said that think-pair-share technique was able to increase the students’ reading comprehension achievement.

Allen (2007: 107) argues about the advantages of think-pair-share are provides students with think time prior to discuss, permit for independent and collaborative learning, gives students opportunities to collaborate to refine definitions, gives some more triggers to more equal participation as all students share with one other and then with another pair of students, engages students in active learning. If all of the students are able to get all of those advantages, it can make reading as a fun activity that can be enjoyed in doing it. As the result of it, students are able to catch the main idea of the text, find the specific information easily, and everything that they need in read and comprehends the text. If it may be said that it will help their improvement of reading comprehension achievement.

Considering the problems above and regarding the advantages of think-pair share,

the researcher purposes conducting a research entitled “The effect of think

-pair-share technique on students” reading comprehension achievement the second year of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung”.

B. Identification of the Problems

Based on the background above, the following problems can be identified: 1. The students are still passive in teaching learning process.

4 2. The students are still poor in finding out determining main idea, finding

inference and understanding features of text forms

3. The teacher still applies the old teaching technique, less attractive teaching strategy.

C. Limitation of the Problem

The focus of the research is the students’ reading achievement as a result of

implementing of think-pair-share technique. The decision is taken considering the advantages of think-pair-share as one of cooperative learning’s techniques which

is believed can offer positive effect of students’ reading comprehension and

knowing the reality that there are still many students who get low score in reading test.

D. Formulation of the Problems

Based on the limitation of the problem, the researcher formulated the research problem as follows:

1. Is there any significant increase of students’ reading comprehension

achievement when they are taught by using think-pair-share technique? 2. Which reading aspect has the highest increase when the students are

5 E. Objectives of the Research

Based on the formulation of the problem above, the objective of research are:

1. To find out whether there is any significant increase of students’ reading

comprehension achievement when they are taught by using think-pair-share technique.

2. To find which reading aspect has the highest increase when the students are taught by using think-pair-share technique?

F. Uses of the Research

The uses of the research were:

1. Theoretically, the results of the research are expected to be beneficial to support on teaching and learning technique

2. Practically, it can be a consideration for English teacher that think-pair-share technique can be applied as an alternative technique in teaching reading for suitable students.

G. Scope of the Research

This research used one class as an experimental group to investigate that there is

any significant increase of students’ reading comprehension achievement when

they are taught by using think-pair-share technique. In analyzing the data, the researcher used one group pretest posttest design.

6 H. Definition of Terms

There are some terms used by the researcher, so in order to make it clear, the researcher gave some definitions below:

1. Reading comprehension means relating to what someone does not know or new information to what he already knows through printed messages being read. It may be regarded as relating aspects of the world around human being including what is being read to the knowledge, intentions, and

expectations are already have in readers’ head (Smith, 1982: 15)

2. Cooperative Learning is a variety of teaching methods in which students work in small groups to help each other learn academic content (Slavin, 1995: 20).

3. Think-pair-share is a summarization strategy that can be used in any content area before, during, and after a lesson. The activity involves three basic steps, which is, thinking, pairing, and sharing (Lyman, 1981).

7

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

A. Review of Previous Relevant Research

Based on the previous research that was carried out to investigate about reading comprehension, the writer finds that there are some research which investigated about reading comprehension, its learning strategies, and motivation that can be used in it and relevant to this research, as follows:

1. Increasing students’ reading comprehension achievement through TPS

technique (Sari, 2010). She found that teaching reading by using TPS is able to increase the students reading comprehension. The improvement can be shown by the mean given between experimental group (taught by using TPS) and control group (taught by conventional technique) 76.55 > 62.68 at the level of significance ( p= 0.000, p < 0.05).

2. Teaching reading comprehension through fairytale at the second year students of SMP Muhammadiyah 3 Bandar Lampung (Ulfa, 2010). She found that teaching reading by using fairytale was able to increase the students reading comprehension. The improvement can be shown by the mean score which increased from 49.586 in pretest and it became 60.35 in posttest. It means that there was difference about 10.764 (p= 0.000, p < 0.05).

8

3. Increasing students’ reading comprehension of Narrative text through SQ3R

technique at the first year of SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Kotabumi (Marsiyah, 2009).). She found that the total scores of the pretest were 1860 up to 2380 in posttest and the mean of pretest 62.00 up to 79.33 in the posttest with the gain score was 520 (mean=17.33). It means that there was an increase of the

students’ reading comprehension.

4. Increasing students’ reading comprehension achievement through Contextual

clues training at the first year students of SMUN 3 Kotabumi (Alfarini, 2010). The increase also happened in this research. It can be seen from the increase of the mean score of the pretest and posttest for about 4.166 point (45.00 in the pretest into 49.166 in posttest (after being given the treatments).

5. Increasing students’ reading comprehension achievement through questioning

technique at the second year of MTSN 2 Bandar Lampung (Helmi, 2010). The total score of pretest in experimental class was 2,290 up to 2,783, the mean from 57.25 up to 69.58. On the other hand, in the control class, the pretest score was 2,233 up to 2,379, with the mean was from 55.83 up to 59.48. It can be seen from the result that there was an increase of students’ reading comprehension when they were taught by using SQ3R technique.

