CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY MASTERY AND THEIR READING COMPREHENSION : A Study In Second Grade Of Junior High School.

CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’

VOCABULARY MASTERY AND THEIR READING

COMPREHENSION

(a study in second grade of junior high school)

FAJAR FURQON

0608773

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’

VOCABULARY MASTERY AND THEIR READING

COMPREHENSION

Oleh Fajar Furqon

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

© Fajar Furqon 2012 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Desember 2012

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

PAGE OF APPROVAL

CORRELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY MASTERY AND THEIR READING COMPREHENSION

(a Study in Second Grade of Junior High School)

By

Fajar Furqon

0608773

Approved by

First Supervisor Second Supervisor

Prof.Dr.Hj. Nenden Sri L. M.Pd. Ika Lestari Damayanti M.A. NIP. 195111241985032001 NIP. 197709192001122001

Head of English Education Department

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

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension. Data were collected from 34 second grade students. The test items of reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery were given to the students to measure their level of reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery. The results were compared to find out the correlation between those variables. The findings showed that there was strong correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension. The current study concluded that students’ experiences and reading strategies help the students to understand texts but vocabulary mastery was more contributive in helping the students to comprehend the texts.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Statement ... i

Preface ... ii

Acknowledgement... iii

Abstract ... iv

Table of Content ... v

List of Figures ... viii

List of Table ... ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background ... 1

1.2 The Scope of the Research ... 3

1.3 Statements of the Problem ... 3

1.4 Aims of the Research ... 3

1.5 Hypothesis ... 4

1.6 Significance of the Research ... 4

1.7 Research Method ... 4

1.7.1 Population and sample ... 4

1.7.2 Data Collection ... 5

1.7.2.1 Instrument ... 5

1.7.2.2 Research Procedure ... 5

1.7.3 Data analysis ... 6

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ... 8

2.1 Definition of Reading ... 8

2.2 Reading Strategies ... 10

2.3 Reading Comprehension ... 13

2.4 Definition of Vocabulary ... 14

2.5 Related Research ... 16

2.6 Synthesis ... 17

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 18

3.1 Research Design ... 18

3.2 Population and Sample ... 19

3.2.1 Population ... 19

3.2.2 Sample ... 19

3.3 Research Hypothesis ... 19

3.4 Data Collection ... 20

3.4.1 Research Instrument ... 20

3.5 Trying Out the Research Instruments ... 22

3.5.1 Validity ... 23

3.5.2 Reliability ... 25

3.5.3 Difficulty Index ... 26

3.5.4 Discrimination Power Index ... 28

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 34

4.1 Students’ Reading Comprehension ... 34

4.2 Students’ Vocabulary Mastery ... 38

4.3 Correlation Coefficient ... 41

4.4 Testing the Suggested Hypothesis ... 43

4.5 Discussion ... 44

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 48

5.1 Conclusions ... 48

5.2 Suggestions ... 49

REFERENCES ... 50

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

This chapter provides a brief description of the whole contents of the research, including the background of the research, scope of the research, statement of the problems, aims of the research, hypothesis, significance of the research, research method, organization of paper.

1.1 Background of the Research

Reading is one of the important language skills. By reading, people may get a lot of information. The more he/she reads, the more information he/she will get. Reading makes someone smarter and creative. As stated by Laddoo (2007) reading forces the reader’s brain cells to work on a regular basis as this will keep the reader sharper and smarter. Even though some information can be obtained without reading, for example by listening to teacher, seminar, radio, television etc, but by reading someone may get wider information than listening. For example, someone who reads a newspaper will get more information than someone who watches news on television. Reader can read the text again when he/she forgets or tries to get detail information, while listener cannot. This is supported by Willis (2008) who states that by reading, someone can find the information he/she needs with specific information.

In order to gain specific information, students at school should be taught how to read effectively and efficiently, such as making prediction about what will

happen (Klingner, Vaughn and Boardman. 2007, p.3). Another way to help the students to understand the text without knowing all the vocabulary in the text is by finding key words. It is in line with Lehr & Osborn (2001) who explain that to understand a text, we need to find the key words of the text. By doing this strategy, students can cover their vocabulary weaknesses since vocabulary knowledge is one of the major factors that influence reading comprehension (Roehrig and Guo, 2011).

One of the previous studies related to the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery was conducted by Liu and Nation (1985). It is about the success of guessing meanings of a text. The results of this study show that the participants who have high reading proficiency level could successfully guess 85% to 100% of the unknown words, and the participants who have low reading proficiency level guess around 30% to 40% of the unknown words.

Based on the explanation above, reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery have a strong relationship. It is in line with Sedita (2005) who states that vocabulary knowledge is crucial in reading comprehension and determining how well students are able to comprehend the texts. That is why this study attempts to find out how strong the vocabulary mastery influences the reading comprehension. After knowing the correlation, teachers are expected to be able to choose appropriate strategies to teach their students.

From the description above, the present study attempts to find out the correlation between the students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension and to find out how high the correlation between vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension is. The subjects of this research are the students of a junior high school in Bandung. The results of this study are expected to enrich the literature on research regarding to the relation of students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension.

1.2 Scope of the Research

This research focuses on finding out the correlation between reading comprehension and students’ vocabulary mastery in the 2nd grade of junior high school because they have learned several types of text. There are 34 students involved in the present research.

1.3 Statements of the Problem

The problems to be discussed in this research will be summarized in the following research questions:

1. What is the students’ mastery of reading comprehension?

2. What is the students’ mastery of vocabulary knowledge?

3. What is the correlation between the students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension?

1.4 Aims of the Research

In accordance with the research questions, the aims of the present research are:

1. to find out the students’ mastery of reading comprehension, 2. to find out the students’ mastery of vocabulary knowledge, and

3. to find out the correlation between the students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension.

1.5 Hypothesis

When there is a correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension, the alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.

1.6 Significance of the Research

The aim of this research is to find out the correlation between student’s vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension in a junior high school. This study is also expected to give significant contribution to others, especially English teachers and future researchers. When the teachers know the correlation between vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension, it may help them to figure out some appropriate strategies in order to help their students to comprehend the texts.

1.7 Research Method

The present research is a quantitative research. The purpose of this research is to find out the correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and

their reading comprehension. The research method used in this present research includes population, sample, data collection and data analysis.

1.7.1 Population and sample

The research was conducted at one of Junior high school in Bandung. The subjects of population were taken from the second grade students because they had learned several texts. There were 7 classes in this grade. Each class consisted of 34 students. The total population was 250 students. The researcher used one of the classes for this research. The students involved in this present research were 34 students. The subjects of this research were both male and female.

1.7.2 Data Collection

The technique used to collect the data of this study is achievement test. The selection of types of test test is based on the intention to screen students’ current knowledge and skills. Achievement test is a test meant to measure acquisition of skill (Algarabel and Dasi, 2001). Through this technique, the information about students’ ability in reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery is expected to be obtained.

1.7.2.1 Instrument

The main instrument used in this present research is achievement test. Some questions are given to the subjects to find out their vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension of the subjects. Tests are taken from questions of UAN 2006 - 2010.

1.7.2.2 Research Procedure

The procedure of research is as follows.

