THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT TEAM-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION LEVELS.

THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT TEAM-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON

STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION LEVELS

(A Mixed Method Study at Grade VIII of a Junior High School in Serang, Banten)

Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master’s Degree in English Education

By

Asep Suarman

1007015

GRADUATE SCHOOL

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

2013

APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis entitled “THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT TEAM-ACHIEVEMENT

DIVISION COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION LEVELS(A Mixed Method Study at Grade VIII of a Junior High School in Serang, Banten) has been approved by:

Supervisor

Emi Emilia, M, Ed., Ph. D. NIP. 196609161990012000

Head of English Education Study Program,

Emi Emilia, M, Ed., Ph. D. NIP. 196609161990012000

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this thesis entitled,” The Effects of Student Team-Achievement

Division Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction on Students’ Reading Comprehension Levels”, is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted and paraphrased some statements and ideas from other resources, and they are properly acknowledged in the text.

Bandung, February, 2013

THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT TEAM-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’

READING COMPREHENSION LEVELS

Asep Suarman 1007015

ABSTRACT

Reading is very important for the students’ life and language learning. It can be taught through several methods of teaching, two of which are Student Team Achievement Division Cooperative Learning (STAD CL) and Direct Instruction (DI). This study investigated how STAD CL and DI are implemented in a classroom; which one was more effective in improving reading comprehension and comprehension levels (literal, inferential and evaluative) and how the students responded to STAD CL or DI. It was conducted in Grade VIII of junior high school in Serang Regency, Banten Province. It involved 64 participants assigned into two intact groups, each of which was 32 students. One group was taught through STAD CL and another was through DI. The study employed triangulation mixed method design (Creswell, 2003 p. 213; 2008 pp. 558-9), embracing the characteristics of quasi experimental and survey designs. The data were obtained from participant observation, tests, questionnaire and interview. It was found that though in several aspects STAD CL and DI were similar, preparing and ending STAD CL were more demanding for the teacher than those of DI. In the implementation, STAD CL made the teacher more relaxed since the teacher only monitored and gave feedback to the students’ teams, not to individuals as he did in DI. From the tests, it was found that STAD CL was more effective than DI in improving their reading comprehension. This can be seen from the t-value (t = .196, df.= 61, p =.333) which was more than the alpha (.05). It was also revealed that the students in STAD CL groups outperformed those in DI in terms of literal and evaluative comprehension levels. This can be seen from the result of the t-test of the post test scores showing that t-values on literal comprehension level (t=.155, df.= 61 p = 6.383) and evaluative level (t=.131, df.= 60 p = 2.345) were more than the alpha (.05). However, on inferential level, there was no significant difference of the groups on the post test with the t-value was .033 (d.f. 61, p = .72), was less than the alpha. Regarding the students’ responses, both groups considered STAD CL or DI assisted them in attaining inferential comprehension more than that of literal and evaluative ones. This can be seen from the questionnaire wherein the mean scores of inferential level were higher than those of literal and evaluative comprehension level. It was also revealed that the students in both groups were helped to reach the comprehension levels when being modeled the reading strategies, reading texts and doing guided exercises. Additionally, the students in STAD CL considered they were helped when having team discussion. Finally, it was found that the reward in STAD CL could motivate most students to cooperate within their teams and to compete with other teams; meanwhile that in DI could only motivate high achievers. Due to the limitations, it is recommended that similar future research should involve more comprehension levels/skills, take the teacher’s perception into account, and use more items, more teachers and more students. It also should be cautious in grouping students and obtaining similar pre-existing ability on all comprehension levels.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE SHEET ... i

APPROVAL SHEET ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iii

DECLARATION ... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLES ... ix

LIST OF CHARTS ... x

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Purpose of the Study ... 3

1.3 Research Question ... 3

1.4 Definition of the Terms ... 3

1.5 Significance of the Study ... 4

1.6 Structure of the Thesis ... 5

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Reading Comprehension ... 6

2.1.1 Definitions of Reading Comprehension ... 6

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension Factors ... 8

2.1.3 Interactive Model or Approach of Reading Process ... 8

2.1.4 Reading Comprehension Levels ... 10

2.1.5 Reading Comprehension Skills ... 12

2.1.6 Teaching Reading Comprehension ... 15

2.1.7 Assessing Reading ... 18

2.2 Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Cooperative Learning 19 2.2.1 Overview of Cooperative Learning ... 19

2.2.2 Principles of STAD CL ... 22

2.2.3 Procedures of STAD CL ... 23

2.2.4 Weaknesses of STAD CL ... 26

2.2.1 Definition of Direct Instruction ... 27

2.2.2 Principles of Direct Instruction ... 29

2.2.3 Procedures of Direct Instruction ... 30

2.2.4 Weaknesses of Direct Instruction... 32

2.4 Previous Study ... 33

2.5 Conclusion of the Chapter ... 34

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Setting and Participants ... 35

3.2 Research Design ... 36

3.3 Data Collection Methods ... 37

3.4.1 Pretest and Post Test of Reading Comprehension ... 37

3.4.2 Class Observation ... 39

3.4.3 Questionnaire ... 39

3.4.4 Interview ... 41

3.4 Data Analysis ... 42

3.4.1 Pretest and Post Test ... 42

3.4.2 Class Observation ... 43

3.4.3 Questionnaire ... 43

3.4.4 Interview ... 44

3.6 Conclusion of the Chapter ... 44

CHAPTER IV TEACHING PROGRAMS 4.1 Phases of Study ... 45

4.2 Preliminary Phase ... 46

4.2.1 Searching for Teaching Materials ... 46

4.2.2 Trying Out the Pretest and Posttest Items ... 50

4.2.3 Administering Pretest ... 51

4.2.4 Inducting the Teaching Programs ... 53

4.3 Teaching Programs ... 54

4.3.1 Preparation (Before Instruction) ... 55

4.3.2Pre-Reading ... 55

4.3.3 While Reading ... 57

4.4 Post Teaching Phase ... 66

4.5 Conclusion of the Chapter ... 66

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA FROM TESTS, QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW 5.1 Data from Tests……… 69

5.1.1 The Effect of the Teaching Programs on Reading Comprehension.. 69

5.1.2 The Effect of the Teaching Programs on Literal Comprehension Levels…..……… 72

5.1.3 The Effect of the Teaching Programs on Inferential Comprehension Levels……… 75

5.1.4 The Effect of the Teaching Programs on Evaluative Comprehension Levels……… 79

5.1.5 Summary of Discussion of Data from Tests ……… 82

5.2. Data from Questionnaire ……… 85

5.2.1 The Effect of STAD CL or DI on the Students’ Literal Comprehension Levels……….. 85

5.2.2 The Effect of STAD CL or DI on the Students’ Inferential Comprehension Level …….……….. 90

5.2.3 The Effect of STAD CL or DI on the Students’ Evaluative Comprehension Level……….. . 93

5.2.4 Summary of Discussion of Data from Questionnaire ……….. 97

5.3 Data from Interview……….. 99

5.3.1 The Students’ Responses toward STAD CL and DI……… 99

5.3.2 The Effect of STAD CL and DI on Literal Comprehension Level… 103 5.3.3 The Effect of STAD CL and DI on Inferential Comprehension ……105 5.3.4 The Effect of STAD CL and DI on Evaluative Comprehension ……108

5.3.5 Summary of Discussion of Data from Interview ………. 112

5.4 Conclusion of the Chapter ………

112

CHAPTER VI: THE CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND IDEAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH 6.1 Conclusion ………. 113

6.2 Limitation of the Study………... 116

6.3 Ideas for Future Research .………. 118

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……….. 119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Comprehension Levels and Skills ……… 14

Table 3.2: Research Design ……… 37

Table 4.3: The Phases of the Teaching Programs ………... 45

Table 4.4: Texts in the Teaching Programs ………. 47

Table 4.5: The Investigated Comprehension Levels and Skills ………... 49

Table 4.6: The Result of ANATESV.4 Analysis on the Try-Out Version of Both Pretest and Post Items ……… 50

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the Result of Pre-Test ……… 51

Table 4.8: Independent Samples Test of Pretest Scores of Class A, B and D …. 52 Table 4.9: The Mean Score of Quizzes ……… 64

Table 4.10: The Comparison of the Teaching programs ……… 66

Table 5.11: Descriptive Statistics of Reading Comprehension Post Test Scores of both STAD CL and DI Groups ……… 69

Table 5.12: Independent Samples t-Test of the Reading Comprehension Scores of STAD CL and DI Groups ………. 71

Table 5.13: Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and Posttest Scores on Literal Comprehension Level of STAD CL and DI Groups ………. 72

Table 5.14: Independent Samples t-Test of the Pretest and Post Test Scores on Literal Comprehension Level between STAD CL and DI Groups………. 74

Table 5.15: Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and Posttest Scores on Inferential Comprehension Level of STAD CL and DI Groups ……… 75