Based on the previous research mentioned above, the following has been found: 1. There are many techniques and strategies that can be used to make the

students’ reading comprehension achievement increase.

2. After getting some new techniques, the students showed their positive difference of reading comprehension.

9 3. Compared with the students who are taught by using no technique (conventional technique), students who are taught by communicative technique have better reading comprehension achievement.

Based on the previous research and explanation above, the researcher assumes that think-pair-share technique is also able to give the same positive effect on

students’ reading comprehension.

B. Review of Related Literature

Considering the review of previous relevant research, the writer is going to propose a review of related literature which has a relationship with this research as follows:

1. Reading Comprehension

There are so many definitions of reading according to many experts. In this chapter, there will be some definitions of reading.

Grabe (1997) defines reading as an interaction between reader and text. Grabe states that reading requires efficient knowledge to world and given topic also an efficient knowledge of the language. It can be said that more background knowledge the reader have, easier they comprehend the text. Nuttal (1982) in Simanjuntak (1988: 14) says that reading as the meaningful interpretation of printed or written verbal symbol and Smith (1982) states that reading is something that makes sense to the reader and always should. According to Smith, reading is seen as having four distinctive and fundamental characteristic and one of them is that reading should be based on comprehension. He states that

10 comprehension in reading as a matter of understanding or logical judgment of the text that relate to written language to what we already know and require to know.

It can be said that reading always relates with printed materials or verbal symbols that has many meaningful meanings in it. Reading also always has strong

relationship with the reader, which the reader has to understand and “make sense”

the meaning in the text or printed materials using their background knowledge and their logical judgment. The more skillful the reader, the closer meaning that the reader makes to the writer intends about the text.

Meanwhile, comprehension is one of the influential aspects of reading because reading will be not success without comprehending. As Smith (1982) stated above that reading is a “make sense” process of the text. This “make sense” can be said as the comprehension process, which is a process where the reader tries to connect their background knowledge, understanding, and their logical judgment of the text. It is also supported by Richard (1986) in Ellyana (1998: 8) defines comprehension as the process by which the person understands the meaning of the written or spoken language. Moreover, Thompson in Apriyanti (2001: 8) adds in comprehension process, readers carry their background knowledge, ability to recognize, a use rhetorical structure, and ability to use reading strategies in storing information contained in a text. It confirms that some capability in inviting and bringing the knowledge toward the text that was called recognizing and reading strategies are also important in comprehending process beside the background knowledge.

11 In other hand, Richard (1999) defines comprehension as the process by which the person understands the meaning of the written or spoken language. In reading, it is sometimes easy to read the text, but it is difficult to take its meaning. In addition, Williams (1981) in Ellyana (1999: 8) says that comprehensionis mind’s act of power of understanding what has been written. It proves that when the readers read the text without comprehending, there will be nothing that they mind catch about the text at all.

Bernhardt (2005) pointed out that L2 reading process has relied primarily upon explanatory models borrowed from first language research. Bernhardt asserted that in this process the reader can be involved in the construction of meaning from a text, based partly on new information presented by that text and partly on background knowledge, feelings and opinions that a reader brings in making sense of the printed materials. Research into the nature of the reading process is abundant and various reading models have been proposed (see Ruddell, P., Ruddell, R. & Singer, 1994) based on a variety of theoretical perspectives.

Reading is not merely a receptive process of gathering information from the page in a word-by-word manner (Grabe, 1991). Rather, it is a selective process and characterized as an active process of comprehending.

In addition, there are the reading aspects that should be considered in measuring reading comprehension: (1) Determining main idea; the main idea refers to the author develops through out the paragraph. It is not always explicitly sated in the sentences, so that the readers should be able to comprehend the text and think out the text. (2) Inference; it refers to the prediction about something unknown based

12

on the available facts and information in the text by using the readers’ logical

thinking. (3) References; it contains words or phrases used as a signal to know other meaning referring the words provided in the text in order to avoid unnecessary repletion of words or phrases. (4) Finding detail information; in order to comprehend all about the text, the readers should be able to find the details or specific information which affects the meaning by giving definition, examples, facts, the process of comparison or analogy etc. (5) Vocabulary; it plays an important role to understanding the meaning of the text by identifying the synonyms, antonyms, compound words and their components, and also grammatical category.

From the definition above, it can be said that reading comprehension is a process not just to read the sequences of alphabets, but to discover and reveal what they

mean and then sends it to the readers’ mind in order to understand what they are

all about and the writer intends about the text by bringing the readers background knowledge and reading strategies.

2. Hortatory Exposition Text

According to the syllabus of 2006 Curriculum, in reading skill, students of the second year of senior high school have to be able to comprehend short text in form of narrative, report, spoof, and hortatory exposition text. In this research, the researcher used hortatory exposition text. Hortatory exposition is a type of spoken or written text that is intended to explain the listeners or readers that something should or should not happen or be done. To strengthen the explanation, the speaker or writer needs some arguments as the fundamental reasons of the given

13 idea. In other words, this kind of text can be called as argumentation or opinion. The researcher uses Hortatory Exposition text because she assumes that this text can attract the students think more critically.

