The Comparison between Posttest of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 Based on Questions Category
Questions category
R Meeting 3
Questions category
R Meeting 1
Main idea 23 students 52.27
Main idea 24 students 54.54
Detail 29 students 65.90
Detail 30 students 68.18
Vocabulary 23 students 52.27
Vocabulary 25 students 56.82
Inference 20 students 45.45
Inference 26 students 59.09
n 44 students
n 44 students
Notes: n: the number of students
R: the number of students who gave the right answers
3. Observation
While acting all the planned activities, the researcher observed it. In this research, the researcher observed and reported both teaching learning in the
classroom and the learning progress that the students had achieved related to the improvement of students’ reading comprehension.
In the first meeting, the teacher focused on introducing herringbone technique which was combined by the reciprocal questioning technique. Because
of having been introduced to four kinds of questions category before, the students did not have any obstacle in implementing this technique. Moreover the
researcher found that the students constructed the questions and their answers better than before. It could be caused by their preparation in constructing the
sentences before delivering to their friends through the herringbone schemes. Unfortunately, they made fewer questions in the second paragraph than the
previous paragraph. It was caused by having no idea to make reciprocal questions based on the second paragraph. In this case, the second paragraph was filled with
the expressions how to ask someone to do something, so they thought that there was no important information in the second paragraph.
Related to their herringbone schemes, the researcher instructed students to complete their schemes with four components of reading components of reading
comprehension, they were main idea, detail, vocabulary, and inference questions. However, some students only completed certain types of questions and omitted
the other types of questions. Therefore, the researcher asked them to write down all types of questions in their herringbone schemes and deliver them in the
reciprocal questioning. In addition, in the post reading activity, the researcher evaluated their
comprehension by calculating their right answer of each question category. As a result, there was a big improvement from the last meeting in cycle 1 and the first
meeting in the cycle 2 which could be seen in the table below: Table 19
The Comparison between Post Reading Scores in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 Based on Questions Category
Questions category
R Meeting 3
Questions category
R Meeting 1
Main idea 15 students 34.1
Main idea 12 students 28.6
Detail 44 students 100
Detail 40 students 95.2
Vocabulary 19 students 43.2
Vocabulary 28 students 66.7
Inference 13 students 29.5
Inference 26 students 61.9
n 44 students
n 44 students
Notes: n: the number of students
R: the number of students who gave the right answers In the second cycle, the teaching learning process should focus on
unresolved problem in the first cycle. In this meeting, the teacher gave eleven different cards to 22 students, so they should comprehend in pair. The cards
should be comprehended in five minutes by completing the herringbone schemes and making reciprocal questions to their fellow friends. The students did the
procedures attentively. They made some questions including detail, main idea, vocabulary, and inference questions. Finally, this process was continued until all
students got the last card. Moreover, the researcher instructed students to complete their herringbone
schemes as the draft before delivering their reciprocal questions. They enthusiastically made some herringbone schemes for some invitation cards. In
fact, they made similar questions for different invitation cards. In this case, the researcher asked them to make other different questions but they did not have any
idea for this. Finally, the researcher allowed them to make similar questions as far as the forms of the invitation cards was almost similar. Basically, making similar
questions to the different invitation cards was permitted because they could answer their friends’ questions well.
In post reading activity, the teacher gave the similar card which should be comprehended and memorized in five minutes. After that, the teacher gave some
questions related to the card. In this test, they showed satisfying score with the
highest score was 100, the lowest score was 50 and the average score was 75.68. It showed that the students had reached better achievement than the pretest with
the average of 55. In the third meeting, the teacher gave two reservation letters. In this last
meeting, the students were less guided by the teacher. It means that the activity in this last meeting was freer than before. The teacher just instructed the students to
comprehend the text as they had done on the previous meetings. In this case, they made and responded the questions faster than before. When the teacher gave the
second text, the students responded well. They applied these two techniques without being instructed by the teacher.
Moreover, the researcher planned to instruct the students to make reciprocal questions by completing their herringbone schemes but they completed their
herringbone schemes and made reciprocal questions without being instructed before. It was caused by their understanding of herringbone and reciprocal
questioning technique. In post reading activity, most students could answer the teacher’s questions well.
4. Reflection