Table 5.16: Independent Samples t-Test of the Pretest Scores on Inferential Comprehension Level between STAD CL and DI Groups ..… 77

Table 5.17: Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest and Posttest Scores on Evaluative Comprehension Level of STAD CL and DI Groups ………... 79

Table 5.18: Independent Samples t-Test of the Pretest and the Post Test Scores on Evaluative Comprehension Level between STAD CL and DI Groups …... 81

Table 5.19: The Comparison of Questionnaire Response between STAD CL and DI Groups on Literal Comprehension ……… 86

Table 5.20: The Comparison of Questionnaire Responses between STAD CL and DI Groups on Inferential Comprehension ……… 91

Table 5.21: The Comparison of Questionnaire Responses between STAD CL and DI Groups on Evaluative Comprehension. ……… 94

List of Charts

Chart 4.1: The Comparison of the Mean Scores and the Standard Deviation

between STAD CL and DI groups ………. 65 Chart 5.2 The Tendency of Mean Score of All Comprehension Levels ………… 82 Chart 5.3: The Recapitulation of the Mean Scores of Questionnaire Responses

List of Appendices

1. a. The Items of Pre-Test (Try-Out Version) b. The Items of Pre-Test (Pre-test Version) 2. a. The Items of Post-Test (Try-Out Version)

b. The Items of Post-Test (Pre-test Version) 3. a. An Example of Quiz Items

b. ANATES V.4 Analysis on Quiz #3

4. a. Observation Guidelines in STAD CL Group b. Observation Guidelines of DI Group

5. a. Condensed Observation Field note in the STAD CL Group b. Condensed Observation Field note in the DI Group

6. a. Questionnaire for STAD CL Group (not random) b. Questionnaire for DI Group (not random)

c. Questionnaire In Bahasa Indonesia for STAD CL Group (Random ) d. Questionnaire In Bahasa Indonesia for DI Group (Random )

7. The Microsoft Excel Analysis on the Result of Questionnaire Try Out. 8. a. STAD CL group Interview Guidelines

b. DI group Interview Guidelines

9. a. The Result of Questionnaire in STAD CL Group b. The Result of Questionnaire in DI Group

10.Reading texts for the Teaching Programs

11.a. An Example of Lesson Plans for STAD CL Group b. An Example of Lesson Plans for DI Group

12.a. ANATES V.4 Analysis on Pretest Items (Try-Out Version). b. ANATES V.4 Analysis on Post Test Items (Try-Out Version). 13.a. The Mark list of DI group

b. The Quiz Score Sheet of STAD CL group c. The Team Summary Sheet of STAD CL group 14.a. The Example of Certificate of Super Team

b. The Example of Certificate of The Best Student

15.a. The Comparison of Pretest and Post Test Scores on Literal Comprehension b. The Comparison of Pretest and Post Test Scores on Inferential Comprehension c. The Comparison of Pretest and Post Test Scores on Evaluative Comprehension 16. a. Condensed Version of Data from STAD CL group Interview

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

This introductory chapter discusses the background and states the purposes of the study and research questions. It further describes the significance of the study. Finally, it outlines the structure of this thesis as a whole.

1.1 Background of the Study

Reading is a very important skill for both our life in general and language learning in particular. For our life, it enables us to access written worlds of ideas (Hood et al. 1996 p. 33), feelings as well as knowledge of the ages and vision of the future (Alderson, 2000, p. x). It also facilitates us to gain access to science in various field of study and to sense others’ feeling, attitude or behavior and to know what happened in the past or what may happen in the future. For language learning, it can improve other general language skills and help to think in the target language, enlarge vocabulary and improve writing skill (Mikulecky and Jeffries, 1996 p. 1).

The importance of reading can be seen from the fact that the main part of national examination in junior and senior high schools was to do with reading skill. It is to measure students’ reading competence as being targeted by the national content standard (see Depdiknas, 2005).

Various questions on English national exam are intended to assess students’ reading comprehension. The questions commonly deal with assessing the students’ skills in getting explicit and implicit information, guessing words/phrase/clause meaning in context, identifying main idea, communicative purpose of the text and the coda from a story (BSNP, 2011; Hood et al. 1996 p. 44, see also Depdiknas, 2011). Such questions basically are to inspect the students’ understanding or comprehension as a reflection of their mind (Dorn and Soffos, 2005 p.2) after reading; as the essential goal (Brassell and Rasinski 2008, p. 11) and as the product of reading (Alderson, 2000 p.5). Thus, the

difference of students’ comprehension levels is hopefully revealed through such questions. Some theorists assert that comprehension has some levels. Some academics categorized it into three levels: literal, inferential/interpretive and

applied/assimilative/critical/evaluative levels (Heilman, 1961; Alexander, 1989 p. 125; Muhamad, 1999; Alderson, 2000; Berry, 2005; Brasell & Rasinski, 2008 p. 17; Cuesta College, 2011; see also Gunning, 2010). Others add two other levels: reorganization and appreciation comprehension levels (Clymer 1968 in Pettit and Cockriel, 1974; Burnes, 1985 in Setiadi, 2010 p. 92; Brown, 1995; RIC Publication Staff, 1996; Snow, 2003; Briskin, 2005). These levels of comprehension vary among readers.

Teaching reading comprehension levels with their own strategies or skills is quite demanding for English teachers. Although comprehension can be taught directly (Fielding and Pearson, 1994), its teaching requires teachers to be well-informed, creative, and innovative (Depdiknas, 2007) about theories, approaches, methods, models, media or findings. On the top of that, the teachers are required to have opportunities to experiment the various approaches, models or methods (Arends and Kilcher, 2010).

Two of the models to teach reading are Student Teams-Achievement Division as a cooperative learning (STAD CL) model (Slavin, 1989; 1995) and Direct Instruction (DI) as a competitive model (Adams & Engelmann, 1996 in Kozloff, 2003; Moore, 2008; Kozloff et al., 2001; Lang and Evan, 2006). Cooperative learning (CL) is a teaching technique and philosophy employing small groups (Killen, 1998 p. 82; Jhonson et al., 1993 p. 3 in McCafferty et al. 2006 p. 3; Lie 2004 p. 28) so that learners work together to

maximize their own and their peer’s learning and receive rewards based on their group’s

performance (Olsen and Kagan 1992; Richards and Rodgers, 2001 p. 192; Sach et al., 2003). Competitive model is a teaching model wherein students individually compete to be rewarded as the winner of the competition (Lie, 2004 p. 23-24).

Previous findings show that both STAD CL and DI have their own benefits for teaching reading comprehension. On one hand, STAD CL can improve reading comprehension (Slavin, 1995; Jhonson et. al, 2000; Wichadee 2005; Norman, 2005; Jalilifar 2010) and achievement (Jhonson et al, 2000). On the other hand, DI is a good model for teaching reading comprehension providing students specific skills or strategies that are necessary for reading proficiency (Moore, 2008; Gregory et al., 2005; Kozloff, 2003); could raise student achievement in reading (Iver, et al. 2003) and was an

appropriate model for students with low intelligence and improved students’ meta -cognitive skills (Jager, 2002 p. 88).

Considering the benefits of STAD Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction above, this study attempts to shed light on the effects of STAD CL and DI on students’ reading comprehension in general and comprehension levels in particular.

1.2 The Purpose of the Study

This study is intended to investigate how STAD cooperative learning (STAD CL) and Direct Instruction (DI) are implemented in a classroom, to find out which instruction is more effective in improving reading comprehension in general and comprehension levels in particular, and what the students’ responses are to STAD CL or DI.

1.3 Research Questions

Based on the purposes of the research above, this study attempts to answer the following research questions:

1. How cooperative learning (STAD CL) and direct instruction (DI) are implemented in the classrooms?

2. Which instruction, STAD CL or DI, is more effective in improving the students’ reading comprehension?

3. Which instruction, STAD CL or DI, is more effective in improving each of the students’ reading comprehension level?

4. What are the students’ responses to STAD CL or DI?

1.4Definition of the terms

There are many terms used in this study, so to add precision to this study (Cresswell, 1994 p. 106; 2003 pp. 142-3), it is necessary to clarify the terms. Below are listed the operational definition of the used terms.

- _{Reading is defined as the interaction between a reader and a text to combine} information from the reader’s background knowledge, his/her purpose and the text to build meaning (Mikulecky, 1990 p. 2; Anderson in Nunan, 2003; Snow, 2002, p. 2 see also Alexander, 1989).

- _{Reading comprehension is the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing} meaning through interaction and involvement with written language (Snow, 2002 p. xiii). In this study, the term reading and reading comprehension are treated synonymous (Mikulecky, 1990 p.2).

- _{Comprehension levels are the levels of understanding about} the author’s in_tended message of a text (Haris et al. 1981 in Setiadi, 2010 p. 88). In this case, only three levels are investigated: literal, inferential and evaluative (Alexander, 1989 p. 125; Muhamad, 1999; Berry, 2005; Brasell & Rasinski, 2008 p. 87).