According to Grace (2005), hortatory exposition text has certain characteristics, they are:

1. Social Function

- To persuade the readers that something should or should not be the case or be done.

2. Generic Structure

a. Thesis: Statement or announcement of issue concern. Thesis is similar to tentative conclusion which needs to be proven by certain facts and argument. In the end, it can be true or false.

b. Arguments: Reasons for concern that will lead to recommendation. This is the phase which tries to examine and support that the thesis stated above is true

c. Recommendation: Statement of what should or should not happen or be done based on the given arguments. This is what should or should be done on the given arguments. This is what should or should not be done in the hortatory text.

3. Language features:

1. Using Simple Present Tense, e.g. Is it important to know what your kids . are watching?

14

. you have tried to protect them…

3. Using action verbs, e.g. expose, know, and protect, etc 4. Using thinking verbs, e.g. I believe, I think, I trust, etc

5. Using adverbs, e.g. absolutely, certainly, early, etc

6. Using adjective, e.g. important, significant, aggressive, etc 7. Using technical terms, e.g. resistance, adolescence, etc

8. Using general and abstract noun, e.g. advantages, differences, etc 9. Using connectives/transition, e.g. meanwhile, in addition, contrary, etc

Watching TV

Thesis:

Is it important to know what your kids are watching? Of course it is. Television can expose your children to things that you have tried to protect them from, especially violence, drug abuse, etc.

Argument 1:

One study demonstrated that watching too much TV during the day or at bedtime often causes bedtime resistance, sleep onset delay and anxiety around sleep, followed by shortened sleep duration.

Argument 2:

Another study found a significant association between the amount of time spent watching television during adolescence and early adulthood, and the like hood of subsequent aggressive acts against others.

Argument 3:

Meanwhile, many studies have found an association between kids watching a lot of TV, being inactive and overweight.

Recommendation:

Considering some facts above, protect your children with some following tips: 1. Limit television viewing to 1-2 hours each day.

2. Do not allow your children to have a TV set in their bedrooms. 3. Review the ratings of TV shows that your children watch.

15 4. Watch television with your children and discuss what is happening during the

show.

Here is the language feature of spoof text above:

1. Using Simple Present Tense, e.g. Is it important to know what your kids . are watching?

2. Using modals, e.g. Television can expose your children to things that you

. have tried to protect them…

3. Using action verbs, e.g. expose, know, protect 4. Using thinking verbs, e.g. I believe, I think, I trust

5. Using adverbs, e.g. early

6. Using adjective, e.g. important, significant, aggressive 7. Using technical terms, e.g. resistance, adolescence

8. Using general and abstract noun,e.g. time, anxiety 9. Using connectives/transition, e.g. meanwhile

3. Think-Pair-Share

Think-Pair-share is one of cooperative learnings which are developed by many experts and first proposed by Franks Lyman (1981) and his colleagues in

Maryland. It is named from three stages of student’s action (thinking, pairing, and

sharing) with emphasis on what students are to be doing at each of those stages. According to Lyman (1981) think-pair-share is a summarization strategy that can be used in before, during, and after a lesson. There are three basic steps of think-pair-share technique. The first is think stage, where the students are asked and to ponder a question of problem that can impulsively come to their mind in the first

16 time. The second is pair up. In this stage, each student is paired up to discuss their answer or solution to the problem in order to revise or alter their original ideas. The last one is share. The students are called up to share with the rest of the class.

Kagan (1992) states that think-pair-share consists of three steps cooperative structure. During first step, individuals think silently about the question or a problem that is given by the teacher. In the second steps, they are paired up to exchange their thoughts. In the third step, the pairs share their thought and response to the other team or entire group.

Allen (2007: 107) argues about the advantages of think-pair-share are provides students with think time prior to discuss, permit for independent and collaborative learning, gives students opportunities to collaborate to refine definitions, gives some more triggers to more equal participation as all students share with one other and then with another pair of students, engages students in active learning.

According to Lie (2002: 57) think-pair-share is a technique which gives the students opportunity to work alone and in a group also, so the participation of all the students will increase. Arends (1997: 123) also states that think-pair-share helps student to develop their understanding and their ability in considering other sights.

In line with the statements above, Carss (2007, p.iii) states that the use of think-pair-share makes the cognitive and social aspects to be in one and maximize the background knowledge and thinking. It seems that think-pair-share is able to

17 Based on the descriptions above, it can be stated that think-pair-share techniques give s the students the opportunity to develop their way of thinking, their ability to solve the problem not only independently, but also in a group and catch some ideas and compare them to the others, also develop their ability methodology of problem solving.

3.1. Team Formation in Think-Pair-Share Technique

In process of making a team in cooperative group work will depends on the situation. They are formal and informal way. An in formal, for example, the group is made in contemporary time, in specific study or topic and can change everyday. On the other hand, in formal formation, students work in the same group in a long period of time, occasionally for one semester. In this formation, teacher assigns group by homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping, random grouping, and interest grouping (Olsen and Kagan et al, 1992) as citied in Kassiler (1992: 13).

First, homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping is formed when the grouping depend on some varieties such as ethnic, gender, achievement level, language proficiency and so on. Second is random formation. There is no specific category in grouping the students like in the homogeneous or heterogeneous. The teacher can distribute many color papers, shapes and cards. The students will be grouped based on the same colors, shapes, and cards. The last one is interest group. The teacher gives some topic to the students and they will be grouped based on the topic that they choose and interested in. In this research, the researcher will use heterogeneous formation, where high motivation students will be work together and in a group with the low motivation students.

18 3.2. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Think-Pair-Share (TPS)

3.2.1. The Advantages of Think-Pair-Share (TPS)

Here are some advantages of think-pair-share technique according to Johnson and Johnson (2001):

a. Thinking Time Provision

Think-time in think-pair-share allows the students to develop their answer. It because it helps the students to control the first answer that come first in their mind to be more reliable and better answer that is full of justification and reasonable.

b. Making Students Actively Involved

This strategy has power to make all the students get involve in the learning process. Pair and share-time triggers the students to talk and discuss with each other about their own thoughts. They also used to appreciate ones opinion about the problem and the answer. So, it makes the students more actively involve in group discussion and class participation.

c. Resolving Students’ Misunderstandings

Students’ misunderstanding about the topic are resolved during peer-tutoring

or peer-teaching; they would be argue their ideas and then discuss it together, so if there are some misunderstanding or opinions. It can be solved clearly.

19 d. Easy to Implementing on the spur of the moment

Think-pair-share is easy to be implemented because it does not take much time for the class preparation.

e. As a cooperative Learning Strategy, Think-pair-share benefits students in the areas of peer acceptance, peer support, academic achievement and self-esteem.

3.2.2. The Disadvantages of Think-Pair-Share (TPS)

Besides having some advantages, think-pair-share according to Lyman (1981) also has disadvantages as follow:

A. Time Consuming Applying think-pair-share will be time consuming if the process does not run well. The teacher should be able to create an amusing

atmosphere and give some rules for prevention.

B. Odd number of students

Problem may appear when the number of students is odd, for example 27. In such case, the teacher may let one a group with odd number, i.e. three students, for the pairing stage (leaving one students alone in pairing process is not preferable and inconsistent with the procedure of TPS).

20 C. Domination of Certain Students

Students who are in upper level of knowledge usually have many opportunities to share their idea because they have more ideas in their mind than the lower students. It can create a situation where the upper students try to dominate the process of learning (especially in sharing stage). Therefore, the teacher should always check and monitor the entire process to ensure that such thing does not happen. Students should also be provided an understanding about equal opportunity and participation in classroom learning.

D. Assigning The member of The Groups

Think-pair-share technique allows all of the students to share their ideas one by one. It makes the teacher should assigned every students in order to monitor their participation. It will be hard because the teacher will work harder to remember and recognize the students who are good or not in the process of learning in the classroom.

E. limited Information

The information received by the students is limited to what their friends

know. The ideas that come up from the students’ mind usually appear

from their previous knowledge and acquired knowledge from the text given. The information can be limited if the students are not able to elaborate their ideas, so the information given only rotate in the same place or not elaborate well and not so many information that students get from their friends.

21 3.3. Teaching Reading Comprehension through Think-Pair-Share (TPS)

The researcher proposes the procedures of teaching reading through think-pair-share technique as follows:

Pre-Activities:

1. The teacher introduces the topic and constructs the students’ background

knowledge related to the topic by asking some questions.

2. The teacher informs the material which is going to be learned and introduces think-pair-share procedures.

3. The teacher pairs the students

While-Activities:

1. The teacher distributes hortatory text and asks them to read the text and asks them to read the text individually and silently.

2. The teacher asks the students about the difficult words that they do not understand and lead them to discuss it.

3. The teacher leads the students to analyze the text and explain the generic structure and language features used in a hortatory text given.

4. The teacher applies the procedures of think-pair-share as follow: (Here,

teacher monitors the students’ interaction and draws attentions to

successful discussion so that the students understand exactly what they need to do).

22 A. Think: The teacher delivers students’ work sheet (questions’ and

answers’ sheet) and asks them to think about the following questions

silently and individually for 1 to 3 minutes each question. Then, the teacher asks the students to write down their thoughts on a piece of paper and collect them later (It is useful for the teacher to see if there is problem in comprehending the text).

B. Pair: the teacher asks students to work in pair with their partner to discuss the results of their individual thinking for 3 to 4 minutes for each question.

C. Shares: The teacher randomly asks a representative of students to share their ideas in front of the class. Other pairs will give argument, suggestions, or revision when they find opposite opinion.

5. The teacher responses the students’ ideas by giving revision, additional

information, and leads the students to reach the conclusion of discussion.

