The Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION METHOD

IN TEACHING READING

(A quasi-experimental research in second grade students of one of public Junior High Schools in Bandung)

A RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted to English Department of FPBS UPI Bandung as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requierements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

CECEP AHMAD S (0608432)

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION METHOD

IN TEACHING READING

(A quasi-experimental research in second grade students of one of public Junior High Schools in Bandung)

Oleh Cecep Ahmad S

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

© Cecep Ahmad S 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Agustus 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian, Dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dar ipenulis.

PAGE OF APPROVAL

The Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading (An Experimental Research in Eight Grade Students of one of Junior High Schools

in Bandung)

By: Cecep Ahmad S

0608432

Approved by:

First Supervisor, Second Supervisor,

Drs. Deddy Suryana, M.A M. Handi Gunawan, M.Pd

NIP. 196212101990031004 NIP. 197301132009121002

Head of the Department of English Education

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M. Ed. NIP. 196211011987121001

The Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading (A Quasi-Expreimental Research in Second Grade Students of One Of Public

Junior High School) Cecep Ahmad S. English Education Department Indonesia University of Education

cecepahmads@gmail.com 2013

ABSTRACT

This study, entitled “Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Method in Teaching Reading” aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the use small group discussion method in improving students’ reading skill and students’ responses towards the implementation of it. Small group discussion is a group discussion which consists of six or fewer students. The study employed a quasi experimental design. The study involved the eighth grade Junior High School students as the participants, which were divided into two groups; experimental group and control group. The data of the study were obtained through test, post-test and questionnaire. The data from pre-test and post-pre-test were analyzed by using independent t-pre-test from the SPSS 17.0 for windows. Then, data obtained from questionnaire were classified and analyzed in order to find out students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion method in teaching reading. The quantitative finding of the study reveals that significance value is lower than0.05, (p = 0.000 < 0.05), which indicates that small group discussion method effectively improved students’ reading skill. In addition, data obtained from questionnaire shows that most students agreed that small group discussion can improve their motivation in learning reading, increase their participation in the class, and build up their responsibility to finish the tasks given by teacher. Meanwhile, students stated also that most of them prefer to use their mother language (L1) than English to interact each other. Some of them argued that they prefer work individually in accomplishing the tasks. Furthermore, it is highly recommended for some researchers or teacher to put more attention to their students during discussion.

ABSTRAK

Penelitian yang berjudul “Keefektipan Metode Small Group Discussion di Dalam Pengajaran Membaca” ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis atau mencaritau keefektifan dari penggunaan Metode Small Group Discussion dalam pembelajaran reading dan juga mencari tahu bagaimana respon dari siswa terhadap penggunaan Metode Small Group Discussion dalam pembelajaran Reading terkait dengan aspek pengetahuan siswa tentang bahasa Inggris dan aspek psikologis siswa dam belajar. Partisipan dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas delapan SMP negeri 19 kota Bandung yang dikelompokan kedalam dua kelompok, yang pertama adalah kelas 8A sebagai kelas control dan kelas 8D sebagai kelas eksperimental (percobaan). Hasil dari penelitin menunjukan bahwa Metode Small Group Discussion efektif digunakan untuk pembelajaran Reading. Hal trsebut ditunjukan oleh rata-rata nilai siswa di kelas experimental (=79.45, SE=1.69, p<0.05) yang dengan signifikan lebih tinggi dari rata-rata nilai siswa di keas control (M=73.21, SE=1.96). Selain itu, hasil penelitian juga menunjukan bahwa respon yang diberikan oleh siswa terhadap penggunaan Metode Small Group Discussion dalam pembelajaran reading sangat baik. Terkait dengan aspek pengetahuan bahasa Inggris, sebagian besar siswa bependapat bahwa Metode Small Group Discussion dapat membantu mereka meningkatkan motivasi dalam pelajaran Reading, meingkatkan partisipasi dikelas, dan membuat siswa lebih menjadi bertanggung jawab dalam mengerjakan tugas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... STATEMENT ... PREFACE...………... ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...

ABSTRAK ………...

TABLE OF CONTENS ………....... LIST OF TABLE ... LIST OF CHART ... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background….………...………... 1.2.Statement of Problems..………... 1.3. Aims of Study …….………...………... 1.4. Scope of the Study ………...………...…... 1.5. Significant of Study.………... 1.6. Hypothesis...………... 1.7. Research Methodology ... 1.8. Data Collection ... 1.9. Data Analysis ... 1.10.Organization of the Paper...

i ii iv v ix x 1 3 3 4 4 4 5 7 8 8

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

2.1. Reading... ... 2.1.1. Definition of Reading... 2.1.2. Types of Reading... 2.1.3. The Importance of Teaching Reading... 2.2. Small Group Discussion Method. ……... 2.2.1. Conducting Small Group Discussion Method... 2.2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Small Group Discussion... 2.3. Research on The Use of Small Group Discussion in Teaching

Reading... CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

3.1. Statement of Problems...………... 3.2. Research Design..………..………... 3.3. Research Hypothesis..………... 3.4. Clarification of Terms ……….………... 3.5. Data Collection... ………... 3.5.1. Population and Sample... 3.5.2. Research Instrument... 3.6. Prosedures of Study …………...………...