- _{Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) in this study refers to the cooperative} learning models consisting of class presentation, teams, quizzes, individual improvement and team recognition (Slavin, 1995 p. 71).

- _{Cooperative Learning (CL) in this study refers to a teaching procedures employing} small team so that learners work together to maximize their own and their peer’s learning and receive rewards based on their team’s performance (Killen, 1998 p. 82; Jhonson et al., 1993 in McCafferty et al. 2006 p. 3; Olsen and Kagan 1992; Richards and Rodgers, 2001 p. 192; Sach et al., 2003).

- _{Direct Instruction (DI)} refers to a pattern of teaching that consists of the teacher’s explaining a new concept or skill to students, having them test their understanding under teacher direction in controlled practice, guided practice and independent practice (Binder & Watkins, 1990; Killen, 1998 p. 2; Stein et al., 1998; Kozloff, 2003 Joyce, 2011).

- _Responses in this study refer the students’ opinion about the effect of STAD CL or DI on their reading skills in each comprehension level and when they were facilitated by the instructions.

1.5 Significance of Study

This study is expected to provide its significance at least in three points of view, referring to Creswell (1994 p. 111; 2003 p. 149).

Theoretically, this study may add empirical support to existing theories, literature and scholarly research findings of STAD cooperative learning and direct instruction (DI) in teaching reading comprehension.

Practically, the results of this study may help to clarify the benefits of applying STAD CL and DI in teaching reading so that more teachers can replicate the study and apply the CL or DI in their daily teaching to improve students’ comprehension.

Professionally, this study may encourage the teachers in the research site or in the regency to apply STAD CL and DI in their teaching; and promote the theory-based teaching in classrooms of all schools in the regency.

1.6 Structure of Thesis

This thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter I presents the background, the purpose, the research questions, significance of the study and the structure of the thesis. Chapter II discusses theoretical reviews on reading comprehension, STAD Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction with their recent research finding. Chapter III describes the methodology for collecting and analyzing the data, including design, participants, data collection techniques, and data analysis. Chapter IV discusses the teaching programs as the implementation of both STAD CL and DI with the result of observation and quizzes. Chapter V presents the findings and discussion of the obtained data from tests, questionnaire and interview. Finally, Chapter VI presents the conclusions and limitation of the study followed by suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD

The previous chapter has described the theoretical background of the study. It discusses literature review about reading comprehension, comprehension levels, STAD Cooperative Learning (STAD CL) and Direct Instruction (DI) along with the principles, procedures and their weaknesses.

This chapter provides the information about the methodology of the research including the research questions, the setting and participants of the study, the design, data collection methods and data analysis. The conclusion ends this chapter.

3.1 Research Setting and Participants

This research was undertaken in a junior high school in Serang Regency, Banten Province. This site made the research more feasible and suitable in terms of time, mobility and skills (McMillan and Schumacher 2001 p. 432). Firstly, it was located in the same town as the researcher. This could ease the researcher in managing time and cost in running the study. Secondly, based on the researcher’ previous observation, the English teacher had the necessary skill to implement the teaching procedures. Thirdly, the researcher had good access to the site, since the researcher was one of teaching personnel in the site.

The participants of the study were 64 students of eight graders which were divided into two groups each of which consist of 32 students. They were selected based on the historical factors and pre-existing ability (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 7; Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 pp. 186-7). In terms of historical factors, to follow Hatch and Farhady, the students in both groups had relatively the same language learning experience. Previously, they had been studying English for more than 1.5 year the same teacher and the same materials. No one of them had ever joined any English course. In such a time span and experience, they were assumed to have adequate knowledge background which is beneficial for their reading (Alderson, 1999). This condition helped the researcher assumed that the participants had similar prior knowledge (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p.7).

In addition, they were also chosen based on the homogeneity of pre-existing reading comprehension ability. Among the three groups joining pretest, two groups who

were statistically homogenous, no significant difference on their pretest scores. In other words, the two groups have approximately similar pre-existing reading comprehension ability (Hatch and Larazaton, 1991 pp. 261-3). The selected groups, then, were assigned as experimental and control groups by flipping a coin (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 19).

3.2 Research Design

This study employed triangulation mixed method design (Creswell, 2003 p. 213; 2008 pp. 558-9 see also Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p. 542; Darlington and Scott, 2002 p. 123). The design was the combination between two designs: quasi-experimental and survey designs (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 pp. 32-4). The quasi-experimental design was employed since this study compared the causal effect of the independent variables: STAD CL and DI, on the dependent one: reading comprehension levels (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 pp. 342; Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Vellutino, and Schatschneider, 2011 p. 157). With this design, this study was more practical to do as it was not nec essary to assign students randomly (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 pp. 24 see also Vellutino, and Schatschneider, 2011 p. 169; Cresswell, 2008 p. 313). During the teaching programs (see Chapter IV), an observation was conducted to provide additional evidence for the study (Cowie in Heigham and Crocker, 2009, p. 168) and to have better understanding of what was going on in the implementation of the teaching programs. Meanwhile, the survey design, wherein the researcher elicited the students’ opinion about the effects of STAD CL or Di on their comprehension levels, was carried out after the programs to provide better understanding of the findings (Creswell, 2008 p. 552) and to elicit students’ opinion about the effect of the teaching programs on their comprehension levels.

The representation for the designs is presented on the following table. Table 3.2: Research Design

Time

Pretest

Select control (Intact) group

STAD Cooperative Learning Instruction +

observation Post Test

Question-naire Interview

Select experimental (Intact) group

Direct Instruction + observation

Table 3.2 above shows a pretest (see Section 3.3.1) preceded the research, then experimental and control groups were selected on the basis of the pretest. After that, the teaching programs (see chapter IV) were conducted. After the programs ended, a post test (see Section 3.3.1), questionnaire (see Section 3.3.2) and interview (see Section 3.3.4) were administered.

3.3. Data Collection Methods

This section discusses data collection methods including pretest and post-tests, observation, questionnaire and interview.

3.3.1 Pretest and Posttests of Reading Comprehension

As mentioned in the research design (see Section 3.1), to gather the data about the students’ achievement in reading comprehension, a pencil and paper tests (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 pp. 250-7) were administered. The tests were pretest, posttest and quizzes. The pretest (see Appendix 1a and 1b for the items) was aimed to see and compare the existing ability of the groups involved in the study. It was done before the teaching programs were conducted. The posttest (see Appendix 2a and 2b) was conducted after all teaching programs were done. It was conducted to see the effect of the teaching programs on the students’ comprehension levels. In addition, in the end of every treatment, a quiz (see Appendix 3a,b for the example of the items) was also administered to assess the students’ comprehension of the text learned.

In the tests, multiple choice items were chosen for several considerations. Firstly, they are suitable items for testing reading as receptive skill (Brown, 2005 p. 47). Secondly, they are selected due to its objectivity and its practicality. Multiple choice items are more objective since there will be less scoring mistakes than other test formats (Brown, 29). They are also easy to administer and can be scored quickly (Brown, 2005 p. 47). It can be administered and scored in shorter time than that of other formats. It has simplicity in analyzing the test validity and the test reliability (Brown, 2001 p. 386; 2004 p. 20).

Some test items were taken from available reading tests and some others were constructed by the researcher. They were adopted from the items of previous national examinations (Balitbang – Kemendiknas, UN, 2011) or its try out. The selection and the construction of the items were based on the comprehension levels to measure and their difficulty levels.

The items were segmented into three sections, according to comprehension levels: literal, inferential and evaluative (see Section 2.1.5). For literal level, the test items required students to scan for specific information; read for detailed explicit information; guess the meaning of unfamiliar word from context, and identify or locate information. For inferential comprehension, test items were related to identifying or reading for main ideas and pronominal reference; reading for implicit meaning; outlining logical organization of text and drawing inferences in the content. For evaluative comprehension, test items were to assess students’ ability in recognizing a writer’s purpose, attitude, tone and emotion in the text and identifying the characteristics of characters; and analyzing the (generic) structure of the text (see Section 2.1.5 for detail).

The test consisted of thirty items with two genres of texts: recount and narrative (see Martin and Rose, 2008; Anderson and Anderson, 1997). These genres were also as the material in the teaching programs (see Chapter IV). They were chosen since they had potential to challenge all levels of students’ comprehension, according to Barret Taxonomy of reading comprehension levels (www.campbellps.det.wa.edu.au; Clymer 1968 in Hudson, 2007 and Pettit and Cockriel, 1974; Berry, 2005). The pretest items included two recounts, about unforgettable experience and holiday, and two narratives about folktale and legend. The posttest ones were also composed of five texts: two recounts about lost dog and unforgettable experience, and three narrative texts about fables and legend.