Post-Activities

1. The teacher asks students to evaluate what they have learnt.

2. The teacher asks students’ difficult_{ies in understanding the lesson.}

C. Theoretical Assumption

Based on all the literatures reviewed above, the researcher assumes that think-pair-share technique are good in students. It is because think-pair-share has Thinking, pairing, and sharing time which help the students to comprehend the

23 text freely, gives a big opportunity for students to speak up their ideas about the text and discuss it with their friends based on their own background knowledge. So it makes the students motivated in arguing their ideas in front of all their friends and class. There is no wrong judgment for the wrong answer. Therefore, it may seem that think-pair-share can give positive effect, which is an increase in

students’ reading comprehension achievement

D. Hypothesis

Based on the theories and the assumptions above, the researcher formulated the hypotheses “There is any significant increase of students’ reading comprehension achievement when they are taught by using think-pair-sharetechnique”.

24 III. RESEARCH METHODS

A. Research Design

This research was a quantitative in which one-group pretest-posttest was applied (Hatch and Farady, 1982: 22). Pretest was conducted to find out the preliminary ability students and posttest was conducted to see whether think-pair-share

technique is able to increase the students’ reading achievement. The students were

assigned randomly to one or the other group. The design can be shown in the following way:

TI X T2 Where :

T1 : pretest T2 : pretest

X : treatment (using think-pair-share technique)

(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 22) B. Population and Sample

The research was conducted at SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung. The population of the research was the second year students of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung. There were eight classes of the second year consisting of 32-36 students. Their age rate was 18 years old and come from different family background. The research used one sample class and the sample was taken randomly by using lottery since there was no special justification and priority class. So, the researcher took one class from the population as the sample. Class XI IPA 1 was assigned as experimental class.

25 C. Data Collecting Techniques

In collecting the data, some tests were administered. The type of the tests that were used as follows:

1. Pre Test

Pretest was administered to experimental group in the beginning of the

treatment in order to find out the student’s reading comprehension

achievement 2. Post Test

Post Test was given to the experimental group at the end of the treatment in

order to know the results of the student’s reading comprehension of the

whole treatment.

D. Research Procedures

1. Determining Research problem

The problem of this research was determined based on the pre-observation which was conducted by the researcher in SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung. The researcher asked 10 second year students 10 questions related to reading.

2. Selecting and Determining the Materials

The materials of this research were based on the School Based Curriculum (KTSP) 2006 for the second year students. The material were taken from and internet.

26 3. Determining the Research Instrument

The instrument of this research was objective reading test of multiple choices test. In measuring reading comprehension, multiple-choice selection is more valid than short-sentence answer (Henning, 1987: 48). Objective text was used for pretest and posttest. Each test consists of 30 items of multiple choices of comprehension questions and some reading texts. Each question had four alternative answers (A, B, C, and D), one correct answer and three distracters.

4. Administering Try-Out Test

The try-out test was conducted in 90 minutes and there were 40 reading multiple-choice questions with four options.

5. Administering Pre-Test

Pre-test is administered to identify the student’s basic reading comprehension

before the treatments. The test was administered in 60 minutes with 30 items of multiple choices reading test.

6. Conducting Treatment

The treatment that was applied to the experimental group in the classroom activity is think-pair-share technique. This treatment was conducted in three times in 2 x 45 minutes. The topics of the materials were about phenomena that should or should not be the case or be done.

27 7. Administering Post-Test

Post-test was given at the end of treatments in order to find out the development of the class. The test was administered in 60 minutes with 30 items of multiple-choice reading test.

8. Analyzing the Result of the Test

The result of pretest and posttest was analyzed using T-test to compare the data of two mean scores (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 108).

9. Reporting the Results of the Research

The data that had been analyzed were written and reported in the script as the result of the research. It was presented after all the data had been collected and analyzed.

E. Scoring System

The researcher used Shohamy’s formula in scoring the students’ result of the test. S = x 100

Where:

S = the score of the test R = the right answer N = the total of the items

28 F. Try Out

A research instrument will be said to have a good quality if it has good validity, reliability, level difficulty and discrimination power (Heaton, 1991: 5).

1. Validity

Validity is the extent to which an instrument really measures the objective to be measured and suitable with the criteria (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 250). A test can be considered to be valid if it can precisely measure the quality of the test.

There are four types of validity: face validity, content validity, construct validity and empirical or criterion-related validity. To measure whether the test has good validity, the researcher will use content and construct validity since the other two were considered be less needed. Face validity only concerns with the appearance of the test. Criterion-related validity is concerned with measuring the success in the future, as in replacement test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251). The two types will use in this research were:

a. Content Validity

Content validity is the extent to which the test measures a representative sample of the subject matter content. The focus of the content validity is adequacy of the sample and not simply on the appearance of the test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251).

Content validity is intended to know whether the test items are good reflection of what will be covered. The test items are adapted from the materials that have been taught to the students should be constructed as to contain a representative sample

29 of the course. (Heaton, 1975: 160). In order to know whether the test have a good content validity, the items of the test will be discussed with the advisors to measure the degree of agreement. The composition of the test items was presented in table 1: table of specification below.

Table 1. Specification of the Validity Test.