3.6.1. AdministreringTryout Test………... 3.6.2 Pre test ………... 3.6.3. Treatment ………... 3.6.4. Posttest... 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 17 18 18 20 21 21 21 22 23 23 23 24 25

3.7. Data Analysis... 3.7.1. Scoring... 3.7.2. Tryout Test Analysis... 3.7.3. Pretest and Posttest Data Analysis... 3.7.4 Questionnaire Data analysis... CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Research Findings ………... 4.1.1 Try Out Test score Analysis .………...

4.1.1.1. The Validity Test ………... 4.1.1.2. The Difficulty Test ………... 4.1.1.3. Discrimination Index………... 4.1.1.4. The Reliability Test ………... 4.1.2 Pre-test Score Analysis ………...………...

4.1.2.1. Normality Distribution of Test in Pretest……... 4.1.2.2. The Homogeneity of Variance Test in Pretest ………... 4.1.2.3. The Independent T test in Posttest………... 4.1.3 Post-test score Analysis …….……...…..………...

4.1.3.1Normality Distribution of Test in Posttest………... 4.1.3.2. The Homogeneity of Variance Test in Posttest…………... 4.1.3.3. The Independent T test in Posttest..………... 4.1.3.4. The Calculation of Effect size ………... 4.1.4 Questionnaire Data Analysis ………...

4.1.4.1. The Positive Responses on Small Group Discussion Method ………... 28 28 29 34 38 39 33 39 41 42 44 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

4.1.4.2. The Negative response on Small Group Discussion Method... 4.2. Discussions.………..………... CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions.………... 5.2. Suggestions …....……..………... REFERENCES ...………... APPENDICES

54 55

59 60 62

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides general outline of this study. It covers background of study, statement of problems, aims of study, scope of study, significances of study, hypothesis, research methodology, data collection, data analysis, and also the organizations of paper.

1.1 Background of Study

In teaching English, there are four skills that should be mastered such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Reading, however, is one of the important skills because it provides many useful information, knowledge, experience and culture to the reader through the text. (Clarke and and Silberstein: 1997 as cited inBrown:2001). In addition, Harmer (2007:99) states that many people read the text either for their careers, for study purposes or just for pleasure.According to Mikulecky and Linda (2004:2), the best way to become a better reader is by reading a lot.

Unfortunately, most teachers are not aware of the importance of reading. Some of them still use conventional teaching method to teach reading. They only ask the students to read without making sure that their students comprehend the text or not. Therefore, it makes the students are difficult to find the main idea of the text, even the synonym or antonym of the words which are provided in the text.

A research conducted by AVKO Educational research foundation (1974) showed that teaching reading conventionally was failed because of two following reasons: The first reason is the method of reading from left to right was too simple. The second reason is teaching alphabet first before teaching reading which will not help students to read fast.For that reason, it seems likely that a good method is needed by teachers to help the students able to comprehend the text easily and to achieve the goal of learning. Gillies and Adrian (2003) said that:

“When young children first come to a structured educational setting, their fledgling social and emotional skills and understandings are challenged in new and more complex ways. They will need to interact and negotiate with a large number of unfamiliar peers with different levels of social and emotional competencies, interests, cognitive abilities and interaction styles.”

From the explanation above, it can be assumed that learning in a group can be a way to overcome the students’ problem in teaching and learning process. According to Brown (2001:177), there are three kinds of group such as group in pair, small group and large group. In this study, the writer choose small group as a method to teach reading.

Small group discussion is a group which consists of six or fewer students who are assigned a task that involves collaboration (Brown, 2001:177). Meanwhile, McCrorie(2006) stated that small group discussion is a group consist of three to six learners facilitated by a teacher.

A previous study conducted by Ria (2007), entiled “The Implementation of Small Group Discussion in Teaching Reading”, in her study about the teaching of reading comprehension by using a small group discussion showed that the

experimental group got the higher score in the posttest than the control group after they got small group discussion teaching strategy. Besides, some experts argue that peers could be trained to facilitate academic accomplishments, reduce incidents of deviant and disruptive behavior, increase work and study skills, and teach social interactional skills ( Brownet al. 1971;Cloward 1967; Epstein 1978; Gartner et al. 1971; Lane et al. 1972) as cited in (Damon 1984;Greenwood and Hops 1981).

Regarding the explanation above, this study aims at investigating how effective the use of small group discussion methodin teaching reading. Besides, this study also provides the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group discussion methodin teaching reading.

1.2 Statement ofProblems

Related to the background of this study ,the problems to be examined in the present study are formulated as follows.