1. Designing the achievement test by compiling test items from UAN 2006 - 2010

2. Giving the achievement test to the students to find out the students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension

3. Organizing the data by dividing the vocabulary scores and reading scores

4. Analyzing the data collected from the test.

1.7.3 Data analysis

The data collected from achievement test is analyzed using median formula. Median formula has primary purpose to see the mean score of vocabulary and reading.

Then, the process is gone to find out the correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension. SPSS (statistical package for social sciences) and Pearson Product Moment are used as tools for computation.

1.8 Organization of the paper

The paper will be presented into five chapters. The chapter will be subdivided into subtopics that will elaborate the issue given.

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

It comprises the background of the study, scope of the research, research question, aims of the study, hypothesis, significant of the research, research method, data analyses procedures, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper.

CHAPTER TWO Theoretical Foundation

Chapter two elaborates the foundation of relevant theories as a basis for discussing the research problem.

CHAPTER THREE Research Methodology

Chapter three provides the explanation of procedures in collecting and analyzing data in the research including research method, research participants, data collecting techniques, and data analysis.

CHAPTER FOUR Finding and Discussion

Chapter four presents the finding of this study and its discussion through relevant theories.

CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Suggestions

Chapter five delineates the conclusions and suggestions relevant to the finding of this study.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Introduction

This chapter discusses theories that are relevant to the research. It concerns to theories of reading comprehension, reading strategies, and vocabulary.

2.1 Definition of Reading

Many experts have differently defined the word reading. According to Grellet (1985) reading is assigning meaning and extracting information from written text. It means reading requires some abilities to extract information from a text and to construct a new understanding. Guy (1993) states that reading is the recognition of printed or written symbol that serve as stimuli to recall meanings. It shows that reading requires the ability to recognize symbol or printed words and to construct a meaning from the text.

However, according to Klingner, Vaughn and Boardman (2007) reading is a process of constructing meaning can be achieved through dynamic instruction among the following aspects: the reader’s prior knowledge, the information suggested by the text, and the context of the reading situation. It is also supported by Mcentire (2003) who defines reading as a constructive process which the prior knowledge and experience affects the reader’s comprehension of the text. It seems that the prior knowledge and experience are important to get proper understanding of the information in a text. Appropriate comprehension is possible to obtain as

the content of the text is close to the reader’s prior knowledge. For example, a doctor who reads medical article would find it better in comprehending the text than the farmer.

Furthermore, Grabe & Stoller (2002) state that the idea of reading is also to do with purposes, experiences, strategies, skills, and even attitude towards reading. It means that reading facilitates a writer to share knowledge, ideas and feelings with reader, where both of them have their own language patterns and experiences. It indicates that reading is not only getting messages from a text, but also utilizing the reading purposes and strategies to do with.

Another definition of reading proposed by McGinnis and Smith (1982:14) is:

Reading is a process of identifying, interpreting and evaluating ideas in terms of mental content or total awareness of the reader. It is a complex process that is dependent upon the individual’s language development, experiential background, cognitive ability and attitude toward reading. Reading ability results from the application of those factors as the individual attempts to identify, interpret and evaluate ideas from written material.

In conclusion, for this present research, reading is defined as an activity where reader attempts to get information from a text that is conveyed by writer. It requires not only about decoding symbols, but also trying to get a message and giving responses to the text. Besides, readers also need to consider the purposes and strategies in their reading to help them read efficiently.

2.2 Reading Strategies

When the readers find unknown words in the text, they should have some strategies to comprehend those words. It is in accordance with Caverly and Peterson (1996) who state that to understand the text the reader needs to find the key words of the text. This will allow the readers to understand the meaning of the unknown words. While according to Mcentire (2003, p.29) when the readers find unknown words, the readers do not need to look up every word in a dictionary, the readers can often guess the meaning of new words through context. This indicates that proficient readers should focus on the text as much as what they take from it. They make meaning from the text by using their own knowledge and experiences. Proficient readers are constantly making predictions during reading. They try to guess what will come next. Their prior knowledge and experiences with texts as well as with world around them allow to do this. Hedgecock & Ferris (2009) state that background knowledge is unquestionably helpful for students in their reading, since it is necessary to have adequate knowledge to encounter a reading task.

Being a strategic reader requires a set of strategies that work well in combination. Grabe & Stoller (2002 ) explain that there are three models of reading.

1. Top-down model is when reader gives assumption about the text, and then identifies the text only to confirm their assumption and perspectives about the meaning of the text. It means that the reader has the background knowledge about the text read by the reader.

2. Bottom-up model is when the reader recognizes every letter and word in text to comprehend the meaning in text correctly. The reader has not the background knowledge about the text.

3. Integrated model is also called as interactive model as it is an interaction model between top-down and bottom-up model. It combines reader’s background knowledge as a top-down perspective and useful knowledge from text as a bottom-up perspective.

The example of the text used in the models above:

The octopus escapes from its enemies by giving out a thick dark fluid to darken the water. It can also change the colour of its body to match its surroundings. It hides from its enemies by doing this.

- Top-down model : in this model, the readers focus on the key words based on their prior knowledge. For example, the readers hesitate about the octopus squirt black ink to escape from its enemies. After reading the words “thick dark fluid” their assumption is confirmed. - Bottom-up model : in this model, the readers do not have background

knowledge of the text. For example, the readers do not know about the octopus’s characteristic in escaping its enemies before reading the text. By reading the text, the readers know about the characteristic of the octopus. So, the text help the readers to get to know about the octopus. - Integrated model : in this model, the readers have background

knowledge of the text and focus on the key words of the text so the readers know what will come next. Example: the readers know that the

octopus squirt black ink, but the readers do not know the function of the black ink. After reading the text, the readers know the function of octopus’s ink. So, the readers make a good comprehension by combining their prior knowledge and the information consisted in the text.

Furthermore, Adler (1972) explains that there are some techniques which can be used to make reading faster and efficient. The techniques are:

1. Skimming is used to quickly identify the main ideas of a text. Skimming is readers skim a text when they look it over quickly to get a general idea of the subject-matter. The reader is not interested in all the detail. Skimmers run their eye down the page or screen looking for pointers that sum up the contents. Subheadings or bullet points attract their attention, as do the introductory phrases of paragraphs. In longer texts, skimmers check the contents lists, the opening and closing paragraphs of chapters, and any introductions, conclusions or summaries.

2. Scanning is a technique used when looking up a word in the telephone book or dictionary. Readers scan a piece of writing when they quickly search it for specific information. Readers search for key words or ideas. In most cases, readers know what they are looking for, so the readers concentrating on finding a particular answer. Scanning involves moving eyes quickly down the page seeking specific words and phrases. When scanning, look for the author's use of organizers such as numbers, letters, steps, or the words, first,

second, or next. Look for words that are bold faced, italics, or in a different font size, style, or color.

Those Strategies are very helpful in reading. However, the effectiveness of reading depends on the reader’s ability to use those strategies. Skimming is used when readers need a general idea of a book’s subject matter. On the other side, scanning is used when readers need to gather specific information.

2.3 Reading Comprehension

According to Ruddell (1994) as cited in Apriani (2011) comprehension is a process in which a reader constructs meaning while, or after, interacting with text through the combination of prior knowledge and previous experience, information in text, reader takes in relationship to the text, and immediate, remember, or anticipated social interactions and communication. Grabe & Stoller (2002) state that comprehension as processing words, forming a general main ideas representation and integrating it into a new understanding.