No Skills of Reading Item Numbers Percentage of

Items

1 Determining main idea 4, 14, 24, 30, 36 12.5%

2 Finding specific information 2, 8, 9, 19, 20 21, 23, 38, 39

22.5%

3 Inference 10, 15, 18, 28, 32, 40 15 %

4 Reference 6, 16, 22, 33, 37 12.5 %

5 Understanding vocabulary 7, 17, 25, 29 10%

6 Determining features of text forms

1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35

27.5 %

Total 40 100%

(Suparman, 2012) b. Construct Validity

Construct Validity is concerned with whether the test is actually in line with the theory of what it means to know the language (Shohamy, 1985: 74). Regarding the construct validity, it measures whether the construction had already in line with the objective of the learning (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251). Basically, the construct and content validity are overlap. It is a representative of the material from the subject. In line with Nuttal (1985) the relation validity of the instrument refers to construct validity in which the question represents five of sort reading skills, i.e. determining main idea, finding the detail information, reference, inference and vocabulary. Skills of reading in the test are a part of the construct validity and the item numbers are a part of the content validity.

30 1 Reliability

Reliability refers to whether the test is consistent in its score and gives us an indication of how accurate the test score are (Shohamy, 1985: 70).

A test is called reliable if the score gained by the examinees is constant whenever and by whomever the test is conducted. A test will not be a good parameter unless the test is suitable or constant. To measure the reliability of the test, the researcher used Spearman Brown formula. The formula is as follows:

Rk =

Rk = The reliability of the test rl = The reliability of half the tests The criteria are:

0.00-0.19 Very low reliability 0.20-0.39 Low reliability 0.40-0.59 Average reliability 0.60-0.79 High reliability 0.80-1.00 Very high reliability

(Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 247)

2 Level of Difficulty

Level of difficulty relates to “how easy or difficult the item is form the point of

view of the students who took the test. It is important since test items which are too easy (that all students get right) can tell us nothing about differences within

31 Level of difficulty was calculated by using the following formula:

LD =

LD = level difficulty

R = number of students who answers it right N = total number of students

The criteria are:

LD < 0.30 = difficult LD = 0.31- 0.70 = average LD > 0.71- 1.00 = easy

(Heaton, 1975: 182)

3 Discrimination Power of the Test

Discrimination power refers to “the extent to which the item differentiates

between high and how level students on that test. A good item according to this criterion is one in which good students did well, and bad students failed.” (Shohamy, 1985:81)

The formula is:

DP =

DP = discrimination power

Upper = proportion of “high group” students getting the item correct Lower = proportion of “low group” students getting the item correct N = total number of students

32 The criteria are follows:

DP = 0.00-0.20 = poor DP = 0.21-0.40 = satisfactory DP = 0.41-0.70 = good DP = 0.71-1.00 = excellent

(Heaton, 1975: 1985) G. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in order to determine whether the there is any significant

increase of students’ reading comprehension when they are taught using

think-pair-share technique .The researcher will analyze the data quantitatively after collecting the data. The researcher will examine the student’s scores using the following step:

1. Scoring the pretest and posttest scores

2. Tabulating the results of the test and calculating the scores of the pretest and posttest

3. Drawing conclusion from the tabulated result of the pretest and posttest that will be statistically analyzed using Independents T-Test through SPSS version 20.0

According to Setiyadi (2006) 168-169), using t-test for the hypothesis testing has three underlying assumptions, there are:

1. The data is interval ratio

2. The data is taken from random sample in a population 3. The data is distributed normally

33 Therefore, the researcher used the following procedures to treat the data are as follow:

1. Normality Test

Normality test is used to measure whether the data in experimental classes are normally distributed or not (Setiyadi, 2006: 168-169). The students’ scores of pretest and posttest were analyzed to gain normality test. The hypotheses for the normality test are as follow:

Ho : the data is not distributed normally H1 : the data is distributed normally

In this research, H1 is accepted if p > and the researcher used level of significant 0.05.

H. Hypothesis Testing

The hypothesis is analyzed by using Paired sample T-Test in order to compare the different mean scores from different groups (Setiyadi, 2006: 169) with SPSS version 20.0. The hypotheses were as follow:

H0 : There is no a significant increase of reading comprehension when they are taught by using think-pair-share technique.

(p > α)

H1 : There is a significant increase of reading comprehension when they are taught by using think-pair-share technique.

(p < α).

The researcher used level of significance i.e. 0.05, and the probability error in the hypotheses was 5 %.

57

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter consists of two sub-sections, that is, conclusions and suggestions.

A. Conclusion

Having conducted the research at the second grade of SMA Negeri 8 Bandar Lampung and analyzed the data, the researcher can conclude that:

1. There is a significant increase of the students’ reading comprehension achievement after being taught through think-pair-share technique. It can be seen from the increasing score on the pretest and posttest of the experimental class that increased from 50.16 to 84.22 in posttest with the gain was 34.06. There was an increase of the total scores from pretest and posttest from 1605 to 2695, with the gain 1090. On the other hand, determining the features of the form of a text has the highest increase, with the gain score was 45,7 and the lowest was making inference, which was 14.2.

2. It is already easy to find the features of the text at the first time, think-pair-share technique makes it easier and more helpful for those who are still confused about

58

their work. In addition, because of its advantage in resolving students’ understanding, it helps the students to make sense their work and resolve their misunderstanding about their work in short time.