1. Is the small groupdiscussionmethodeffective in teaching reading?

2. What are the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group discussion methodin teaching reading?

1.3Aims of Study

In general, the purpose of the study is about to find out the influence ofsmall groupdiscussion as a methodin teaching reading English. Particularly this study has some aims as follows:

1. To find out the effectiveness of small groupdiscussionmethodin teaching reading.

2. To find out the students responses towards the use ofsmall group discussionin teaching reading.

1.4Scope of Study

Based on the earlierproblems mentioned, this study focuses on investigating the effectiveness of using small group discussion method in teaching reading in eight grade Junior High School student. In addition, this study is also conducted to find out the students’responses towards the use ofsmall group discussionin teaching reading.

1.5Significances of Study

The result of this study hopefully will be able to give a new contribution for teachers, especially in helping them to overcome the difficulties in teaching reading which make students improve their reading skill. Besides, this present study hopefully will also be able to give some contributions for the next researchers who want to conduct study in the similar field.

1.6 Hypothesis

According to Nazir (2005), a hypothesis is a prediction, an explanation of the research outcome which is expected by the researcher.Regarding to Coolidge (2000) hypothesis is stated as follows.

Ho: µ1 = µ2 = there are no significantly differences between the two population’s means.

Ha: µ1 ≠ µ2 = there are significantly differences between the two population’s means.

Specifically, this study used alternative hypothesis (Ha),which means that

there are significant differences between students who were taught by using small

group discussion with students who did not.

1.7 Research methodology

1.7.1 Research Design

The purposes of this studyareto find out the effectiveness of small group

discussion method in teaching reading and to investigate the students’ responses

towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading.Therefore, this

studyused quasi experimental design.According to Hatch & Farhady (1982:24),

quasi experimental design are practical compromises between true experimentation

Since the population of the study had been already assigned to several

classes, this study used nonequivalent group design. The study involved two

groups; experimental group and control group. The experimental group received

small group discussionmethod treatment while the control group receive

conventional method.

The experimental design in the research is described in the following table. Table 1.1

Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest

Experimental Xe 1 T Xe 2

Control Xc 1 - Xc 2

Xe 1 : Experimental group in pretest Xc 1 : Control group in pretest

T : Small Group Discussion Method treatment Xe 2 : Experimental group in posttest

Xc 2 : Control group in posttest

1.7.2 Population and Sample

This studywas conducted in one of public Junior High School in Bandung. According to Arikunto (2002), population is a whole research subject. and the population in this study was eighth graders in a junior high school in Bandung.

Moreover, Coolidge (2000) states that sample is a smaller group of scores selected from the population. In this study the sample was two classes from seven classes of eight grades; they were VIIIA as the experimental group and VIIIB as the control group. The selection of the sample was not chosen randomly, since the purposive technique was applied in this study.

1.8 Data Collection

In acquiring the data, this study involved four instruments. The instruments used in this study as follows.

 Tryout test :Tryout test was used to validate the test and to know

the reliability of the test. Besides, difficulty of each item and discrimination index were also analyzed in this study.

 Pretest : Pretest was administrated to both groups;

experimental group and control group after tryout test in order to find out the students’ initial ability before conducting the treatments to the experimental class.

 Posttest : Posttest was used in last program of this study after

used to find out whether the method is effective or not. This test was also given to both groups.

 Questioners :To find out the students responses towards the use of

small group discussion method in teaching reading.It was given only to experimental group after treatment.

1.9 Data analysis

In accordance with the design of this study, that is experimental design, the data gained from pretest and posttestwere analyzed by using independent t-test formula to determinewhether or not significance difference between experimental group and control groups’ means. The data of pretest and posttest of the studywereanalyzed by using computer of statistics product and service solution (SPSS 16 for windows).

In the last process of data analysis,the formula of percentage was used to analyze the questionnaire data. Then, the data were interpreted based on the frequency of students’ answer.

1.10 Organization of the paper

This study will be represented into five chapters:

Chapter I:Introduction. This chapter provides background of study, statement of problems, aims of study, scope of study, significances of study, hypothesis, research methodology, data collection, data analysis, and also the organizations of paper.

Chapter II:Theoretical Foundation. This chapter consists of theories and literature related to the study

Chapter III: Research methodology. This chapter discusses the process of investigation. This chapter will present a discussion on methodology employed in conducting the research.

Chapter IV: Findings and Discussion.This chapter consistsof findings and discussion of this study

Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions.This chapter consists of conclusion and suggestionsof the study

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides a discussion on the methodology employed in the study, covering statements of problems, research design, hypothesis, clarification of terms, data collection, procedures of study, data analysis.

3.1 Statement of Problems

As it is stated in the previous chapter, the problems to be examined in the present study are formulated as follows.

1. Is the small group discussion method effective in teaching reading? 2. What are the students’ responses towards the use ofsmall group

discussionin teaching reading?

3.2 Research Design

To find out the effectiveness of small group discussion method in teaching reading and to investigate the students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading,this studyused quasi experimental design.