Those definitions above suggest that comprehension is achieved when reader successfully extracts the useful knowledge from a text and constructs it into a new understanding of their own. Furthermore (Day & Park, 2005) also propose several types of comprehension, as follows.

1. Literal comprehension is to have a straightforward understanding meaning of a text, such as vocabularies and facts, which is not explicated in that text. 2. Inferential comprehension is to conclude information from a text and build

3. Reorganization is rearranging information from various parts of a text in order to get new information.

4. Predictive comprehension is integrating reader’s understanding of a text and their own knowledge about that text in order to determine what might happen next or after it is finished.

5. Evaluative comprehension is like inferential comprehension. The difference is that evaluative comprehension requires readers’ comprehensive judgment about some aspects in a text and ability to redevelop an understanding by using related issues.

6. Appreciative or personal comprehension is reading in order to gain an emotional or other value response from a text, and it demands reader to respond a text also with their feelings.

From the definitions above, reading comprehension refers to the understanding of what has been read. Comprehension is a thinking process that depends not only on the comprehension skills but also on the readers’ experience and background knowledge.

2.4 Definition of Vocabulary

According to Nation & Newton (1997) vocabulary is knowledge of words and word meanings. Actually vocabulary is more complex, vocabulary mastery is not only knowing the words and its meanings, but also knowing about how the words sound and how the words are used in the context. It is according to Miller & Gildea (1987) who state that knowing a word by sight and sound and knowing

its dictionary definition are not the same as knowing how to use the word correctly and understanding it when it is heard or seen in various contexts.

Building up a useful vocabulary is central to the learning of a foreign language at primary level (Cameron, 2001). Someone who has a lot of vocabulary of foreign language, she/he could learn language easily. Since vocabulary is all about words, and good mastery of vocabulary helps someone understand language. It is supported by Wallace (1982) who says that vocabulary is one of the most important parts of languages, because when speaking a language, the speakers need several words to convey ideas. Therefore, people can understand what the speakers mean. When a learner intends to learn foreign language, he/she has to learn the vocabulary of the foreign language first.

Wallace (1982) mentions two importances of vocabulary:

1. Language exists in two forms, spoken and written, both of them need vocabulary to develop the existence itself.

2. Vocabulary is one of the important of four language skills. Therefore, vocabulary is very needed for production in learning English as a foreign language rather than only needed for recognition it.

Furthermore, Lehr & Osborn (2001) explain two kinds of vocabulary description as follow:

First, words come in two forms, oral and print.

1. Oral vocabulary includes the words that are recognized and used in listening and speaking.

2. Print vocabulary includes the words that are recognized and used in reading and writing.

Second, word knowledge is composed of two forms, receptive and productive.

1. Receptive Vocabulary includes words that are recognized when we hear or see them. It is the ability to comprehend passive vocabulary which is used in reading and listening context.

2. Productive vocabulary includes words that are recognized when we speak or write. It is an active ability which is used in speaking or writing.

Furthermore, knowing and understanding words mean knowing their “form” (how they sounds, how they spelt, grammatical change that could be made to them), their “meaning” (their conceptual content, and how they relate to other words and in particular types of language use (Cameron, 2001).

2.5 Related Research

In previous research conducted by Liu and Nation (1985) which was about successful of guessing the meaning in a text, the results show that the participants who have high reading proficiency level could successfully guess 85% to 100% of the unknown words. In contrast, the participants who have low reading proficiency level guess around 30% to 40% of the unknown words.

Yildirim, Yildiz and Ates (2011) found that there was significant correlation between both vocabulary and comprehending expository text as well

as vocabulary and comprehending narrative text. The findings also showed that vocabulary is a predictor of comprehending narrative and expository texts.

Hirsch (2003) found that knowing at least 90 percent of the words of a text enables the reader to get the main idea from the reading and guess correctly what many of the unfamiliar words mean, which will help them learn new words.

2.6 Synthesis

From the theories described above, it can be concluded that many factors affect the reading comprehension. Vocabulary is important to have full comprehension of a text, but skills and strategies such as top-down model, bottom-up model, integrated model, skimming, and scanning are also helpful for the readers to comprehend a text.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter presents the explanation about procedures which are taken in this study in order to find out the answer to the research questions. This chapter includes research design, Population and sample, Research hypothesis, data collection, trying out the research instruments, and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

In this present research, quantitative approach with correlation method is employed. Quantitative research is used since this research focuses on analyzing the data through systematic process by using certain computation. Nunan (2003) and Arikunto (2003) state that quantitative research is an attempt to investigate an issue by using numerical data and statistical processing.

Correlation method is considered appropriate, since this research concerns on the investigation to find out the correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension. It is in line with Sudjana (1996) who state that correlation method is a process to find out the relationship between two or more variables and how strong the relationship is. Another statement comes from Hatch & Farhady (1982) explain that correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strong pairs of variables are

related. Therefore in this study, the variables to be correlated are vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension.

3.2 Population and Sample

3.2.1 Population

Arikunto (2003) state that population is the whole subject of the research. The population of the research was the second grade of a junior high school in Bandung. There were 7 classes consisting of 250 students.

3.2.2 Sample

Sample is a part of the investigated population (Arikunto 2003). The subject of this study was the second grade of a junior high school. This selection was based on the reason that those students have learned several types of text and the researcher had taught the second grade in this school. The present study chooses one class randomly; the class consisted of thirty four (34) students. It is in line with Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2006) who suggest that there should be at least 30 (thirty) participants in correlation study to establish a relationship.

3.3 Research Hypothesis

Hypothesis is a prediction about what you expect to happen in the study (Sudjana, 1996). There are two types of hypothesis, alternative hypothesis (Ha) and null hypothesis (H0).

According to Weaver (2005) Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is the hypothesis that states that there is a relation between the phenomena under investigation. Null hypothesis (H0) is the opposite of alternative hypothesis, in order words there is no relation between the phenomena under investigation.

When there is a correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension, the alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.

3.4 Data Collection

The technique used to collect data in this study is achievement test. Through this technique, the information about students’ ability in reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery are expected to be obtained.

3.4.1 Research Instrument

According to Arikunto (2003) research instrument is a tool used by the researcher to find out or to measure ability with certain rules. Achievement test was given to the participants in order to measure the ability of students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension.

The test contains 50 questions, twenty five questions are the questions to measure students’ reading comprehension and the other twenty five are to measure students’ vocabulary mastery. The test was taken from 2006-2010 UAN test items (UAN questions is a standardized test for Indonesian students). So, it is

reasonable to be an choice questions.