To enhance the validity of the test items, some efforts were made. To maintain the content validity (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 pp. 250-5; Hughes, 2003 p. 26: Brown, 2005 p. 221), the construction of the test items were referred to reading comprehension levels, basic competence of the content standard (Depdiknas, 2006) as well as graduation criteria of English national examination of Junior High School (Depdiknas, 2011). To support the face validity, the items were constructed in such a way that they had similar length of options; the same number of options and similar organization (Hughes, 2003 p. 33). At last, to uphold the criterion validity (Hughes, 2003 p. 27), the results of the (pre- and post) tests were compared with those of the previous tests.

To ensure the reliability and the difficulty levels, the test items were tried-out and subsequently modified (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 253). The items were tried out to another group of students not involved in the study. This try-out was intended to see bad items or distracters and to gain the ideal levels of difficulty, containing about 25% of easy,

50% of medium and 25% of difficult items (Hughes, 2003; Brown, 2005; Arikunto, 2009, p.207). There were 40 items on the try-out but only 30 items were selected for the tests. The selection was based on difficulty and comprehension levels. Further discussion of the try-out of the items is discussed in Chapter IV Section 4.2.2.

3.3.2 Class Observation

Observation was carried out to provide additional evidence for the study (Cowie in Heigham and Crocker, 2009, p. 168) and to get to know first-hand information about social process in a naturally occurring context (Silverman, 1993). In this case, the researcher acted as a participant observer (Creswell, 2001 p. 222; see also Cowie in Heigham and Crocker, 2009 p. 166) wherein he got involved in helping the teacher plan the teaching programs, prepare reading texts, implement the procedures of the programs and evaluate them. This observation aimed to have better understanding of what was going on in the implementation of the teaching programs and how the teacher as well as students participated in the activities.

To provide sharper focus of data collection (Nunan, 1992 p. 98), in this study, the researcher applied structured observation wherein specific categories to observe had been determined previously (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 pp.40-1; see also Nunan, 1992 p. 96). The categories included the principles and the procedures of the teaching programs. The observation sheet for STAD CL group (see appendix 4a) were adapted from Furtwengler (1992; see also Leighton in Cooper, 1990 pp. 330-331). It contained some indicators of effective cooperative learning related to classroom organization, classroom management, presentation content, group facilitation, monitoring and lesson summary. In the meantime, the observation sheet for DI group (see appendix 4b) were adapted from observational guideline of direct instruction from education.byu.edu. It included direct instruction procedures consisting of the indicators of opening, modeling, guided practice, independent practice and closing phases.

When the observation was being conducted, the researcher also made field notes (see Appendix 5a and 5b, for the example). The notes about what the teacher as well as the students did in the teaching programs.

3.3.3 Questionnaire

After all the teaching programs were done, a questionnaire (see Appendix 6a - 6d) was employed. It was chosen to keep the objectivity of the response and the

anonymity of respondents (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p.257). In this study, the questionnaire surveyed the students’ opinion about the effect of STAD CL or DI on their comprehension levels. It was aimed to provide a numeric information, data or trend about the students’ opinions on the teaching programs (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p. 304; Cresswell, 2008 p. 61; 2002 pp. 154; 1994 pp. 127-130). The questionnaires were distributed to both groups after the posttest.

The questionnaire was developed following the guideline from Oppenheim (1982); Barbie (1998) in Mc Millan and Schumacher (2001 p. 258) and Dornyei (2002). The items were arranged in Likert Scale, in the four gradations starting from ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p.262; Dornyei, 2002 p. 27; Creswell, 2008 p. 176;). The respondents were only required to check the place on the scale that best reflect their belief or opinion about the statements (Mc.Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p.262).

The questionnaire contained 18 statements about the reading skills related to the three levels comprehension: literal, inferential and evaluative (see Appendix 6a and 6b). They consisted of nine positive and nine negative ones to avoid a response set in which the respondents mark only on side of the scale (Dornyei, 2002 p. 43). They were randomly arranged to make sure the students’ consistency, real perception, and to prevent guessing (Sugiyono, 2005; Oppenheim, 1982). They were written in Bahasa Indonesia to make it more comprehensible for the students and to avoid misunderstanding.

Further, to enhance the effectiveness and comprehensibility of questionnaire, it was validated, coded and pilot-tested (Mc Millan and Schumacher, 2001 p. 267; Dornyei, 2002 pp. 53-55; Creswell, 2008 p. 402;). Before being tried out, it was validated by having others to read and to give feedback whether it was vague or incomprehensible. It was also coded by giving the initial of comprehension levels, the number of statements of each level and positive (+) or negative (-) symbols. It was also pilot-tested to a group of students not involved in the study to see their capability of completing the questionnaire and their reaction.

In the pilot testing, it was found that generally all statements in the questionnaire were comprehensible for the students. But, the term ‘pembelajaran langsung’ (Direct Instruction) needed describing since the students were not familiar with the terms. Then, to follow Juliandi (2007), the result of the pilot test was statistically analyzed via Microsoft Excel (see Appendix 7). It was to get the correlation value (r) in Pearson-Product Moment

Correlation. It was found that most statements (73%) were statistically valid to use. And, in terms of internal consistency, the score of split-half reliability (Brown, 2005, p. 177; Hughes, 2003, p. 40) between positive and negative statements was 0.97. It meant that the questionnaire had good reliability. The score was close to the perfect reliability, that is, one (1.00).

3.3.4 Interview

In addition to the previous data collections, interview was conducted to verify, extend, elaborate or explain the data collected (Creswell, 2008 p. 552; McMillan and Schumacher, 2001 p. 444). In this case, it was intended to elicit the students’ opinions about the effects of STAD CL or DI on their learning reading strategies. It was done after the analysis of the posttest score.

The interview was a directive (Richard, 2003 p. 51) or structured one (Nunan, 1992 p. 149) wherein specific topics/agenda were totally predetermined (see also McMillan and Schumacher, 2001 p. 444). Its form was focused group interview. It was to encourage a sense of divergent opinion (Krueger and Morgan, 1993 p. 17-18 in Emilia 2005 p. 245), to collect shared understanding from several individuals of students, to take the pressure off the participants (Darlington and Scott, 2002 p. 62) and to provide welcoming condition so that they were not hesitant to talk (Creswell, 2008 p. 226). Twelve students from each group were purposefully chosen (Creswell, 2008 p. 214; McMillan and Schumacher, 2001 pp. 400-1) from low, middle and high achievers in the post tests.

Interview guideline (see Appendix 8a and 8b) was used when interviewing. It consisted of some questions to elicit students’ opinions about the effect of the teaching programs. The questions were related to the advantages of STAD cooperative learning (STAD CL) or Direct Instruction (DI) for their learning and their comprehension levels. The questions were segmented into three parts: introduction, core part and winding down or closing (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003 p. 114). In the introduction, to follow Ritchie and Lewis, easy, opening questions were asked. The core part included deeper and more specific questions. Finally, suggestive questions were delivered in the closing.

The number of questions in the group interviews was at least 16 questions. They consisted of two opening questions, thirteen core questions and one closing questions. The opening ones were related to students’ personal identity and achievement background. The

core ones were related to their impression and experience in implementing the instructions especially the difference between the STAD CL or DI models and those that the students had experienced before, the facilitation of the models to their learning and to their comprehension levels. The closing ones consisted of a question relevant to students’ suggestions on the application of the learning models in the future.

3.4 Data Analysis

In this section, data analyses are discussed. The analyses include the four data collection techniques employed: tests, class observation, questionnaire and interview.

3.4.1 Pretest and Posttest

ANATES V.4 (version 4) and SPSS V.15 software were utilized to analyze the result of the pretest and the posttest. ANATES V.4 (KarnoTo and Wibisono, 2003) could automatically analyze the reliability, the level of difficulty, discrimination index and distracters’ quality of the items. It helped researcher to identify the quality of the test items quickly and appropriately. The second one, SPSS (Nie and Hull,1968) could easily analyzed quantitative data just by clicking the menu. It was to statistically analyze the difference of means among data through independent t-test and non-parametric test.

The procedures of analyzing the data from the tests were as follows. 1. Data Entry and the Analysis via ANATES software

Firstly, the coded names of participants, the answers and the key answers were entered into ANATES V.4. Then, the correct answers were scored, one correct answer got one score. The sum of correct answers was divided by the number of the items to have percentage point. Finally, the reliability, the level of difficulty, discrimination index and distracters’ quality of the items were analyzed automatically, just by clicking the menu.

2. Independent t-test analysis via SPSS V.15

The total scores obtained from ANATES V.4 were then statistically analyzed through the SPSS V.15 software. This analysis was intended to see which teaching program, STAD CL or DI, is more effective in improving the students’ comprehension in general. It compared the mean scores of total scores of both groups. Since they were two independent groups, independent t-tests were chosen (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 pp. 111-4, Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991 pp. 258-262; Kinnear and Gray, 1994 p. 86). It was considered appropriate because the data were interval and were assumed to have

normal distribution since the participants were more than 30 students (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 98).