According to Hatch & Farhady (1982: 24), quasi experimental design are practical compromises between true experimentation and the nature of human language behaviour which we wish to investigate.

Since the population of the study had been already assigned to several classes, this study used nonequivalent group design. The study involved two groups; experimental group and control group. The experimental group received small group discussionmethod treatment while the control group received conventional method. The experimental design in the research is described in the following table.

Table 3.1

The nonequivalent group design

Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest

Experimental Xe 1 T Xe 2

Control Xc 1 - Xc 2

Xe 1 : Experimental group in pretest Xc 1 : Control group in pretest

T : Small group discussion method treatment Xe 2 : Experimental group in posttest

Xc 2 : Control group in posttest

(Hatch and Farhady: 1982)

Nunan (1992) stated that the variable which the experimenter expects to influence the other is called the independent variable, in this study it was small group discussion method. The last one is variable upon which the independent

variable is the acting is called dependent variable or the students’ score in reading.

3.3 Research Hypothesis

According to Nazir (2005), a hypothesis is a prediction, an explanation of the research outcome which is expected by the researcher.

Regarding to Coolidge (2000) hypothesis isan educated guess about some states of affairs. There are two hypotheses;the first is null Hypothesis (H0) which states that there is no significant difference in total mean score between experimental group and control group (Kranzler and Moursund, 1999). The notation of null hypothesis is as follows:

H0: μ1=μ2 H0: Null hypothesis

μ1: Control group μ2: Experimental group

The second hypothesis is alternative hypothesis (Ha) which states that there is significant difference in total mean score between experimental and control groups (Kranzler and Moursund, 1999). The notation of alternative hypothesis is as follows:

Ha: μ1 ≠ μ2 Ha: Alternative hypothesis

μ1: Control group μ2: Experimental group

Based on the statement above, this study used alternative hypothesis (Ha),which means that there are significantly difference between students who were taught by using small group discussion with students who received conventional method.

3.4 Clarification of Terms

In order to avoid unnecessary misinterpretation, some terms are classified as below.

1. Small group discussion refers to a group which consists of six or fewer students who are assigned a task that involves collaboration (Brown, 2001:177 and McCrorie:2006).

2. Reading refers to a complex process of getting information from written text in which a reader uses his previous knowledge to recognize and to decode the words and to interpret the meaning (Michigan Reading Association: 1985; S.Pang: 1994; Byrne: 2004; Kenneth: 1967).

3.5 Data collection

3.5.1 Population and Sample

This study was conducted in one of public Junior High School in Bandung. According to McMillan and Schumacher (1989), population is the sample consisting of individuals selected from a larger group of person. The population in this study was eighth graders in a junior high school in Bandung.

According to Coolidge (2000), sample is a smaller group of scores selected from the population. In this study the sample was two classes from seven classes of eight grades; they were VIIIA as the experimental group and VIIIB as the control group. The selection of the sample was not chosen randomly, since the purposive technique was applied in this study.

3.5.2 Research Instruments

Research instruments are the tools used to measure something that we observe in order to obtain the data and answer the research problems (Sugiono, 2011). The instruments that were used in this study are pre-test, post-test, and questionnaire.

In this study, there were three instruments that used in collecting the data; pretest, posttest, and questionnaire. Firstly, pretest was administrated to both groups; experimental group and control group after tryout test was conducted in order to find out the students’ initial ability before conducting the treatments to the experimental class. Secondly, post-test was used in last program of this study after giving some treatments to experimental groups in period of time. It was used to find out whether the method is effective or not. This test was also given to both groups.The last, questionnaire was administered to know the students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading.It was given only to experimental group after treatment.

3.6 Procedures of Study

3.6.1 Administering Tryout Test

Tryout test were adiministered before pretest given to experimental group and control group. The purpose of administering tryout was to measure the validity and reliability of the instrument. The tryout was administered in other classes which were not involved in the study as the control group and the experimental group.

The tryout test was administered to class VIII-F of one of Junior High School in Bandung. Students were given 90 minutes in doing test. The test consisted of 50 items; all of questions were multiple choices and consisted of recount text, narative text and descriptive text. After scoring the result of the tryout, the writer made an analysis to find out the validity and reliability of the item of the tryout. All of them were used to decide which items should be used in making instrument.

3.6.2 Pretest

After conducted data analysis on tryout test, the next step was pretest. It was used to find out the students’ ability before treatment. The test was administered to both experimental and control group in their classroom during school hours.

3.6.3 Treatment

In this study, the writer used small group discussion method in teaching reading as a treatment to increase students’ reading comprehension. The experimental group was given the treatment for six meetings. Therefore, the experimental group was taught by small group discussion method, while the control group was taught by the conventional teaching method.Moreover, the lesson plan of both groups is presented bellow.

a. Teaching procedure in experimental group

Teaching procedure in experimental group was implemented small group discussion method in teaching learning reading . Firstly, the teacher was divided the students into small groups. Each group consisted of 4 to 5 students. After that, teacher gave a passage which consists of some paragraphs. And then, students in group discussed together what the paragraph told about and made same perception of what they have discussed. To make sure that all of the students comprehended all of the passage, teacher asked a student in each group to explain the main idea of several paragraphs and what the passage told about. Besides, at the end of the session, teacher gave a quiz which related to the passage.