The aspects re the text, and getting vocabulary mastery te completing the senten

In scoring the wrong answer was ma answers in this achiev study tried to gain the

Where:

S : final test scor

CA : number of co

The scores w ability (Arikunto, 200

n instrument in this research. It was construc

related to reading comprehension are finding t ing the information about the text. The asp y test are finding the synonym or antonym, an tence and correcting the spelling.

the test, the right answer was marked one (1) po marked zero (0) point, so the overall raw score ievement test is 50 points. After marking the tes the final scores by using S formula as below.

core

correct answers

N : number of qu

( s were interpreted in order to classify partic

003). The classifications are presented in Table

ucted in

multiple-g the main idea of aspects related to answering notice,

point and the re from the right test, the present

questions

(Arikunto, 2003) rticipants’ reading ble 3.1

Table 3.1 Classification of students’ achievement

Score Range Classifications

80 – 100 Excellent

66 – 79 Good

56 – 65 Average

30 – 55 Poor

0 – 29 Fail

In collecting the data, this study took several procedures:

a. Preparing Research instrument (achievement test).

b. Trying out the research instruments to the students in order to check its validity, reliability, difficulty index and discrimination index.

c. Giving the achievement test to the participants d. Scoring the participants’ achievement test.

e. Calculating the data by using a median formula and Pearson Product Moment formula.

f. Analyzing the result through the relevant theories and drawing a conclusion of this research.

Those procedures above should be taken carefully one by one to prevent the emergence of mistakes during the research. Furthermore, explanation about the procedures is clearly presented in the next sections.

3.5 Trying Out the Research Instruments

A good test at least possesses two qualities, which are validity and reliability (Arikunto 2003). The questions of the test were collected from UAN

2006 – 2010. In order out before it was actu order to find out its va

Besides measu level and discrimina classifying the test int to find out the signific

3.5.1 Validity

Arikunto (200 to measure. In order t was tried out and t correlation formula. T

Where:

r : correlation coeffi x : item which its va

The criteria of

der to get the requirement of a good test, the tes ctually administered. Then its results then we validity and reliability.

asuring validity and reliability of the instru ination power are also calculated. Difficulty into easy or difficult, while discrimination pow ificance of test items (Arikunto 2003).

2003) state that a test is valid if it measures wh r to find out the validity of the achievement te the result was computed with Pearson Pr . The formula is.

efficient y : item which its va

validity is assessed N : the number of pa

(Ar

of validity were shown in the table.

test was first tried were calculated in

trument, difficulty lty level is about ower is calculated

hat it is supposed t test, the test item Product Moment

validity is assessed participants Arikunto 2003:72)

Table 3.2 r Coefficient Correlation (Validity)

Raw Score Interpretation

0.8 – 1.0 Very high

0.6 – 0.8 High

0.4 – 0.6 Moderate

0.2 – 0.4 Low

0.0 – 0.2 Very Low

(Arikunto, 2003)

The result of statistical computation on test shows that there were 22 vocabulary items and 21 reading comprehension items that were valid and could be used as the research instrument. See appendix A.1

Table 3.3 The Result of Vocabulary Validity Test

Item Number Raw Score Interpretation

46, 49, 50 0.000 – 0.200 Very Low

9, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47,

48

0.200 – 0.400 Low

6, 38, 44 0.400 – 0.600 Moderate

- 0.600 – 0.800 High

Table 3.4 The Result of reading Comprehension Validity Test

Item Number Raw Score Interpretation

11, 26, 29, 33 0.000 – 0.200 Very Low

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 32, 34,

0.200 – 0.400 Low

27 0.400 – 0.600 Moderate

- 0.600 – 0.800 High

- 0.800 – 1.000 Very High

In this correlation research, the items of research instrument must be equal between two variables. So, one item from vocabulary test must not be used. The lowest validity score in vocabulary mastery instrument was discarded.

3.5.2 Reliability

According to Arikunto (2003) reliability is related with consistent and stable indication of test. It means a test can be considered reliable if it is consistent with the result when it is used more than once to the same objects in different time.

In finding the reliability of the test, the half method was used. Split-half method is a method that uses one achievement test and test once. There are several steps in this method. The achievement test is equally separated into two parts, first half and second half. Those data are calculated firstly by using Pearson

Product Moment co calculation is calculat Spearman Brown form

Where:

r11 : reliability coe

r1/2 1/2 : correlation co

After calculat reliability coefficient that, the result of re Product Moment table in Appendix A.3. The

According to (see appendix A.3). S is reliable.

correlation formula. Then the correlation c lated by using Spearman Brown formula (Ariku ormula is as the following.

coefficient

coefficient for each half of the test item (Ari lating the reliability (see appendix A.2), it wa nt of achievement test which is also called r11

reliability coefficient then should be applied ble (Sugiyono, 2008). The Product Moment ta hen the result should apply the interpretation.

if robtained > rcritical = valid

if robtained < rcritical = invalid

(S to Sugiyono (2008) the r critical for this inst . Since the r obtain exceed the r critical, it me

coefficient from ikunto, 2003). The

rikunto, 2003:93) was found that the

11, is 0.779. After

lied to r value in t table can be seen

Sugiyono, 2008) nstrument is 0.339 means that the test

3.5.3 Difficulty Index

Difficulty index needs to be calculated in order to find out the difficulty level of a test. Arikunto (2003) state that the index of difficulty or facility value of an item illustrates how easy or difficult the certain item established in the test. The value around 0.500 was considered to be ideal with an acceptable range from around 0.3 to 0.7. In addition, the following formula is used to calculate the index of difficulty of an item.

=

P = Facility/ Index of difficulty B = The number of correct answers

JS = The number of students taking the test

(Arikunto, 2003:208)

After obtaining the result, the classifications of result were applied to the table below.

Table 3.5 Criteria of difficulty Index

Index of Difficulty Difficulty Degree

0.00 – 0.30 Difficult item

0.31 -0.70 Moderate item

0.71 – 1.00 Easy item

(Arikunto, 2003)

The result of computing shows that 4 items were considered difficult, 20 items were considered moderate and 26 items were considered easy.

Table 3.6 The Difficulty Test

Item Number Index of Difficulty Difficulty Degree

1, 12, 37, 48 0.00 – 0.30 Difficult Item

3, 9, 11, 15, 19, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46,

47, 49, 50

0.30 -0.70 Moderate Item

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 21, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43,

0.70 – 1.00 Easy Item

The result shows that 2 reading items were included into difficult items, 7 reading items were included into moderate items and 16 reading items were included into easy items. The vocabulary item result was different from reading result. 2 vocabulary items were included into difficult, 13 vocabulary items were included into moderate items and 10 items were included into easy items. Detail calculation see appendix A.4.

3.5.4 Discrimination Power Index

Discrimination power index needs to be calculated in order to find out the significance of test items in determining participants’ skill (Arikunto 2003).

The present study is able to find the discrimination index by conducting the procedures.

1. Arranging students’ total score and dividing the score into two groups of equal size (the top half and the bottom half).

2. Counting the n item correctly, answer the item 3. Subtracting the difference in th passing the low 4. Dividing the di

The following item.

Where:

D : discrimination pow Ju : participants in upp Jl : participants in low

After obtainin and recommendation

e number of the students in the upper group w tly, then counting the number of lower grou tem correctly.

the number of correct answer in the upper gr the proportion passing in the upper group and ower group, and

difference by the total number of students in on ng formula is used to calculate the discriminat

power index Bu : participant in upper grou upper group Bl : participant in lower grou

ower group

(

ing the result of discrimination power index, th n should be applied (Arikunto, 2003), as presen

who answer each oup students who

group to find the and the proportion

one group. nation index of an

roup answers right oup answers right

(Arikunto, 2003)

, the classification sented in Table.