3. SPSS independent t-test on every level of Comprehension

Further, to see the improvement of the scores of both STAD CL and DI groups on every level of comprehension, SPSS descriptive statistics and independent t-test were carried out. For the comparison, the students’ answers on the raw data (data mentah) of ANATES.V4 were categorized into three levels of comprehension: literal, inferential and evaluative, each of which consisted of 10 items. Such number of items was appropriate enough to have descriptive statistics and inferential one (Kinnear and Gray, 1994 p. 83). This analysis was intended to compare the significance of the difference between the mean score both groups on every level of comprehension. Since the data was the same as mentioned previously, independent t-test was run. Then, the result of the analysis was described adequately.

3.4.2 Class Observation

The data from observation consisted of researcher’s field notes (Creswell, 2008 p. 224) and the result of reading comprehension quizzes. The analysis of the data was conducted during and after the data collection (Miles and Huberman, 1994 p. 10). The obtained data then were analyzed and described adequately, all of which will be presented in Chapter IV together with the teaching programs. Specifically the data comprised mainly of the teacher’s activities and the students’ response on the procedure of the teaching programs. The data obtained were presented in a condensed body of information (Emilia, 2005 p. 86) (see Appendix 5a and 5 b) which will be discussed in Chapter IV, together with the teaching programs.

3.4.3 Questionnaire

The data from the questionnaire were analyzed in several steps. Firstly, the questions or the statements in the questionnaires were categorized into the central themes (Alwasilah, 2000 p. 160; Cresswell, 2008 pp. 251): the levels of comprehensions. Then, simple computation and percentage were conducted. The results were tabulated, statistically analyzed and interpreted adequately.

In analyzing the result of the questionnaire, the scores between the positive and negative statements were reversed (Dornyei, 2002 p.43). For positive statements, to follow Dornyei, ‘strongly agree’ was scored four and ‘strongly disagree’ was scored one,

meanwhile for negative ones, ‘strongly agree’ was scored one and ‘strongly disagree’ was scored four (see also Creswell, 2008 p. 184). All respondents’ checks were presented in recapitulation table (see Appendix 9a and 9b). In the end, SPSS.V15 analysis: non parametric Wilcoxon signed rank was done. The result of the analysis will be presented in Chapter V.

3.4.4 Interview

The data from interview were analyzed through several steps. Firstly, recorded data were transcribed. In transcribing the data, the participants were coded to protect their privacy (Silverman, 1993). To follow Miles and Hubberman (1994 pp. 10-11), then, inappropriate or non relevant data were reduced. After that, the data were categorized into central themes which became the main concern of this study (Cresswell, 2008 pp. 251-261); they are the participants’ impression on STAD CL or DI and their effects on their comprehension levels. The obtained data were presented in the condensed body of information (Emilia, 2005 p. 86) (see Appendices 16a and 16b).

3.5 Conclusion of the Chapter

This chapter has provided the information about the methodology of the research including the setting, the participants and the designs of the study. It also discusses the data collection techniques and analyses for the study including tests, observation, questionnaire and interview.

The following chapter discusses the teaching procedures as the teaching programs for the study. It describes the steps of STAD CL and Direct Instruction (DI) in teaching reading comprehension together with the result of observation.

CHAPTER IV: THE TEACHING PROGRAMS

The previous chapter describes the methodology of the research including the setting, participants, design of the study, data collection and data analysis.

This chapter depicts the stages of the study, the teaching programs and the observed students‟ responses to them. It aims to answer the first research questions: how to implement STAD CL or DI in the classroom. It sets out the phases of the study and compares the similarities and the dissimilarities of the teaching procedures between the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction. In presenting the phases, the students‟ responses obtained from observation sheet (see Appendices 4a and 4b) and the researcher‟s field notes (see Appendices 5a and 5b) are also included in the description.

4.1 Phases of the Study

This study was carried out in three phases. It consists of preliminary phase, the teaching programs and post teaching programs. Overall, it spent eight weeks; two weeks for preliminary phase, five weeks for the teaching programs and one week for post teaching programs (see the following table).

Table 4.3: The Phases of the Teaching Programs in STAD CL and DI groups Preliminary phase Week 1

Week 2

Searching for teaching materials and Try out of test items and administering pretest.

Inducting the programs (Text 1) Teaching Program phase Week 3

Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7

Teaching programs text 2 Teaching programs text 3 Teaching programs text 4 Teaching programs text 5 Teaching programs text 6 Post teaching phase Week 8 Post-test and Questionnaire

Summarized from the stages of this study

4.2 Preliminary Phase of Teaching Programs

In this phase, the researcher conducted three activities: i) searching for teaching materials; ii) trying out the pretest items; iii) administering the pretest and iv) inducting the teaching programs. Each activity will be delineated below.

4.2.1 Searching for Teaching Materials

The teaching materials for this study included reading texts with their practices (see Appendix 10), quizzes (see Appendix 3) and lesson plans (see Appendices 11a and 11b). Overall, there were six reading texts utilized in this study. As mentioned before (see Section 3.4.1), the texts consisted of two genres: recount and narrative texts (see Martin and Rose, 2008; Anderson and Anderson, 1997). These texts, Martin and Rose describe, comprise a series of interrelated episodes that include goal-directed actions and causally related events. The ability to comprehend those genres can be a foundation for later reading comprehension skills since the students have to monitor their understanding, generate inferences, identify the key points, and understand causal relations (Paris & Paris, 2003 in Broek et al. 2009 p. 112). In addition, these genres had a potential to challenge all levels of students‟ comprehension (Barret Taxonomy in Clymer, 1968 in Pettit and Cockriel, 1974 p.64 in Hudson, 2002; Berry, 2005; Setiadi, 2012, see also www.campbellps.det.wa.edu.au).

The teaching materials and their assessment in both STAD CL and DI groups were similar. The similarities were to maintain the internal validity of the research (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 7; Hatch and Larazaton, 1991 pp. 33-41). Both groups used the same reading texts (see Appendix 10) for the teaching and the same items for the quizzes/tests.

The texts (see Table 4.4) were selected from several resources. The selection, to follow Hudson (2007, p. 34; see also Grabe and Stoller, 2002 p. 33; Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009 p. 29), was based on the length of the passage (the number of words), the complexity of grammar and content familiarity. The texts were adapted from electronic book by Widiati et. al. (2008); the text on the items of previous national examinations (Balitbang – Kemendiknas, UN, 2011) or other resources like the internet, English fables, legend.

Table 4.4 below shows the profile of the texts. It presents that the selected reading texts consisted of about 150-280 words with only a few technical words in order to ease

the comprehension. The number of clauses is twice as many as sentences, meaning that most sentences consisted of simple clauses, rather than complex ones (Huddleston and

Table 4.4: Texts in the Teaching Programs

Text Titles Sources Topics/

Types

Number of

Words Sentences Clauses Text 1 My Cell phone English national

exam, package 46 (Puspendik-Balitbang

Kemdiknas, 2011)

Unforgettable experience

157 14 25

Text 2 Going to Supermarket

English national exam, package 39 (Puspendik-Balitbang

Kemdiknas, 2011)

Unforgettable experience

219 19 35

Text 3 The Smartest Parrot

Prediction of English national exam package 1 (Tim Solo,

2011)

Folktale 254 22 42

Text 4 The Hare and The Tortoise

Kincaid, L. (1993) Fable 241 22 46

Text 5 Lake Toba English _{exam, packages 46} national

& 54 (Puspendik-Balitbang

Kemdiknas, 2011)

Legend 242 25 47

Text 6 The Magic Candle

Widiati et. al., (2008 p. 93)

Fairytale 278 26 47

Pullum, 2005). This implies that the texts are not complicated ones. They were considered suitable for grade eight of junior high school students. Further, the chosen topics of the texts were only those related to unforgettable experience, simple folktale, fable, legend and fairy tale, which were considered familiar for the students and within their background knowledge (Sadeghi, 2007 p. 199; see also Vaezi, 2006).

The examples of the texts are as follows. The example of Recount text:

My Cell Phone

That Sunday evening I felt very tired after hanging out the whole day with my friends at the mall. As soon as I arrived home, I hung my jacket on a hanger and took a rest. About an hour I took a nap, and then I took bath.

Suddenly I remembered that I had to call a friend but I forgot my cell phone. I tried to get my cell phone on the table in my room where I always put it. It was not there. I looked for everywhere but could not find it. I was getting panicky. I asked everyone in the house whether they knew where my cell phone was, but no one knew. Well, I lost it, I thought. Then, I had an idea. I asked my brother to call my cell phone. To my surprise, I heard it ringing in my jacket. My cell phone was in its pocket.

Adapted from Puspendik - Balitbang – Kemendiknas, (UN), 2011.

The example of Narrative text:

The Hare and The Tortoise One day, The Hare and The Tortoise were arguing in the forest.

“I could beat you in a race, any day,” The Hare said to The Tortoise. “Hmmm,” said The Tortoise.”Maybe you could.”