In this study, the researcher arranged a small group discussion based on Duplass’s theory (2005). In pre discussion activities, the researcher gave information about the techniques and steps of the discussion and the topic to

discuss; in whilst discussion activities, the researcher let the students did the small group discussion, reported their own discussion, and presented the result of their discussion to other groups or general discussion; and in post discussion activities, the researcher gave feedbacks, in form of comment, correction, clarification on the text discussed.

b. Teaching procedure in control group

Teaching procedure in control group was constructed through conventional teaching in learning process. Firstly, each student was given a passage which was same as experimental group. After giving a passage, teacher asked students to read and analyze the passage individually. Then teacher asked students to summarize the passage that they have read. To measure students’ comprehension, teacher asked students to present their summary that they have made one by one. 3.6.4 Posttest

At the end of the treatment, the writer administered the post test. This test was given to both group (control and experimental group) to find out the students’ reading comprehension after experimental group received the treatment. The test item was similar to the item of pre test.

3.6.5 Administering questionnaire to the experimental group.

According to Arikunto (2006), a questionnaire is a written test used to gain the information from the respondent. There are two types of questionnaire, namely closed questionnaire and open questionnaire. In closed questionnaire, a number of possible answers of questions are given by the researcher, so that the respondents only choose one of them. In open questionnaire, the respondents have a freedom to answer the question based on their own words or opinions. The advantageof using questionnaire is that the test can be given to a large number of people in the same time, while the disadvantages are the unclear or ambiguous questions cannot be clarified, and the respondents have no chance to expand or react verbally to particular questions (Conoley and Kramer, 1989)

To investigate students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion in teaching reading, questionnaire in the form of open and closed ended were distributed to the students in the experimental group. There were 9 questions in the closed ended questionnaire in order to investigate the positive responses which are given by students to the implementation of using small group discussion in teaching reading. The closed ended framework is stated as follows.

Table 3.2

The framework of closed-ended questionnaire

No. Aspects Item Number

1 Respond to students’ motivation in learning reading by using small group discussion method

1,2,3

2 Respond to students’ participation in learning reading by using small group discussion method

4,5,6

3 Respond to students’ responsibility in learning reading by using small group discussion method

7,8,9

Furthermore, this study used also an open questionnaire which aims at investigating the students’ obstacles (negative responses) in learning reading through small group discussion method. The open question which was used in this study is stated bellow.

Question:

Masalah apa yang kamu hadapi ketika belajar reading menggunakan metode small group discussion ini?

3.7 Data Analysis

The next step after collecting the data is analyzing the data. There are some several steps taken in the data analysis, those are:

3.7.1 Scoring

Arikunto (2009) stated that there are two types of formulas that can be used in the process of scoring and data previously obtained. The formulas were formula with punishment and formula with no punishment. In the research, the researcher used the formula with no punishment.

S: Score

R: Right Answer

(Arikunto: 2009) S=R

3.7.2 Tryout Test Analysis

These are the steps taken in analyzing the items: 3.7.2.1 Validity

Validity refers to appropriateness, meaningfulness, correctness and usefulness of the inferences that a researcher makes (Fraenkel&Wallen, 1990: 147). The purpose of conducting validity test is to see whether the test is valid or not to be used in pre-test and post-test.

Coefficient Point Biserial correlation was applied to test the validity. The data were calculated manually.

Before conducting pretest and posttest, the test items were analyzed manually in the terms of its validity, difficulty, discrimination index and reliability.

This study used 50 questions in the form of multiple choices, therefore the formula of validity in tryout test is stated as follows.

γ

pbis = Coefficient of point biserial correlation

Mp = Mean score on the total of students who answered the item correctly Mt = Mean of the total score

P = Number of students who answered the item correctly Number of students

q

= Proportion of students who answered the item incorrectly (q = 1-P)

St = Standard deviation of the total score

(Arikunto, 2009:79)

After obtaining the score of each item, then the next step was comparing the data from

r

obswith

r

product moment (

r

table) on the level significant 95%and degree of freedom (df) = 50. The data becomes valid if

r

obs more than

r

table and the data is not valid if

r

obs less than

r

table..

3.7.2.2 Difficulty

Another requirement that needs to be considered as excellent instrument is difficulty test.The formula employed to measure difficulty as follows.