Table 3.7 Classifications of Discrimination Power Index

Discrimination Index interpretation < -0,01 Worst (must be discarded)

00.00 – 0.20 Poor

0.21 – 0.40 Moderate

0.41 – 0.70 Good

0.71 – 1.00 Excellent

By taking those steps above, test result was being sorted, divided, and calculated by using D formula (see Appendix A.5). After obtaining the result, then the classifications were applied, as presented in Table 3.8 below.

Table 3.8 Discrimination Power Index

Items D Score Classifications

Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q10, Q13, Q14, Q21, Q25, Q31, Q35, Q36, Q42,

Q43

00.00 – 0.20 Poor

Q1, Q2, Q4, Q8,Q12, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q21, Q23,Q24, Q27, Q28,Q32, Q34, Q37, Q39,

Q40, Q44,Q45, Q47, Q48

0.21 – 0.40 Moderate

Q15, Q22, Q30, Q38, Q41 0.41 – 0.70 Good

The result above shows that 14 items were considered poor, 23 items were considered moderate and 5 items were considered good.

3.6 Data Analysis

The following are the steps of how the data were analyzed. First, after the test was taken from the students, the analysis started by scoring the result of the test. Then, the process was about finding the level of participants’ vocabulary mastery and reading comprehension. To find out the mastery of the two variables, computing the mean of each variable was necessary. The formula to compute mean is as written below.

=∑

=∑

(Arikunto, 2003)

Afterward, it is necessary to make sure that the data were normally distributed or not (Sudjana, 1996). This study utilized SPSS 17 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) as it is one of the oldest and the most widely-used statistical software package. The equations of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and

Saphiro-Wilk were used to find out the normality distribution.

The result of normality distribution determines the formula which is employed to analyze the data. If the data are normally distributed, then Pearson Product Moment formula is applied, as it is also a correlation formula for

Where: Mx = Mean x (Vocabulary mastery) My = Mean y (Reading comprehension) ∑x = The sum of x scores

∑y = The sum of y scores N = Number of participants

parametric statistic a Moment formula is.

Where:

r = Correlation N = Number of X and y = variables (v ∑ = Sum

Then the resu strength to follow (Ar

Table Ra 0 0 0 0 0

c and interval data (Sudjana, 1996). The P

ion Coefficient of participants

s (variable x and variable y)

(Ariku sult of correlation coefficient was interpreted Arikunto, 2003). The interpretations are present

ble 3.9 Correlation Coefficient Interpretation

Raw Score Interpretatio

0.8 – 1.0 Very strong

0.6 – 0.8 Strong

0.4 – 0.6 Moderate

0.2 – 0.4 Weak

0.0 – 0.2 Very weak

(Ari

Pearson Product

ikunto 2003, p.72) ted to find out its ented in Table.

ion tion ong te eak rikunto, 2003)

In the other employed if the data a non-parametric statist

Where:

rs : correlation coeff D : the difference b

After determi whether the hypothesi Pearson Product Mom

er hand, Spearman Correlation for Ranked D ta are not normally distributed, as it is a correla

istic and ranked data (Sudjana, 1996). The form

Figure 3.7 Spearman Correlation

efficient N : number

e between participants’ ranks

mining the correlation coefficient, it is necessar esis is accepted or not. The null and alternative

ment correlation are as follows. Ho : ρ = 0

Ha : ρ ≠ 0

(

Data formula is elation formula for

rmula is.

ber of participants

(Sudjana, 1996)

sary to find out ve hypotheses for

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS

Introduction

This chapter presents the result of this research, including the findings and its discussions. Through this chapter, the present study tries to present the answers of the research questions. As stated in Chapter I, the research questions are as follows:

1. What is the students’ mastery of reading comprehension?

2. What is the students’ mastery of vocabulary knowledge?

3. What is the correlation between the students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension?

4.1 Students’ Reading Comprehension

As presented in the previous chapter, the test result shows that achievement test is considered good and reliable to be administered to the participants. Regarding to this, the research instrument was administered and the result would be presented in the next sections.

Regarding to the research questions, there were several achievement test items that need to be reviewed. Then it was administered to participants, and the result was calculated to obtain the participants’ raw scores and final scores (see Appendix B.1 and B.2). The participants’ reading comprehension could be found out through the elaborated data below.

Based on the computation, the ability of students’ reading comprehension in general is good. The score shown by the mean which is 71.71 (detailed calculation see appendix B.3). In detail, the students are grouped into 4 categories.

Table 4.1 Students’ Ability in Reading Comprehension

Students Score Range Classification

S6, S8, S12, S15, S18, S22, S25, S27, S29, S30,

S33

80 – 100 Excellent

S1, S2, S4, S16, S21,

S23, S26, S28, S32 66 – 79

Good

S3, S7, S10, S11, S13,

S19, S20, S24, S31, S34 56 – 65

Average

S5, S9, S14, S17, 30 – 55 Poor

- 0 – 29 Fail

The result shows that 11 students were included into excellent category. Most of the students included into excellent category, it indicated that most of the students have good reading abilities. They have abilities and strategies of reading. Almost all questions of reading can be answered by the students in this category. There were 9 students included into good category. This category shows that

students have the ability to comprehend the texts but not as well as students in excellent category. There were 10 students included into average category. In this category, the ability and strategy of students in comprehending a text are not good enough. Especially on implicit questions, a lot of students cannot answer correctly. There were 4 students included into poor category.

Table 4.2 Questions Category

Explicit questions Implicit questions

Q2, Q8, Q13, Q14, Q16, Q17, Q19, Q21, Q22, Q23

Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q7, Q12, Q18, Q27, Q28, Q32, Q34

Implicit questions were more difficult to answer, because students needed the ability to conclude the information in the text. The percentages in each category of students showed that implicit questions were more difficult. The chart below shows the percentage of students answering explicit and implicit question.

Figure 4.1 Types of Reading items

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % implicit explicit P e rc e n ta g e

s _{Students Category}

excellent

good

average

From the data of reading comprehension, implicit questions are more difficult to answer. It is proven that two implicit questions (question no 1 and 12) are included into difficult category, two implicit questions (question no 3 and 27) are included into moderate category and the rest of questions are included into easy category. In explicit questions, there is no question included into difficult category and only one question included into moderate category, which is question number nineteen which is about general truth. The rest of questions are included into easy category.

Background knowledge seems to help the students to understand the text. Hedgecock & Ferris (2009) state that background knowledge is unquestionably helpful for students in their reading, since it is necessary to have adequate knowledge to encounter a reading task. It is proven that in the second text (questions no 7 and 8) which is about cat and fourth text (questions no 16-23) which is about octopus. In the second text, there is 80,88% students could answer the questions correctly and 75,21% students could answer the fourth text correctly. The text about octopus and cat would be more familiar for the students than other text about Mr.Johan family (first text), someone’s experience (third and sixth text) and research on animal (fifth text).

Table 4.3 Students Correct Answer Percentage

Texts Students Correct answer Percentage

Fists text (question no 1-5) 66,47% Second text (question no 7-8) 80,88% Third text (question no 11-14) 66,91% Fourth text (question no 16-19, 21-23) 75,21% Fifth text (question no 26-29) 58,82% Sixth text (question no 32-34) 67,65%

4.2 Students’ Vocabulary Mastery

Based on the computation, the ability of students’ vocabulary mastery in general is average. The score shown by the mean is 62,62 (detailed calculation see appendix B.3). In detail the participants’ final scores in vocabulary mastery were classified in the table below.