Think-pair-share technique gives the positive effect in increasing the students’ reading comprehension achievement through its three steps, which are think, pair, and share that enable help students in comprehending the text and do the task better and properly with preparation. Learning by using think-pair-share technique is able to increase the students’ activeness in the classroom when learning reading and makes the class atmosphere becomes enjoyable for students in speaking up their idea.

B. Suggestions

In line with the conclusion, some suggestions are given as follows:

1. There must be well preparation of the material and time allocation from the teacher, because the material have to be delivered and explained to the students completely and clearly.

2. The teacher may apply some regulation in order to control the class to avoid too much noise during the process.

3. For those who have intention to conduct the same research, it is wise to balance the number of the table of specification in the reading test in order to find more accurate data.

4. In order to get the real data and prove the findings more, it is recommended comparing Think-Pair-Share with the other technique and using the control class.

REFERENCES

Ahyarudin, D. A. 2008. A comparative study of students’ reading comprehension taught TPS technique and GTM at MA Al Fatah, South Lampung. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung.

Alfarini, V. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Through Contextual Clues Trainning at The First Year Students of SMAN 3 Kotabumi. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung.

Al-Tamimi and Shuib. 2009. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies Volume . 9(2). Malaysia: Unversiti Sains Malaysia.

Alisyahbana, S. Takdir. 1990. The teaching of English in Indonesi. In James Britton, Robert E. Shafer and Ken Watson (eds.) Teaching and Learning of English Worldwide, 315-327. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Brown, H. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman, Inc.

Carss, W.D. 2007. The effect of using think-pair-share during guided reading lessons. New Zealand: The University of Waikato. http://www.adt.waikato.ac.nzuploadsapprovedadtuow20070323.153003pu blic02whole.pdf (Retrieved July 2012, 2009)

Coleman, H. 1997. Undergraduate ELT: Where have we been and where are we going to) A chapter in Coleman, H., Soedrajat, T.M., and Westaway, G. 1997. Teaching English to university students in the Indonesian context: issue and developments. Bandung, Indonesia: Institut Teknologi Bandung, Pp. 26-42.

Depdiknas. 2006. Materi sosialisasi dan pelatihan kutikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta: Diknas.

Garfield, J. 1993. Teaching Statistics Using Small Group Cooperative Learning. Retrivied Des 7th, 2009.

George, P.G. 1994. The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies in Multicultural Universityt Classroom Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(l),2l

http//www.eas.gatech.edu/static/pdf/Effectiveness_Cooperative_Learning_ Strategies_Muliticultural_Univ_Classroom.pdf

Grabe, W. 1991. Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 375 – 406

Heaton, J. B. 1991. Writing English languageTesting. New York: Longman. Inc. Helmi, M. 2010. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement

Through Questioning Technique at The Second Year Students of SMA N 1 Lampung Selatan. Unpublished Script. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.

Henning, G. 1987. A guide to language testing. USA: Newbury House Pubisher. Johnson, D ., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. 1993. Cooperation in the classroom.

Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company

Kagan, S. 1994. Cooperative Learning: class activities that use cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/cooperativelearning .htm. (Retrieved July 2012, 2009)

Kessler, C. 1992. Cooperative Learning: a teacher resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kirk, Karlin, 2012. Motivating Students. Science education Prizers. http://serc.carleton.edu/20536/ motivation.html. (Retrieved 2012, December 18).

Nuttal, Christine. 1985. Teaching Reading Skills In a Foreign Language. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Londing.235 pages.

Lie, A. 2004. Mempraktikan cooperative learning di tuang-ruang kelas. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Lyman, F. 1981. Strategies for reading comprehension: think-pair-share. http://www.readingquest.org/strat/tps.html. (Retrieved 2009, June 15)

Sari, N.R. 2010. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Through Think-Pair-Share Technique at The Secod Year of SMA N 1

Ntara Lampung Selatan. Unpublished Script. Bandar Lampung. University of Lampung.

Sardiman, A.M. 2003. Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2003. Teaching English as Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2006. Metode penelitian untuk pengajaran bahasa asing. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Simanjuntak, E. G. 1998. Developing reading skill for ESL students. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A practical handbook in language testing for second language teacher. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, F. 1995. Understanding reading 2nd edition. New York: Holt Renehart and Winston.

Soeprapto and Darwis, M. 2006. Linked to the World. Jakarta: Yudhistira. Sudarwati, Th. M and Grace, E. 2007. Look ahead 2. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Suparman, U. 2007. Reading Strategies of English As a Foreign Language (EFL). Tanggerang: Matabaca Publisher.

Suparman, U. 2009. Qualitative Research. Bandung: Arfino Raya. Suparman, U. 2010. Psycholinguistics. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Suparman, U. 2012. Developing Reading Comprehension Skills and Strategies. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Ulfa, N. 2009. Teaching Reading Comprehension Through Fairy Tale At The Second Year Students of SMP Muhammadiyah 3 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung

Universitas Lampung. 2008. Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: Penerbit Universitas Lampung.

58 their work. In addition, because of its advantage in resolving students’ understanding, it helps the students to make sense their work and resolve their misunderstanding about their work in short time.