P =

P = index of difficulty

B = the number of students who can answer the item correctly JB = the number of students

B JB

After obtaining the score, then consulting the score to the criteria were used to interpret the index of difficulty as follows:

Table 3.4 The difficulty level

Facility Value Interpretation

0.000 – 0.300 Difficult 0.300 – 0.700 Moderate 0.700 – 1.000 Easy

(Arikunto,2009:208) 3.7.2.3 Discrimination Index

The discrimination index was used to indicate how far a single test item can differentiate the upper group from the lower group (Arikunto, 2009:211). The formula is presented as follows:

D = The discriminationindex

BA = Number of upper group who answered the item correctly BB = Number of lower group who answered the item incorrectly JA = Number of upper group

PA = Proportion of upper group who answered the item correctly BA

( PA = ) JA

PB = Proportion of upper group who answered the item correctly BB

( PB = ) JB

(Arikunto, 2009 :213-214) The next step was consulting the score ofeach item with the criteria of discrimination index in the following table.

Table 3.5

The criteria of discrimination index

Coefficient Interval Interpretation 0,00-0,20 Poor 0,21-0,40 Satisfactory 0,41-0,70 Good 0,71-1.00 Excellent

Negative Throw away

……….

3.7.2.4 Reliability

Hatch and Farhady (1982) states that reliability is the extent which a test is produced in constant result when administered under similar condition.In computing the all items in estimating the reliability of the test, the writer used the formula of KR-20.

r

11 = Reliability index of test

P = Proportion of students who answered the item correctly

P = Number of students who answered the item correctly Number of students

q

= Proportion of students who answered the item incorrectly (q = 1-P)

Σpq = Sum of the total result of the multiply p and q

K = Number of items

Vt = Variance of the total score

.(Arikunto, 2010 :231)

After obtaining the result (

r

11), then comparing with r product moment (

r

table) on the level significant 95% and degree of freedom (df) = 50. The test

becomes reliable if

r

11 more than

r

table and the test is not reliable if

r

11 less than

r

table.

3.7.3 Pretest and PosttestData Analysis

Pre-test was administered at the beginning of the steps in the research after tryout test in order to obtain the initial students’ ability of both groups. Meanwhile, posttest was given to both groups at the end of the process. In analyzing the datain pretest and posttest, the writer used the similar procedures as bellow.

3.7.3.1 Normality distribution of test

In this study, the writer used Kolmogorov-Smirnov formula to analyze normality distribution of test by using SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Moreover, there are the steps taken to measure normality distribution of test:

1. Stating at the hypothesis

H0 = The distribution score of both groups in pretest is normally distributed

Ha = The distribution score of both groups in pretest is not normally distributed

2. Analyze the normality distribution of testusing kolmogrov-smirnov formula in SPSS 17.0 for windows

3. Comparing level of significance to test hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of significance (0.05), the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. In contrast, if the result is less than the level of significance (0.05), the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted.

3.7.3.2 Homogeneity variances of test

To analyze homogeneity variances of test, the writer used variance formula in SPSS 17.0. These are the steps taken to analyze homogeneityvariances of test, those are:

1. Stating the hypothesis

Ho : The variances of the experimental and the control group are homogenous.

Ha : The variances of the experimental and the control group are not homogenous.

2. Analyze the variance homogeneity using SPSS 17.0 for windows

3. Comparing the level of significance value to test hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted. In contrast, if the result is less than the level of significance (0.05), the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

3.7.3.3 The Independent t-test

There are some requirements of the data that must be considered before conducting independent t-test. Firstly, the data should be homogenous or equal. Secondly, the distribution data should be normaly distributed (Coolidge,2000:143).

The procedures of independent t-test computation were as follows. 1. Stating the hypothesis

Ho : There are no significantly differences between students’ score of experimental and control groups

Ha : There are significantly differences between students’ score of experimental

and control groups.

2. Comparing the obtained level significance value (p) with the level of significance for testing hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of significance (0.05), the null hypothesis is accepted. In contrast, if the result is less than the level of significance (0.05), the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

3.7.3.4 Calculation of effect size

In this study, the calculation of size effect was performed with aim atverifying the influence of independent variable on the dependent variable and to know how well the treatment works,. In order to determine the effect size in the

independent t test, a correlation coefficient of effect size can be derived as presented below:

√

After obtaining the value of r, the score was matched with the following scale to interpret the effect size.

Table 3.6 Effect size value

Effect Size R value

Small .100

Medium .243

Large .371

3.7.4 QuestionnaireData analyses

In answering the research question number 2, the writer used questionnaire in order to collect the datato find out the students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion method in teaching reading. The result of questionnaires was put in percentage below:

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This last chapter concerns on conclusion and suggestion, which elaborates the all findings based on the result of the study. This chapter is divided into two sections, the first section is conclusion and the second is suggestion.

5.1 Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to find outthe effectiveness of small group discussion method in teaching reading English and to investigate the students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion method in teaching reading.

As it is stated in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that the use of small group discussion method is effective to improve students’ reading ability in eight grade of junior high school. It can be assumed from the data in post-test which showed that the probability value/level the asymp.sig (p) is lower than 0.05 (0.000<0.05) which indicates that the alternative hypothesis in this study is accepted. In addition, the calculation result from the effect size also showed the

rvalue is 0.23 which means that small group discussion method gives medium effect to the students’ achievement in reading.