Table 4.4 Students’ Ability in vocabulary Mastery

Students Score Range Classification

S8, S12, S16, S18, S25,

S27 80 – 100

Excellent

S1, S4, S5, S6, S11, S15,

S22, S26, S29, S30, S33 66 – 79

Good

S14, S19, S28, S34 56 – 65 Average

S2, S3, S7, S9, S10, S13, S17, S20, S21, S23, S24,

S31, S32

30 – 55 Poor

- 0 – 29 Fail

The result shows that 6 students were included into excellent category, 11 students were included into good category, 4 students were included into average category and 13 students were included into poor category. It indicates that the students’ vocabulary knowledge in this study were not good enough. A lot of students were included into poor category.

Table 4.5 Questions Category

Synonym / Antonym Completing sentence

Q6, Q10, Q15, Q20, Q24, Q25, Q30, Q31, Q35, Q36, Q39, Q40, Q44, Q47

Q37, Q38, Q41, Q42, Q43, Q45, Q48

Figure 4.2 Types of Vocabulary items

Figure above shows that students have difficulties in completing the sentence. The percentage of completing the sentence from all categories of students is the lowest. It may be caused by the synonym/antonym test items, students only need to know one word in the question for example question number 15. See the question bellow:

“I was too tired but I was happy”. The underlined word has the same meaning as?” 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %

synonym/antonym complete sentence

P e rc e n ta g e

s _{Students Category}

excellent good average poor

The students only need to know the synonym of “tired”. They do not need to understand the meaning of other words. It makes them easy to answer the question.

It is different with the completing sentence item test. They need to understand all the words in the question sentence. For example question number 41. See the question bellow.

“My name is Charley. I am a …… from the Surabaya Post. May I interview you about your company?”

In this question students need to know all the words in the sentence. That is why completing sentence is more difficult to answer than synonym/antonym question.

4.3 Correlation Coefficient

Data from achievement test were firstly computed by utilizing SPSS 16 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) with equations of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Saphiro-Wilk, in order to find out the normality distribution as it is necessary to find out whether the data is normally distributed or not. The result of normality distribution of the data is presented in Table 4.6 below

Table 4.6 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Score vocabulary .123 34 .200* .955 34 .173

reading .158 34 .313 .926 34 .246

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

The result above shows that the significance of students’ vocabulary scores falls in 0.200 according to the equation of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and 0.173 according to the equation of Saphiro-Wilk. On the other hand, the significance of students reading comprehension scores decrease to 0.313 according to the equation of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and 0.246 according to the equation of

Saphiro-Wilk.

In this study, deciding the normality comes upon the level of significance at 0.05. Regarding to this, both of vocabulary scores’ significances are higher than

0.05, which is 0.200 > 0.05 and 0.173 > 0.05. The data were considered to be

normally distributed since its significance was higher than level of significance (Coolidge, 2000, p.177). Also, the significances of English scores were higher than 0.05, which is 0.313 > 0.05 and 0.246 > 0.05. It was also considered to be normally distributed since its significance was higher than level of significance (Coolidge, 2000).

The result above shows that both of data from vocabulary and reading comprehension scores are normally distributed. Thus the Pearson Product

Moment formula was employed to calculate the coefficient correlation, as it is a correlation formula for parametric statistic and interval data (Sudjana, 1996).

As stated above, the computation of correlation employed the Pearson Product Moment formula (Sudjana, 1996). Before calculating the correlation, it was necessary to distribute the variables in tabulation form to make it easier in calculating the variables (see Appendix B.4).

After calculating the data, it was found that the correlation coefficient (r) is 0.7205, and then it was necessary to find out its strength to follow Arikunto (2003).

Table 4.7 Correlation Coefficient Interpretation

Raw Score Interpretation

0.8 – 1.0 Very strong

0.6 – 0.8 Strong

0.4 – 0.6 Moderate

0.2 – 0.4 Weak

0.0 – 0.2 Very weak

(Arikunto, 2003)

From the description above, it could be concluded that correlation coefficient is strong. It means that there is strong relation between students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery.

4.4 Testing the Suggested Hypothesis

Finally, the process came to the testing of suggested hypothesis. As stated in chapter one, this study suggested the alternative hypothesis (Ha): there is a

correlation between students’ reading comprehension and their vocabulary mastery. In testing the hypothesis, it needed to calculate the t obtained. The t

critical is 2.042 (see appendix B.5). Since this study used a two-tailed test of

significance, then the hypothesis area is illustrated in two ways.

The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was approved that if the t obtained falls in Ha approved area, and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected if the t critical falls in Ha rejected area (Sudjana,1996; Arikunto, 2003). The calculation is presented below:

= √ − 2

√1 − =

4.075148 √0.2795 = 0.7205√34 − 2

1 − (0.7205) =

4.075148 0.5286 = 0.7205√32

√1 − 0.51912

= 5.872

if α _{= 0.05 and n = 34, from the table distribution t critical is 2.042 (see appendix}

B.5). The t obtained 5.872 > 2.042. it means that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.

4.5 Discussion

As described in previous chapter, the aims of this study are to analyze the students’ achievement of reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery, and correlation between students’ reading comprehension and their vocabulary mastery.

The result shows that students are good in reading comprehension test while they face some difficulties in vocabulary mastery test. The questions in reading comprehension test mostly are explicit questions. So, they can answer more easily because clearly stated in the text. Day and Park (2005) state that a straightforward question such as facts, dates, times, locations are easier to be answered than a not straightforward question. Students must use information from various part of the text and combine them to understand an implicit question. One of the examples of explicit question is number thirteen. See the question bellow.

“Where did they buy shirts and dresses?”

This question can be answered directly from the text. 32 students chose the right answer.

One of the examples of implicit question is number one. See the question bellow.

“According to the text , we know that Mr.Johan‘s hair is?”

In this question students must use their understanding of the text to get the right answer. This question seems difficult for the students, because a lot of students had wrong answer. However the students had the ability to guess the answer when they had background knowledge about the text for example the text about octopus (question no 16-25), students could guess the options more effectively.

Regarding to the result above, it could be concluded that the students reading comprehension was satisfying. 32,35% students were classified into excellent category. 26,47% students were classified into good category, 29,41% students were classified into average category and 11,76% students were classified into excellent category. It seems that a lot of students had excellent score in reading comprehension test. Nevertheless, the students’ vocabulary mastery was not good enough. The score was classified into average category. 17,64% students were classified into excellent category, 32,35% students were classified into good category, 11,76% students were classified into average category and 38,23% students were classified into poor category. It seems that most of the students were classified into poor category in vocabulary test.

The use of synonym, antonym and completing the sentence seem difficult for the students because in this vocabulary test when the students did not know the meaning of the word they would not know the answer. Many students were categorized into poor category. It may be caused that students were not familiar with the vocabulary test items. For example question no 15.

“I was too tired but I was happy”

In this question, students were not capable to answer the synonym of “tired” word. The synonym of “tired” which is “exhausted” seemed not familiar for the students. So, many students had wrong answer.

It looks like many students were not familiar in the multiple choice option in the vocabulary test. So many students got poor score in vocabulary test.