Think-pair-share technique gives the positive effect in increasing the students’ reading comprehension achievement through its three steps, which are think, pair, and share that enable help students in comprehending the text and do the task better and properly with preparation. Learning by using think-pair-share technique is able to increase the students’ activeness in the classroom when learning reading and makes the class atmosphere becomes enjoyable for students in speaking up their idea.

B. Suggestions

In line with the conclusion, some suggestions are given as follows:

1. There must be well preparation of the material and time allocation from the teacher, because the material have to be delivered and explained to the students completely and clearly.

2. The teacher may apply some regulation in order to control the class to avoid too much noise during the process.

3. For those who have intention to conduct the same research, it is wise to balance the number of the table of specification in the reading test in order to find more accurate data.

4. In order to get the real data and prove the findings more, it is recommended comparing Think-Pair-Share with the other technique and using the control class.

REFERENCES

Ahyarudin, D. A. 2008. A comparative study of students’ reading comprehension taught TPS technique and GTM at MA Al Fatah, South Lampung. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung.

Alfarini, V. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Through Contextual Clues Trainning at The First Year Students of SMAN 3 Kotabumi. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung.

Al-Tamimi and Shuib. 2009. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies Volume . 9(2). Malaysia: Unversiti Sains Malaysia.

Alisyahbana, S. Takdir. 1990. The teaching of English in Indonesi. In James Britton, Robert E. Shafer and Ken Watson (eds.) Teaching and Learning of English Worldwide, 315-327. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Brown, H. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman, Inc.

Carss, W.D. 2007. The effect of using think-pair-share during guided reading lessons. New Zealand: The University of Waikato. http://www.adt.waikato.ac.nzuploadsapprovedadtuow20070323.153003pu blic02whole.pdf (Retrieved July 2012, 2009)

Coleman, H. 1997. Undergraduate ELT: Where have we been and where are we going to) A chapter in Coleman, H., Soedrajat, T.M., and Westaway, G. 1997. Teaching English to university students in the Indonesian context: issue and developments. Bandung, Indonesia: Institut Teknologi Bandung, Pp. 26-42.

Depdiknas. 2006. Materi sosialisasi dan pelatihan kutikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta: Diknas.

Garfield, J. 1993. Teaching Statistics Using Small Group Cooperative Learning. Retrivied Des 7th, 2009.

George, P.G. 1994. The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies in Multicultural Universityt Classroom Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(l),2l

http//www.eas.gatech.edu/static/pdf/Effectiveness_Cooperative_Learning_ Strategies_Muliticultural_Univ_Classroom.pdf

Grabe, W. 1991. Current Developments in Second Language Reading Research TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 375 – 406

Heaton, J. B. 1991. Writing English languageTesting. New York: Longman. Inc. Helmi, M. 2010. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement

Through Questioning Technique at The Second Year Students of SMA N 1 Lampung Selatan. Unpublished Script. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.

Henning, G. 1987. A guide to language testing. USA: Newbury House Pubisher. Johnson, D ., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. 1993. Cooperation in the classroom.

Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company

Kagan, S. 1994. Cooperative Learning: class activities that use cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/cooperativelearning .htm. (Retrieved July 2012, 2009)

Kessler, C. 1992. Cooperative Learning: a teacher resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kirk, Karlin, 2012. Motivating Students. Science education Prizers. http://serc.carleton.edu/20536/ motivation.html. (Retrieved 2012, December 18).

Nuttal, Christine. 1985. Teaching Reading Skills In a Foreign Language. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Londing.235 pages.

Lie, A. 2004. Mempraktikan cooperative learning di tuang-ruang kelas. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Lyman, F. 1981. Strategies for reading comprehension: think-pair-share. http://www.readingquest.org/strat/tps.html. (Retrieved 2009, June 15)

Sari, N.R. 2010. Increasing Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement Through Think-Pair-Share Technique at The Secod Year of SMA N 1

Ntara Lampung Selatan. Unpublished Script. Bandar Lampung. University of Lampung.

Sardiman, A.M. 2003. Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2003. Teaching English as Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2006. Metode penelitian untuk pengajaran bahasa asing. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Simanjuntak, E. G. 1998. Developing reading skill for ESL students. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A practical handbook in language testing for second language teacher. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, F. 1995. Understanding reading 2nd edition. New York: Holt Renehart and Winston.

Soeprapto and Darwis, M. 2006. Linked to the World. Jakarta: Yudhistira. Sudarwati, Th. M and Grace, E. 2007. Look ahead 2. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Suparman, U. 2007. Reading Strategies of English As a Foreign Language (EFL). Tanggerang: Matabaca Publisher.

Suparman, U. 2009. Qualitative Research. Bandung: Arfino Raya. Suparman, U. 2010. Psycholinguistics. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Suparman, U. 2012. Developing Reading Comprehension Skills and Strategies. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Ulfa, N. 2009. Teaching Reading Comprehension Through Fairy Tale At The Second Year Students of SMP Muhammadiyah 3 Bandar Lampung. Unpublished script. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung

Universitas Lampung. 2008. Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: Penerbit Universitas Lampung.