Besides, the finding of questionnaire showed that there are three positive responses which were given by students towards the use of small group discussion

method in teaching reading, those are: firstly, small group discussion method supports students’ motivation in learning reading. Secondly, students are participating actively during the small group discussion method treatments. The last one, small group discussion method develops students’ responsibility in completing the tasks given by teacher. Whereas, there are two negative responses from the students towards the implementation of small group discussion method namely: firstly, students are difficult to use English in stating or sharing their ideaduring the treatment. They prefer choosing to use their mother language to interact with other members in a group. Secondly, some of students prefer working alone than doing the tasks in a group.

5.2 Suggestions

Having accomplished the study, there are some suggestions that maybe useful for the next researchers in the similar field, those are:

 Firstly, in the treatment process,it is suggested thatteacher has to put more

attention to mix some interesting activities with this method which may cover all students with various learning styles so that they can participate actively and happily.

 Second, during the teaching learning process it is better thatteacher guides

train the students step by step to speak up their idea in English.

 Third, the small group discussion method in this study effectively

improved the students’reading ability. Regarding this, it is recommended for the next researchers to apply this method in other language skills such as speaking, listening or even writing.

References

Arikunto, S. 2010. ProsedurPenelitian; SuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta: RinekaCipta.

Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Jakarta: BumiAksara.

Ashman, A.F. 1997.‘A learning experience’, Journal of Cognitive Education.England: Sharron Publishing Co.

Avko.(NY). 1974. Why traditional methods of teaching reading and writing fail to help most dyslexics to read and write. Retrieved on: http://www.avko.org/Research/why_traditional_methods_of_teach.htm (5th February 2011).

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, second edition. New York: Longman.

Byrne, K. 2004. Using authentic literary text with advance learners.Retrived on: www.depelopingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/autlip1_kathy.htm.(5Oc tober2011).

Coolidge, F.L. 2000.Statistics; A Gentle Introduction. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press Ltd.

Damon, W. 1984.Peer education: the untapped potential,Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 5: 331–43. Available on

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-15736-001.

Duplass, J.A. 2005. Middle and High School Teaching: Methods, Standards & Best Practices.Houghton: Mifflin Publishing Company

Emilia, Emi. 2008.MenulisTesisdanDisertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta

Fraenkel, Jack R and Wallen ,Normaen E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.Mc Grow-Hill: United stated of America.

Gilliesdan Adrian F. 2003. Co-operative Learning; The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups.USA and Canada:RoutledgeFalmerTaylor &Francise Groups.

Grabe,W.1991.Teaching and Researching Reading.New York: Longman.

Greenwood, C. R., & Hops, H. 1981. Group-oriented contingencies and peer behavior change. In P. S. Strain (Ed.). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems. Harmer, J. 2007.How to Teach English. China: Longman.

Hatch, E. and Hossein, F. 1982.Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Hedges,L.E.2003.Helping students develop thingking skill through the problem solving approach to teaching.The Ohio state university: Dr Lowell Hedges.

Kenneth, B. (1967).Reading Comprehension Skills.Retrieved

on”: http:esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplan1/a/reading-comprehension.htm. (22 February 2012)

Lewin, K. 1935.A Dynamic Theory of Personality, New York: McGraw-Hill. Martine,L. 2006. The Advantages and Disadvantages of using Small Group and

Pair Work in the Classroom.Himeji Dokkyo University.

Mcroire,P .2006. Teaching and leading Small Groups.assosiation for the study of medical education. Edinbrugh.

Michigan reading association.1985. Reading as exploration.New york:Appeleton-Century.

Mikulecky and Linda, J. 2004. More Reading Power. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Nazir, M. 2005. MetodePenelitian. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.

Nunan, D. 2000. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers.Malaysia:Longman.

Reiser, R.A and Walter, D. 1989. Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (second edition). USA: A Simon & Schuster Company.

Ria, Anteng Ananti.2007.Implementation of Small Group Discussion in TeachingReading.Universitas Negri Semarang.unpublished.

Shaw, M. 1932. A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rationalsolution of complex problems, American Journal of

Psychology.Retrieved on:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1415351?uid=3738224&uid=2129 &uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102492084267 (12th January 2013).

Sugiyono. 2011. MetodePenelitianPendidikan (PendekatanKuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta.

S.Pang, E. .1994.Teaching Reading.Retrived on: www.ibe.unesco.org/publication/pdf.(3 February 2011)

Watson, G. 1928. Do groups think more efficiently than individuals, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 23.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This last chapter concerns on conclusion and suggestion, which elaborates the all findings based on the result of the study. This chapter is divided into two sections, the first section is conclusion and the second is suggestion.

5.1 Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to find outthe effectiveness of small group discussion method in teaching reading English and to investigate the students’ responses towards the use of small group discussion method in teaching reading.