“I could!” said The Hare.”My legs can run much faster than yours.” “That doesn‟t mean you would win a race,” said The Tortoise “Then, we should have a race,” said The Hare.

So the race was arranged, “I will wait for you at the finishing post, “shouted The Hare to The Tortoise, and he sped off.

“May be,” said The Tortoise, and he plodded slowly after The Hare. “This is easy,” said The Hare to himself as he raced along.

After a while, The Hare stopped and looked behind him. There was no sign of The Tortoise. As it was very hot, The Hare sat under a tree, in the shade. He thought there was plenty of time, and The Tortoise would never catch up with him. The Hare closed his eyes.

After a while The Tortoise reached the tree. He saw The Hare sleeping under it. The Hare didn‟t see The Tortoise plodding by.

Later, The Hare woke up and raced off to the finishing post. He couldn‟t believe it when he saw The Tortoise

waiting for him.

“You must have cheated!” said The Hare to The Tortoise.

“Certainly not!” said The Tortoise. “While you were sleeping, I carried on the race”

Adapted from Aesop Fables

The reading texts were presented together with the exercises (see Appendix 10) to provide students with practice and self assessment (Slavin, 1995, p. 95; see also Leighton in Cooper, 1990 p. 328). To follow Slavin, the number of items/exercises was about ten to fifteen items in the form of completion and short answer. As Slavin suggested, the reading texts were distributed to every pair of students to ease their reading. They were distributed right before the instruction. It was intended to maintain the equivalence of knowledge background (Brown, 2001; Barnet, 1981; Vaezi, 2006; Hudson, 2002), in the sense that the students read the texts for the first time when the teaching programs were being implemented.

The reading texts (see Appendix 10) for both STAD CL and DI groups included the exercises. They consisted of a text followed by several questions challenging their literal, inferential and evaluative comprehension levels. The questions exercised and assessed the students‟ comprehension skills. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the comprehension levels and skills were to follow Barret taxonomy of comprehension (Clymer, 1968 in Pettit and Cockriel, 1974 p. 64; in Hudson, 2002; Berry, 2005; Setiadi, 2012). Only three to five skills were investigated. Table 4.5 shows the investigated

comprehension levels and skills. The selection of the skills, as mentioned in previous chapter (see Section 2.1.5), was due to the feasibility of the study.

Further, to exercise those three levels of comprehension, the practices were segmented into two meetings. In the first meeting, the questions were aimed to practice of lower level reading skills to gain literal comprehension, and in the second one they were

Table 4.5: The Investigated Comprehension Levels and Skills

Comprehension Levels

Reading Strategies/Skills Meeting

Literal  Reading for detailed explicit information

 Identifying a statement explaining the relationship between at least two pieces of information in the text.

 Skimming for the gist or general meaning.

 Scanning for specific information.

 Identifying synonyms or antonyms

Low Skills

Inferential  Analysing elements within the structure of a text.

 inferring – deriving conclusions

 Identifying pronominal reference and discourse markers, interpreting complex and topic sentences, reading for main ideas;

 Reading for implicit meaning;

 Paraphrasing the content,

Higher skills

Evaluative  Inferring a generalization about the world outside the text from the text content.

 Following the structure of a passage.

 Recognizing a writer‟s purpose, attitude, tone and

emotion in the text.

 Identifying characters and their characteristics.

 Identifying the genre of text and its purpose.

Higher skills

Summarized from several resource

intended to exercise inferential and evaluative levels. The literal levels spent more time than the other levels since the literal comprehension determines further comprehension levels (Friend, 1980; Alderson, 2000 p. 5). Inferential comprehension, Friend further claims, is dependent on literal one and higher order skill can only grow from competence in the lower order skills. Literal comprehension is needed to be blended with prior knowledge, intuition, and imagination for conjecture or to make hypotheses (Pennel, 2002) to get inferential and evaluative levels. It was also necessary to spend time more to discuss vocabularies and grammatical expressions available on the texts to activate and provide more background knowledge (Hudson, 2002 p. 143; Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009 p. 163; Setiadi, 2012). As Nunan (1999 p. 259) claims, what the students already know, including the vocabularies, can significantly helps reading comprehension.

In addition, quizzes (see Appendices 3a and 3b) were also administered in the study. The quiz, according to Slavin (1995), is a short test in the form of multiple choice items to save the testing time. The quiz consisted of twelve items consisting of four questions for every levels of comprehension. So, the items were 12 overall.

Above all, to provide rhythm to a course of study (Brown, 2001 p. 149) and facilitate the participant teacher in implementing the programs, pre-established lesson plans (see Appendices 11a and 11b) were provided. They were functioned as the guidelines for participant teacher and students in implementing the teaching programs (Feez and Joyze, 1998 p. 2 in Emilia, 2005 p. 115). They were made in Bahasa Indonesia to be more comprehensible for the teacher. It covered the objectives of the lesson, the material, the teaching procedures and evaluation (Brown, 2001 pp. 149-151; Lang and Evans, 2006 pp. 218-220).

4.2.2 Trying Out the Pretest and Posttest Items

The try-out of the items was intended to make sure that all the test items, meet the requirements in terms of their validity and reliability (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991 p. 529; Brown, 2005; Hughes, 2003). It was carried out by having another group of students, not involved in the study, to answer test items.

After the try out (see Table 4.6) the reliability, the difficulty levels and the discrimination index were obtained. The reliability of the pretest items (try-out version) was 0.71 and the posttest was 0.75 indicating that both items were reliable enough to be used in this study (Hughes, 2003 p. 39; Brown, 2005 p. 175).

Table 4.6: The Result of ANATES V.4 Analysis on the Try-Out Version of Pretest and Post Items

Items of The Number of Items Relia-bility Level of Difficulty Discrimination Index Distracters to revise

Pretest 40 0,71 Difficult : 32.5%

Medium :52.5% Easy : 15%

≤ 0,19 : 25% 0,20 – 0,39 : 35% 0,40 – 0,59 : 35 % 0,60 – above : 5%

5b, 10c, 12a, 13c, 16ab, 25c, 27d, 31a, Posttest 40 0,75 Difficult :

42.5%

Medium : 42.5% Easy : 15%

≤ 0,19 : 20% 0,20 – 0,39 : 40% 0,40 – 0,59 : 25% 0,60 – above : 10%

1a, 3d, 6d, 8cd, 9d, 11cd, 13d, 14b, 15b, 16a, 19b, 22c, 28bd, 29b, 30b, 31c and 34c

As seen on Table 4.6, the difficulty levels of the pretest items (try-out version) consisted of 32.5% difficult, 52.5% medium and 15% easy items and that of the posttest ones was 42.5% difficult, 42.5% medium and 15% easy items. These percentages meant that the difficulty levels were balanced enough (Brown, 2005 p. 69). The discrimination index of the items was relatively good. More than 75 % of the items exceeded 0.20 discrimination index, which means that the items could discriminate the low and high level students (Hughes, 2003 p. 226; Brown, 2005 p. 69). Additionally, bad distracters on several items were modified and ten items in the tried-out version which either was too difficult or too easy were eliminated in the test version.

4.2.3 Administering the Pretest

After the try-out and modification of the items, the pretest was administered to three groups of students: Class A, B and D. It was intended to choose two non-random but homogenous groups for the research participants (Creswell, 2008, p. 314). It was done on the same day in successive hours to maintain its validity (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 pp. 250-5; Hughes, 2003 p. 26: Brown, 2005 p. 221). The teacher and the researcher monitored the tests. The two groups who had equally assumed means were selected to be the experiment and the DI groups.

The result of the test was input into the ANATES V.4 software right after administration and subsequently analyzed through SPSS V.15. The result of the pretest can be seen on the following table.

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the Result of Pre-Test

Class N Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean Pretest

Score

8A 32 41,5688 11,16855 1,97434

8B 32 41,4584 11,69922 2,06815

8D 33 41,1112 11,44623 1,99253

The descriptive statistics above shows that the mean score of Class A (41.56) and B (41.66) were almost the same but the standard deviation of Class A (11.16) is quite different from that of Class B (11.51). This means that the pre-existing ability of Class A and B was almost the same but its variability or the range between the lowest score and the highest one in Class B is larger than that of Class A (Hatch and Farhady, 1982 p. 57). Meanwhile, class D was very different from the other two. Its mean score was 41.11, its

standard deviation (11.44) lies between that of class A or B. To see whether class A, B and D were statistically homogeneous, an independent t-test was used (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 below shows the result of SPSS independent t-test to see the homogeneity of the groups or class A, B and D. It indicates that class A and B were statistically homogeneous, but class D is not. Based on the independent t-test SPSS V.15 analysis, the null hypothesis was accepted when Class A and B were compared. The t-value (t= -.036, d.f.=62, p= .704) was less than the alpha ( .05). This means that there was

Table 4.8: Independent Samples Test of Pretest Scores of Class A, B and D

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances _{t-test for Equality of Means}

F Sig. T d.f.