The result of the third research question has been answered that there is a correlation between students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery. It could be considered as a strong correlation since the result was included into strong category (Arikunto, 2003). In addition to the ability of students’ vocabulary mastery, the strategy and background knowledge of the text help students comprehend the text.

In improving students reading comprehension, teacher should teach vocabulary to their students since vocabulary has strong relationship with reading comprehension. Having a lot of vocabulary makes the students understand the text easily. Although strategy of reading and experience of students help them in comprehend a text, but vocabulary mastery is more important in helping the students to comprehend the text. It is in line with Hirsch (2003) who describe that knowing at least 90 percent of the words enables the reader to get the main idea from the reading and guess correctly what many of the unfamiliar words mean.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Introduction

This chapter delineates the conclusions and suggestions of the research. The conclusions are formulated from the research questions, while the suggestions present the recommendation for the further research and the related parties.

5.1 Conclusions

This study focuses on the correlation between students’ reading comprehension and their vocabulary mastery. This study also attempts to find out the students’ ability in reading comprehension and vocabulary mastery.

Referring to the findings and discussions that have been elaborated in the previous chapter, it was found out that there is a strong correlation between students’ reading comprehension and their vocabulary mastery. Although the scores of reading and vocabulary test are different but the correlation is strong. It may be caused by the difficult vocabulary in test items. Students who have high score in reading they also have high score in vocabulary.

There are many factors that help students to comprehend the reading materials. The result shows that the factors are students’ background knowledge and experiences. Those factors may help students comprehend reading materials. When they found unknown words they could guess the meaning of unknown words by referring them to the text.

5.2 Suggestions

After drawing the inferences, there are several suggestions that hopefully can give the constructive ideas for the readers, especially for English teachers and future researchers.

Most of English teachers tend to consider that using Indonesian in English class can dull their students’ ability in using English. Considering to the result that many students lack of vocabulary knowledge, it is recommended to use English in English classes, since it facilitates the students to learn materials efficiently. By using English as medium of instruction, it helps students increase their vocabulary knowledge. Although using Indonesia language is also needed in English class to overcome the misunderstanding that may occur in mostly second language settings. The teachers may want to use different methods in teaching reading skill to make English class more interesting and fun.

Furthermore, the further researchers can focus on other issues in reading, such as reading strategies in improving reading comprehension. Besides, the further researchers can also investigate the correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension more depth to reinforce the result of this research and find out the better result.

REFERENCES

Adler Mortimer J. and Charles Van Doren (1972). How to Read a Book (Edisi

Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta: PT.Indonesia.

Algarabel, S. and Carmen Dasi. (2001). The Definition of Achievement and the

Construction of Test for its Measurement : a Review of the Main Trends.

Valencia: university of Valencia

Apriani, N.S. (2011). Improving Students’ Reading Comprehending Through

Jigsaw. Bandung: Unpublished paper.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2003). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek

(Edisi Revisi V). Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.

Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caverly, D. C., & Peterson, C. L (1996). Foundations for a constructivist: whole

language approach to developmental college reading. Chicago: National

Association of Developmental Education

Day, R. R., & Park, J. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., and Airasian P.W. (2006). Educational Research:

Competencies for Analysis and Applications (8th Edition). Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey: Pearson-Merill Prentice Hall.

Grabe, W. and Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grellet, F. (1985). Developing Reading Skills. Leeds: Leeds University Press. Guy, Bon L. et.al (1993). Reading Difficulties : their diagnosis and correction.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon Publishing co.inc

Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge – of words and

Hatch, Evelyn. and Farhady, Hossein. (1982). Research and Statistic Design for

Applied Linguistic. Massachusetts: Newburry House Publishers, Inc.

Hedgcock, J.S. and Ferris, D.R. (2009). Teaching Readers of English. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis

Klingner, Janette K. Sharon V. and Alison B. (2007). Teaching Reading

Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Laddoo. (2007). The Importance of Reading. [Online]. Available: http://www.squidoo.com/the-importance-of-reading [13 November 2011] Lehr Fran & Osborn. (2001). A Focus on Vocabulary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Liu na and Nation, I.S.P. (1985). Factors Affecting Guessing Vocabulary in

Context. [Online]. available:

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/33 [25 January 2011]

McGinnis, Dorothy & E.Smith Dorothy. (1982). Analyzing and Treating Reading

Problems. New York: Macmilan Publishing co.inc

McEntire, Jo. (2003). Read Ahead 2: Reading and Life Skills Development. Longman: Pearson Education

Miller, G. & Gildea, P. (1987). How children learn words. Longman: Pearson Education

Nation, P. & Newton, J. 1997. Teaching Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, David. (2003). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Roehrig, Alysia D. & Guo Ying. . Reading in a foreign language. United States: Florida State University

Sedita, J. (2005). Effective Vocabulary Instruction. [Online]. Available:

http://www.keystoliteracy.com/reading-comprehension/effective-vocabulary-instruction.pdf [12 Desember 2012]

Sudjana. (1996). Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito

Weaver B. (2005). Probability & Hypothesis Testing. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hypothesis%20pdf&source=web &cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.co m%2Fwv%2Fbwhomedir%2Fnotes%2Fprob_hyp.pdf&ei=tB24TqG7FsTZrQ eC8LnRAw&usg=AFQjCNHf7qHCyPmkZ8Usd_s37PX9B7xrbg [15 September 2011]

Willis, Dave. (2008). Reading for information: Motivating learners to read

efficiently. [Online]. Available:

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/reading-information-motivating-learners-read-efficiently [ 19 February 2012 ]

Yildirim, K. Yildiz M. and Ates S. (2011). Is Vocabulary a Strong Variable Predicting

Reading Comprehension and Does the Prediction Degree of Vocabulary Vary according to Text Types. Turkey : Gazi University

Appendix A.4

Difficulty Index of Achievement Test

Questionnaire Items Total of Right Answer Total of Wrong Answer

Q1 9 41

Q2 25 25

Q3 22 28

Q4 30 20

Q5 27 23

Q6 31 19

Q7 27 23

Q8 28 22

Q9 14 36

Q10 27 23

Q11 18 32

Q12 10 40

Q13 32 18

Q14 31 19

Q15 16 34

Q16 28 22

Q17 26 24

Q18 26 24

Q19 31 19

Q20 28 22

Q21 15 35

Q22 27 23

Q23 16 34

Q24 30 20

Q25 29 21

Q26 19 31

Q27 12 38

Q28 16 34

Q29 23 27

Q30 11 39

Q31 13 37

Q32 28 22

Q33 15 35

Q34 26 24

Q36 20 30

Q37 10 40

Q38 13 37

Q39 30 20

Q40 25 25

Q41 13 37

Q42 29 21

Q43 25 25

Q44 12 38

Q45 23 27

Q46 15 35

Q47 22 28

Q48 10 40

Q49 17 33

Q50 15 35

Number of Participants = 34

The Calculation:

Difficulty Index (Test Item Number 1)

= = = .