As it is stated in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that the use of small group discussion method is effective to improve students’ reading ability in eight grade of junior high school. It can be assumed from the data in post-test which showed that the probability value/level the asymp.sig (p) is lower than 0.05 (0.000<0.05) which indicates that the alternative hypothesis in this study is accepted. In addition, the calculation result from the effect size also showed the rvalue is 0.23 which means that small group discussion method gives medium

effect to the students’ achievement in reading.

Besides, the finding of questionnaire showed that there are three positive responses which were given by students towards the use of small group discussion

method in teaching reading, those are: firstly, small group discussion method

supports students’ motivation in learning reading. Secondly, students are

participating actively during the small group discussion method treatments. The last one, small group discussion method develops students’ responsibility in completing the tasks given by teacher. Whereas, there are two negative responses from the students towards the implementation of small group discussion method namely: firstly, students are difficult to use English in stating or sharing their ideaduring the treatment. They prefer choosing to use their mother language to interact with other members in a group. Secondly, some of students prefer working alone than doing the tasks in a group.

5.2 Suggestions

Having accomplished the study, there are some suggestions that maybe useful for the next researchers in the similar field, those are:

 Firstly, in the treatment process,it is suggested thatteacher has to put more attention to mix some interesting activities with this method which may cover all students with various learning styles so that they can participate actively and happily.

 Second, during the teaching learning process it is better thatteacher guides train the students step by step to speak up their idea in English.

 Third, the small group discussion method in this study effectively improved the students’reading ability. Regarding this, it is recommended for the next researchers to apply this method in other language skills such as speaking, listening or even writing.

References

Arikunto, S. 2010. ProsedurPenelitian; SuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta: RinekaCipta.

Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Jakarta: BumiAksara.

Ashman, A.F. 1997.‘A learning experience’, Journal of Cognitive Education.England: Sharron Publishing Co.

Avko.(NY). 1974. Why traditional methods of teaching reading and writing fail to help most dyslexics to read and write. Retrieved on: http://www.avko.org/Research/why_traditional_methods_of_teach.htm (5th February 2011).

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, second edition. New York: Longman.

Byrne, K. 2004. Using authentic literary text with advance learners.Retrived on: www.depelopingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/autlip1_kathy.htm.(5Oc tober2011).

Coolidge, F.L. 2000.Statistics; A Gentle Introduction. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press Ltd.

Damon, W. 1984.Peer education: the untapped potential,Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 5: 331–43. Available on

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-15736-001.

Duplass, J.A. 2005. Middle and High School Teaching: Methods, Standards &

Best Practices.Houghton: Mifflin Publishing Company

Emilia, Emi. 2008.MenulisTesisdanDisertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta

Fraenkel, Jack R and Wallen ,Normaen E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.Mc Grow-Hill: United stated of America.

Gilliesdan Adrian F. 2003. Co-operative Learning; The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups.USA and Canada:RoutledgeFalmerTaylor &Francise Groups.

Grabe,W.1991.Teaching and Researching Reading.New York: Longman.

Greenwood, C. R., & Hops, H. 1981. Group-oriented contingencies and peer behavior change. In P. S. Strain (Ed.). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems. Harmer, J. 2007.How to Teach English. China: Longman.

Hatch, E. and Hossein, F. 1982.Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Hedges,L.E.2003.Helping students develop thingking skill through the problem solving approach to teaching.The Ohio state university: Dr Lowell Hedges.

Kenneth, B. (1967).Reading Comprehension Skills.Retrieved on”:

http:esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplan1/a/reading-comprehension.htm. (22 February 2012)

Lewin, K. 1935.A Dynamic Theory of Personality, New York: McGraw-Hill. Martine,L. 2006. The Advantages and Disadvantages of using Small Group and

Pair Work in the Classroom.Himeji Dokkyo University.

Mcroire,P .2006. Teaching and leading Small Groups.assosiation for the study of medical education. Edinbrugh.

Michigan reading association.1985. Reading as exploration.New york:Appeleton-Century.

Mikulecky and Linda, J. 2004. More Reading Power. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Nazir, M. 2005. MetodePenelitian. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.

Nunan, D. 2000. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers.Malaysia:Longman.

Reiser, R.A and Walter, D. 1989. Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (second edition). USA: A Simon & Schuster Company.

Ria, Anteng Ananti.2007.Implementation of Small Group Discussion in TeachingReading.Universitas Negri Semarang.unpublished.

Shaw, M. 1932. A comparison of individuals and small groups in the

rationalsolution of complex problems, American Journal of

Psychology.Retrieved on:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1415351?uid=3738224&uid=2129 &uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102492084267 (12th January 2013).

Sugiyono. 2011. MetodePenelitianPendidikan (PendekatanKuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta.

S.Pang, E. .1994.Teaching Reading.Retrived on:

www.ibe.unesco.org/publication/pdf.(3 February 2011)

Watson, G. 1928. Do groups think more efficiently than individuals, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 23.