Sig . (2 -tailed ) Me an Dif fer en ce Std . E rr o r Dif fer en ce 9 5 % C o n fid en c e In ter v al o f th e Dif fer en ce Lo wer Up p er L o wer Up p er L o wer Up p er L o wer Up p er L o wer Class A and B Equal variances

assumed .057 .811 .037 62 .971 .10469 2.85916 -5.82006 5.61069 Equal variances

not assumed .037 61.867 .971 .10469 2.85916 -5.82006 5.61059 Class A

and D

Equal variances

assumed .261 .612 .161 63 .873 .45191 2.80603 -5.15549 6.05931 Equal variances

not assumed .161 62.997 .873 .45191 2.80495 -5.15333 6.05716 Class B

and D

Equal variances

assumed .058 .811 .121 63 .904 .34723 2.87085 -5.38972 6.08417 Equal variances

not assumed .121 62.823 .904 .34723 2.87183 -5.39199 6.08644

no significant difference between class A and B in terms of their pretest reading comprehension scores. In other words, class A and B were statistically homogeneous in term of their pre-existing ability before the teaching programs. In the meantime, when class D is compared with class A ( t= .161, d.f.=63, p= .612) or class B ( t= .121, d.f.=63, p= .811), the t-value were more than the alpha, meaning that the null hypothesis was rejected. There was significant difference between class D and class A or B. Thus, class A and B were selected to be the STAD CL and DI groups.

Meanwhile, the result of pretest on every level of comprehension will be discussed in Chapter V Section 5.1 together with the result of the post test. It is to see clearly the comparison of the students‟ achievement on those levels and to ease the conclusion.

Afterward, to follow Slavin (1995 p. 74), the teacher together with the researcher, documented and averaged the previous test scores to determine the students‟ base score. In STAD CL group, the base scores were the basis for grouping the students (Slavin, 1995 p. 94; Leighton in Cooper, 1990 p. 320); in DI group, in contrast, they were only used for comparing the gain between pretest and posttest.

Then, in STAD CL group, the teacher assigned students in groups/teams. Following Slavin (1995 pp. 74-5; see also Leighton in Cooper, 1990 p. 320), the researcher and the teacher carried out at least five steps: i) making a form of team summary sheets for every group of students; ii) ranking students from highest to lowest in past performance on the sheet on which previous daily test scores were the basis; iii) dividing students by four; iv) assigning and balancing them to the team so that the group consisted of heterogeneous performance with the average were relatively equal; and v) filling out team summary sheet (see Appendix 13) by filling the names of the students on each teams. This grouping, as STAD CL required, was intended to have equal „achievement division‟ wherein each team consisted of the students with various comprehension ability (Slavin 1995; Apple, 2006 p. 280; Lang and Evan, 2006 p. 422).

4.2.4 Inducting the Teaching Programs

After the groups of participants were determined, the researcher and the teacher inducted the teaching programs to both groups. It aimed to introduce and familiarize both the teacher and the students to apply the principles and procedures of the teaching programs (see Chapter II) and to see potential problems that might come up during the implementation.

In this stage, the researcher, as participant observer, observed and took part actively in (Creswell, 2008 p. 222; Cowie in Heigham and Crocker, 2009, p. 167) helping the teacher as well as students implement the teaching procedures in both groups. In implementing the teaching programs, the researcher assisted the teacher in timing the activities, reminding teachers the teaching procedures to avoid missing, getting involved in managing the classroom and directing students to do what should they do.

On this induction of teaching programs, it was observed that the students in STAD CL group were more enthusiastic than those in DI group. In STAD CL group, many students asked questions to the teacher and also researcher either about the procedures of the STAD CL or the texts. The teaching process in STAD CL group was also observed

livelier than that of DI. STAD CL seemed, as Olsen and Kagan (1992; see also Johnson and Johnson 1989 in Sach et al. 2003; Ming, 2007) claim, promoted the interaction and communication not only between teachers and the students, students and students, the researcher and the teacher, and the researcher and the students. This communication and interaction were enhanced as the teacher and the students were not familiar yet with the procedures and the principles of either STAD CL. In DI group, the students were not observed as enthusiastic as those in DI. This is probably because the DI steps (see Chapter II Section 2.3.3) were not much different with what they used to do. So, the students did not ask many questions about the procedures of the programs, instead, they did the practices as they were required. The response to the practices in DI will be discussed in Chapter 5 Section 5.3.

4.3 Teaching Programs

The teaching programs were conducted in the classroom of participants twice a week in the schedule of English subject. They were scheduled twice a week, each of which 80 minutes long. This length was in accordance with the enactment of the 2006 school based curriculum (Depdiknas, 2004).

The teaching program of STAD CL and DI, as previously mentioned (see Chapter II Section 2.2 and 2.3), had similarities and differences, which can be seen in lesson plans (see Appendices 11a and 11b). The similarities lied on the steps in pre-reading, partly while reading and post reading activities (Barnet, 1988a; Brown, 2001; Vaezi, 2006; Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009). In both groups, the activities consisted of preparation, class presentation, structured and guided practices, quiz; and individual accountability (as described earlier in Chapter II Section 2.2.3 and 2.3.3).

The difference existed when students did the team or independent practice and the reward or goal oriented structures (Slavin 1995 p. 16). When doing the practice, to follow Slavin (1995 p. 77; see also Leighton in Cooper, 1990 p. 320; Apple, 2006 p. 282) suggested, the students in the STAD CL group worked in teams, but in DI group, students worked individually (Moore, 2008; Joyce et all, 2011; Arend and Kilcher, 2010, p. 201). In terms of reward or goal-oriented structure, STAD CL groups applied cooperative goal oriented structure wherein students were assessed individually and rewarded as both an individual and a group/team. This was, to follow Slavin (1995 p. 16) intended to operate cooperative goal structure wherein individual‟s goal oriented effort contribute to others‟

goal achievement. On the other hand, in DI group, competitive goal-oriented structure was employed (Slavin (1995 p. 16; Lie, 2004 p. 24), wherein the students were only assessed and rewarded as an individual. It operated competitive goal structure, wherein each individual‟s goal efforts frustrated other‟s goal attainment (Slavin, 1995 p. 16; Lie, 2004 p. 24). In other words, the reward in STAD CL group was group certificate, but in DI group it was individual certificate (Slavin, 1995 p.80; Leighton in Cooper 1990 p. 312; Lie, 2004).

4.3.1 Preparation (Before Instruction)

In preparation, more activities were done in STAD CL group than those in DI one. In the former, as previously mentioned (see Section 4.2.3), the teacher grouped the students based on their previous test scores. In the latter, there was no grouping. In STAD CL group, the teacher announced the members of each group/team and let the students build their team by naming their group, introducing group mates and creating team name, logo, yell etc. (Slavin, 1995 pp. 139-140; Apple, 2006 p. 279; Jacobs, 2004). This aimed to give team members a chance to do something fun, to get familiar with each other (Slavin, 1995 p. 75) and a kind of warming up before cooperating. In DI group, there was no specific preparation besides materials and the practice like in STAD CL group.

From the observation, in preparing STAD CL, the teacher had more activities to do than that of DI. In STAD CL, the teacher needed to determine the base score and assigned students into heterogeneous but balanced group in terms of the achievement. Then, the teacher needed to announce the teams and let the students build their team. Meanwhile in DI, the teacher was not required to do such activities. This indicates that applying STAD CL is more demanding for the teacher than DI. This fact is in line with the claims that applying STAD CL spends considerable time in preparing the students to learn; in recording the student performance on each learning task and in calculating group achievement scores (Killen, 1998 p. 88) and in researching a topic and creating lesson (Solari, 2008).

Although STAD CL is more demanding for teachers, the grouping and the team building e.g. making yell, leads to the feeling of togetherness. The students get closed to each other in their teams, as revealed in interview that will be discussed in Section 5.3. They looked cheerful and spirited. This fact confirms the STAD CL principle that the students had a sense of sinking or swimming together or the feel of each other (Jhonson et

Segalowitz, N.C. Poulsen and M. Komoda. (1991). Lower Level Component of Reading Skills in Higher Level Bilinguals; Implication for Reading Instruction. AILA Review 8: 15-30. In Anderson, J.N. 1999. Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and Strategies. Canada: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Setiadi, R. (2010). Self-Efficacy in Indonesian Literacy Teaching Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Perspective. Bandung: Rizki Press.

Setiadi, R and Piyakun, A. (2012). Understanding the Process of Reading in Teaching Literacy. Bandung: Rizqi Press

Shaaban, K. (2006). An Initial Study of the Effects of Cooperative Learning on Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary Acquisition, and Motivation to Read. Philadelphia: Routledge. The abstract is Available online at

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html retrieved on Desember 23, 2011. Shaaban, K and Gaith G. (2005). The Theoretical Relevance and Efficacy of Using

Cooperative Learning in the ESL/EFL Classroom. 14 TESL Reporter 38, 2 pp. 14-28. Available on

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/TESL/article/view/3819/3565. Accessed on 15 November, 2011

Shambaugh, N and Magliaro, S.G. (2006). Instructional Design: A Systematic Approach for Reflective Practice. USA: Person Education Inc.