Tabulated Result:

Difficulty Index of Achievement Test (Results)

Items P Score Classifications Items P Score Classifications

Q1 0.265 Difficult Q26 0.559 Moderate

Q2 0.735 Easy Q27 0.353 Moderate

Q3 0.647 Moderate Q28 0.765 Easy

Q4 0.882 Easy Q29 0.676 Moderate

Q5 0.794 Easy Q30 0.324 Moderate

Q6 0.912 Easy Q31 0.382 Moderate

Q7 0.794 Easy Q32 0.824 Easy

Q9 0.412 Moderate Q34 0.765 Easy

Q10 0.794 Easy Q35 0.882 Easy

Q11 0.529 Moderate Q36 0.588 Moderate

Q12 0.294 Difficult Q37 0.294 Difficult

Q13 0.941 Easy Q38 0.382 Moderate

Q14 0.912 Easy Q39 0.882 Easy

Q15 0.471 Moderate Q40 0.735 Easy

Q16 0.824 Easy Q41 0.382 Moderate

Q17 0.765 Easy Q42 0.853 Easy

Q18 0.765 Easy Q43 0.735 Easy

Q19 0.912 Easy Q44 0.353 Moderate

Q20 0.824 Easy Q45 0.676 Moderate

Q21 0.441 Moderate Q46 0.441 Moderate

Q22 0.794 Easy Q47 0.647 Moderate

Q23 0.765 Easy Q48 0.294 Difficult

Q24 0.882 Easy Q49 0.5 Moderate

REFERENCES

Adler Mortimer J. and Charles Van Doren (1972). How to Read a Book (Edisi

Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta: PT.Indonesia.

Algarabel, S. and Carmen Dasi. (2001). The Definition of Achievement and the

Construction of Test for its Measurement : a Review of the Main Trends.

Valencia: university of Valencia

Apriani, N.S. (2011). Improving Students’ Reading Comprehending Through

Jigsaw. Bandung: Unpublished paper.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2003). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek

(Edisi Revisi V). Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.

Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caverly, D. C., & Peterson, C. L (1996). Foundations for a constructivist: whole

language approach to developmental college reading. Chicago: National

Association of Developmental Education

Day, R. R., & Park, J. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., and Airasian P.W. (2006). Educational Research:

Competencies for Analysis and Applications (8th Edition). Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey: Pearson-Merill Prentice Hall.

Grabe, W. and Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Grellet, F. (1985). Developing Reading Skills. Leeds: Leeds University Press. Guy, Bon L. et.al (1993). Reading Difficulties : their diagnosis and correction.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon Publishing co.inc

Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge – of words and

Hatch, Evelyn. and Farhady, Hossein. (1982). Research and Statistic Design for

Applied Linguistic. Massachusetts: Newburry House Publishers, Inc.

Hedgcock, J.S. and Ferris, D.R. (2009). Teaching Readers of English. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis

Klingner, Janette K. Sharon V. and Alison B. (2007). Teaching Reading

Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Laddoo. (2007). The Importance of Reading. [Online]. Available:

http://www.squidoo.com/the-importance-of-reading [13 November 2011] Lehr Fran & Osborn. (2001). A Focus on Vocabulary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Liu na and Nation, I.S.P. (1985). Factors Affecting Guessing Vocabulary in

Context. [Online]. available:

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/33 [25 January 2011]

McGinnis, Dorothy & E.Smith Dorothy. (1982). Analyzing and Treating Reading

Problems. New York: Macmilan Publishing co.inc

McEntire, Jo. (2003). Read Ahead 2: Reading and Life Skills Development. Longman: Pearson Education

Miller, G. & Gildea, P. (1987). How children learn words. Longman: Pearson Education

Nation, P. & Newton, J. 1997. Teaching Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, David. (2003). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Roehrig, Alysia D. & Guo Ying. . Reading in a foreign language. United States: Florida State University

Sedita, J. (2005). Effective Vocabulary Instruction. [Online]. Available:

http://www.keystoliteracy.com/reading-comprehension/effective-vocabulary-instruction.pdf [12 Desember 2012]

Sudjana. (1996). Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito

Weaver B. (2005). Probability & Hypothesis Testing. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hypothesis%20pdf&source=web &cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.co m%2Fwv%2Fbwhomedir%2Fnotes%2Fprob_hyp.pdf&ei=tB24TqG7FsTZrQ

eC8LnRAw&usg=AFQjCNHf7qHCyPmkZ8Usd_s37PX9B7xrbg [15

September 2011]

Willis, Dave. (2008). Reading for information: Motivating learners to read

efficiently. [Online]. Available:

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/reading-information-motivating-learners-read-efficiently [ 19 February 2012 ]

Yildirim, K. Yildiz M. and Ates S. (2011). Is Vocabulary a Strong Variable Predicting

Reading Comprehension and Does the Prediction Degree of Vocabulary Vary according to Text Types. Turkey : Gazi University

Appendix A.4

Difficulty Index of Achievement Test

Questionnaire Items Total of Right Answer Total of Wrong Answer

Q1 9 41

Q2 25 25

Q3 22 28

Q4 30 20

Q5 27 23

Q6 31 19

Q7 27 23

Q8 28 22

Q9 14 36

Q10 27 23

Q11 18 32

Q12 10 40

Q13 32 18

Q14 31 19

Q15 16 34

Q16 28 22

Q17 26 24

Q18 26 24

Q19 31 19

Q20 28 22

Q21 15 35

Q22 27 23

Q23 16 34

Q24 30 20

Q25 29 21

Q26 19 31

Q27 12 38

Q28 16 34

Q29 23 27

Q30 11 39

Q31 13 37

Q32 28 22

Q33 15 35

Q34 26 24

Q36 20 30

Q37 10 40

Q38 13 37

Q39 30 20

Q40 25 25

Q41 13 37

Q42 29 21

Q43 25 25

Q44 12 38

Q45 23 27

Q46 15 35

Q47 22 28

Q48 10 40

Q49 17 33

Q50 15 35

Number of Participants = 34

The Calculation:

Difficulty Index (Test Item Number 1)

= = = .

Tabulated Result:

Difficulty Index of Achievement Test (Results)

Items P Score Classifications Items P Score Classifications

Q1 0.265 Difficult Q26 0.559 Moderate

Q2 0.735 Easy Q27 0.353 Moderate

Q3 0.647 Moderate Q28 0.765 Easy

Q4 0.882 Easy Q29 0.676 Moderate

Q5 0.794 Easy Q30 0.324 Moderate

Q6 0.912 Easy Q31 0.382 Moderate

Q7 0.794 Easy Q32 0.824 Easy

Q9 0.412 Moderate Q34 0.765 Easy

Q10 0.794 Easy Q35 0.882 Easy

Q11 0.529 Moderate Q36 0.588 Moderate

Q12 0.294 Difficult Q37 0.294 Difficult

Q13 0.941 Easy Q38 0.382 Moderate

Q14 0.912 Easy Q39 0.882 Easy

Q15 0.471 Moderate Q40 0.735 Easy

Q16 0.824 Easy Q41 0.382 Moderate

Q17 0.765 Easy Q42 0.853 Easy

Q18 0.765 Easy Q43 0.735 Easy

Q19 0.912 Easy Q44 0.353 Moderate

Q20 0.824 Easy Q45 0.676 Moderate

Q21 0.441 Moderate Q46 0.441 Moderate

Q22 0.794 Easy Q47 0.647 Moderate

Q23 0.765 Easy Q48 0.294 Difficult

Q24 0.882 Easy Q49 0.5 Moderate