Sharan, Y and Sharan,S. (1992). Group Investigation: Expanding Cooperative Learning. New York: Teacher‟s College Press. In Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning : Theory, research and Practice. Massachusetts: A Simon and Schuster Company Needham Heights.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research Summer, 1980, 50 (2), Pp. 241-211. Online version article available at

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/50/2/241

Silverman, D. (1993). “Beginning Research”. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. Londres: Sage Publications. Its review is available online at http://metodos.files.wordpress.com. Accessed on 8 November 2012.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. In William, M. & Burden, R.L. 1997.Psychology for Language Teachers: A social

constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1978). Student Teams And Achievement Divisions, Journal Of Research And Development In Education, 12, Pp. 39-49. In Slavin, R.E. (1989). Research on

Cooperative Learning: an International Perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33:4, 231-243. London: Routledge.

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning, 3rd Edn Baltimore, Md, Center For Research On Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University. In Slavin, R.E. (1989). Research on Cooperative Learning: an International Perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33:4, 231-243. London: Routledge

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on Cooperative Learning: an International Perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33:4, 231-243. London: Routledge Available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20. Accesed on 13 March 2012.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning : Theory, research and Practice. Massachusetts: A Simon and Schuster Company Needham Heights.

Slavin, R. E. (1996a). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need To Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 43–69 (1996) Article No. 0004. Academic Press, Inc. available online at www.eric.ed.gov /ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ526831 Accesed on February, 2012.

Slavin, R.E. (1996b). Cooperative Learning in Middle and Secondary Schools.

Washington: The Clearing House available online at acme.highpoint.edu/.../... retrieved on Jan 24th, 2012

Sloan, S. (1992).The complete ESL/EFL Cooperative & Communicative Activity Book; learner-directed activities or the classroom. Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA : National Text Book Company, a division of NTC publishing Group.

Smith, R. (1982). Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for Adults. Chichago, Illinois: Follett Publishing Company.

Snow, C. (2003). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Solari, S. (2008). Cooperative Learning in the Esl Classroom. Presentation. Intensive English Language Program, Central CT State University available at

www.conntesol.net retrieved 5 Oct 2012.

Spencer, J.T. (2008). Criticisms of Cooperative Learning. Online article. Available at teachercommons.blogspot.com/.../cooperative-learning-criticisms.ht... accessed on 3 Juni 2012.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnography Interview. New York: Reinhart & Winston. In Alwasilah, A. C. 2000. Pokoknya Qualitative: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Stahl, R. J. (1994). The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies Education: Bloomington IN. available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal.htm. Accesed on November 1, 2010

Sallman, A. (1991). Learning Vocabulary from Context: Effect of Focusing Attention on Individual Word during Reading. Doc. Diss. University of Illinois. Urbana - Champaign in Fielding, L.G. and Pearson, P. D. (1994).Synthesis of Research/ Reading Comprehension What Works. Educational Leadership. Reading for Understanding. 51 (5). Page 62-68. Available online at

http://www.educationalleader.com/subtopicintro/read/ ASCD/ASCD_341_1.pdf .

Retrieved on April 20, 2012.

Stein, M., Carnin, D. , and Dixon, R. (1998). Direct Instruction: Integrating Curriculum Design and Effective Teacching Practice. Intervention School and Clinic p. 228-234. Available online at http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/ed587/scan/ed58707.pdf accessed on January 25th, 2012.

Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L. (2004). What We Know about CSCL and Implementing it in Higher Education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers Strickland, D. (1998). Teaching Phonic Today: A Premier for Education. Newwark, DE:

International Reading Association in Hedgecock, J.S. and Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching Readers of English: Students, Texts and Contexts. New York: Routledge. Sugiyono. (2005). Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: CV.Alphabeta,

Susser, B. and Robb, T.N. (1990). EFL Extensive Reading Instruction: Research and Procedure. JALT Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (November 1990) available online at http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~trobb/sussrobb.html accessed on February 21, 2012 Sutz, R. (2009). Understanding Reading Comprehension. Online article. Available at

http://www.readfaster.com accessed on February 12, 2012.

Tankersley, K .(2003). The Tread of Reading: Strategies for Literacy Development. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. in Toba, R. (2009). Students’ Mastery of Reading Skills and Its correlation with Their Reading Comprehension ability : A Study at the second year of students of an SLTP in Lembang.

Texas Education Agency. (2002). Comprehension Instruction. Texas: Texas Education Agency. Available online at

www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id... Accessed on February 15, 2012.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language, Inc.. (1997). ESL standard for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language in Anderson, J.N. (1999). Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and Strategies. Canada: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Tim Solo. (2011). Prediksi Ujian Nasional. (Prediction of English National Examination). Package 1. Softcopy.

Thupapong, J. (1996). Effects of Student Team Achievement Devision Learning (STAD) on English Reading Achievement and Cooperation of Mathayomsuksa Students. M.A. Dissertation, Chiangmai University. In Wichadee, S. 2005. The Effects of

Cooperative Learning on English Reading Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok University. Online published article available at .

www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2005/saovapa.pdf..

Tuan, L. T. (2010). Infusing Cooperative Learning into An EFL Classroom. English Language Teaching Journals: Vol. 3, No. 2; June 2010. Available online at www.ccsenet.org/elt accessed on November 25th, 2011

Turner, R. (1988). Comprehension: Reading for Meaning. in Alexander, 1988; 167 Teaching reading. London: Scott, Foresman and Company .

Vaezi, S. (2006). Theories of Reading 2. Iranian Language Institute Language Teaching Journal: 1,(1). 2005. Available online at www.teachingenglish.org.uk/

articles/theories-reading-2. Accessed on February 21, 2012

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. (ed. M. Cole, John Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press in Slavin, R. E. 1995. Cooperative Learning : Theory, research and Practice. Massachusetts: A Simon and Schuster Company Needham Heights. (p. 17)

Vellutino, F. R. and Schatschneider. (2011). Experimental and Quasi Experimental Design. In Duke, N. and Mallete, M. H. 2011. Literacy Research Methodologies; Second Edition. New York: Guilford Press.

Wadsworth, B.J. (1984). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Slavin, R. E. 1995. Cooperative Learning : Theory, research and Practice. Massachusetts: A Simon and Schuster Company Needham Heights.

Wagner, R.C., Schatschneider, C. and Sence, C.P. (2009). Beyond Decoding: Behavioral and Biological Foundation of Reading Comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press

Wallace, C. (1992). Reading: A Scheme for Teacher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walter, C. (1982). Authentic Reading: A Course in Reading Skills for Upper-Intermediate Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in Nunan, D. (1991).

Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teacher. London: Prentice Hall International UK.Ltd.

Wang, T-P. (2009). Applying Slavin‟s Cooperative Learning Techniques to a College EFL Conversation Class. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning.

5,(1). Available online at www.hraljournal.com

Watson, J. (1913). Psychology as Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177 in William, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997).Psychology for Language Teachers: A social constructivist Approach. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press (p. 8-9)

Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From sociopsycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Webb, P. K. (1980). Piaget: Implications for teaching. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 93-97. Collum, S.P. 2012. The Impact Of Teacher Attitudes And Perceptions Of Direct Instruction On Student Achievement In Reading. Online published Dissertation: Liberty University.

Webb, S. (2008). The Effects of Context on Incidental Vocabulary Learning. Reading in a Foreign Language. 20. (2) pp. 232-245. Available online at http://nflrc.hawaii.edu accessed November 18, 2012.

Widiati, U., Sulistyo, G.H., Suryati, N., Setiawan, S., Ratnaningsih, P., Anugrahwati, M.Purwanti, O. (2008). Contextual Teaching and Learning Bahasa Inggris: Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah Kelas VIII Edisi 4 Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional

Wichadee, S. (2005). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on English Reading Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok University. Online published article available at . www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2005/saovapa.pdf.

William, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997).Psychology for Language Teachers: A social constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Zimmerman, S. and Hutchin, C. (2003). Seven Keys to Comprehension: How to Help Your Kids Read it and Get it. In Moreillon, J. 2007. Collaborative Strategies for

Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: American Library Association. Zwaagstra, M. (2010). Direct Instruction Is Good Teaching. Special Report: What‟s

http://www.troymedia.com/blog/2010/07/15/direct-instruction-is-good-teaching/ accessed on 2 June 2012.

Online Resources

Http://teacherpages.nhcs.net. Barret Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension. Remedial Instruction. Accessed on October, 2012.

www.education.byu.edu. (2007). Direct Instruction Observation Form. Accessed on June 24, 2012.

www.innovativelearning.com/educational.../cooperative_learning.do... Accessed on 15 November 2011

www.campbellps.det.wa.edu.au. Barret Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension. Accessed on June 24, 2012.