THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND SELF-EFFICACY ON THE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION.
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND
SELF-EFFICACY ON THE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN
READING COMPREHENSION
A ThesisSubmitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELVIDA WAHYUNI Registration Number: 8126111007
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah SWT, the most gracious and merciful, all praise for His mercy, guidance and loving care which have been given to the writer, so this thesis entitled “The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on the Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension” could be completed. Blessing and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought human being from uneducated become civilized and educated in terms of science and technology.
In the process of writing this thesis, the writer would like to extend her sincere and special thanks. Her gratitude is intended for her beloved parents, Ely Yusdy and Supiati, S.Pd. for their endless love, prays, and supports both moral and material before, during and after her academic years at Postgraduate School Program of State University of Medan and also for her beloved bude, Rosnah, AR and Asnur AR, who always stand by her along the day with much laugh and happiness.
On this special occasion, she would like to extend her sincere appreciation to her brilliant advisers, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., and Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., who has given their precious time in giving the encouragement, guidance, suggestion, advices and valuable knowledge until this thesis appears in its present form.
She would like to give her special thanks to her reviewers and examiners Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. for their valuable input for completion of this thesis.
(6)
In particular, her enormous appreciation is addressed to the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., the secretary Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and administration staff Farid Ma’ruf Harahap, for the suggestions and administrative assistance during the completing of this thesis and also all lectures who have given very valuable knowledge and science during her study at English Applied Linguistics Study Program Postgraduate School of State University of Medan.
Special thank is extended to Agus Bagianto Syahputra, S.Pd., the headmaster of SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa who has given a golden opportunity for her to conduct the research in the school. Thanks to the English teacher, Syarah Aisha, S.Pd. who helps her in conducting the treatment in the classroom. To all students of SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa, thanks for the cooperative attitude and work during the research.
To Siti Salama Ginting, M.Pd., thanks for the heart to heart conversations on mobile phone and face to face talks especially in helping her to analyze the data. She appreciates the advice and encouragement on many levels. She wouldn’t have made it without you and she has learned so many things from you.
Last but always forever, to her closest friends, Dwi Maya Novitri, S.Pd., Ismayani, S.Pd., Marina Sari Rambe, S.Pd., M.Hum., Mahya Humaira, S.PdI., Muhammad Mahfuz, S.PdI., and Hiskia Manurung, M.Hum., who have given more than one friendship colors and have been good listeners for every complaint. Her appreciation also goes to her classmates at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program (A2/XXII) and all friends whose names cannot be mentioned one
(7)
by one for the encouragement, support, friendship, cooperation and helpful ideas in various discussions especially in finishing her thesis.
May Allah SWT bless you all...
Medan, August 2015 The writer,
Elvida Wahyuni
(8)
ABSTRACT
Elvida Wahyuni. 8126111007. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. Medan: Postgraduate School Program of State University of Medan, August 2015.
The objectives of this experimental research were to investigate whether: 1) the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy was higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy, 2) the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy was higher than that low efficacy, and 3) the interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. The population of this research was the students in grade XI of SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa in the academic year 2014/2015. The total number of population was 4 classes containing 134 students. There were two classes containing 64 students chosen as sample of this research by cluster random sampling technique. The experimental group was taught by using K-W-L strategy and the control group was taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy. The research design was experimental design with factorial design 2x2 because there were two independent variables (teaching strategies) and two moderator variables (self-efficacy). The questionnaire was conducted for classifying the students’ self-efficacy upon high and low. The students’ achievement in reading comprehension text was measured by using reading comprehension test. The data were analyzed by applying two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the level of significance α = 0.05. The result revealed that (1) the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy was higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy, with Fobs = 4.11 > Ftab = 4.00, (2) the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy was higher than that with low self-efficacy, with Fobs = 5.22 > Ftab = 4.00, (3) there was interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension, with Fobs = 4.24 > Ftab = 4.00. Tuckey-Test result also showed that the students who have high self-efficacy got higher achievement if they were taught by using K-W-L strategy while the students who have low self-efficacy got higher achievement if they were taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy.
(9)
ABSTRAK
Elvida Wahyuni. 8126111007. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan Efikasi Diri Siswa terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, Agustus 2015.
Penelitian eksperimen ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah: 1) hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi K-W-L lebih tinggi daripada hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan dengan strategi Reciprocal Teaching, 2) hasil belajar siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri tinggi lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri rendah, 3) terdapat interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dengan efikasi diri siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca teks. Populasi penelitian meliputi seluruh kelas XI SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa tahun ajaran 2014/2015 dengan jumlah siswa sebanyak 134 orang. Dua kelas yang berisikan 64 orang siswa diambil sebagai sample dalam penelitian ini dengan menggunakan teknik cluster random sampling. Kelompok eksperimen diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran K-W-L dan kelompok kontrol diajarkan dengan strategi pembelajaran Reciprocal Teaching. Desain penelitian ini adalah eksperimen dengan factorial 2x2 karena ada dua variable bebas (strategi mengajar) dan dua moderator (efikasi diri siswa). Angket efikasi diri siswa diberikan untuk mengelompokkan siswa sesuai dengan efikasi diri mereka, tinggi dan rendah. Hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca teks diukur dengan menggunakan ANOVA dua jalur pada taraf signifikasi α = 0.05. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi K-W-L lebih tinggi daripada hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan dengan strategi Reciprocal Teaching dengan hasil hitung Fhitung = 4.11 > Ftable = 4.00, (2) hasil belajar siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri tinggi lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri rendah dengan hasil hitung Fhitung = 5.22 > Ftable = 4.00, (3) terdapat interaksi antara strategi pembelajaran dengan efikasi diri siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca dengan hasil hitung Fhitung = 4.24 > Ftable = 4.00. Setelah melaksanakan uji lanjut dengan menggunakan uji Tuckey, hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri tinggi memperoleh hasil belajar yang tinggi dalam membaca bila diajarkan dengan strategi K-W-L dan siswa yang memiliki efikasi diri rendah memperoleh hasil belajar yang tinggi dalam membaca bila diajarkan dengan strategi Reciprocal Teaching.
(10)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i
ABSTRACT ... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... x
LIST OF FIGURES ... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 5
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Study... 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 8
2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 8
2.1.1 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension... 8
2.1.2 Reading Comprehension ... 10
2.1.2.1 Factors Underlying Comprehension ... 11
2.1.2.2 Levels of Reading Comprehension ... 13
2.1.2.2.1 Literal Comprehension ... 13
2.1.2.2.2 Inferential Comprehension... 13
2.1.2.2.3 Critical Comprehension ... 14
2.1.2.3 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension ... 15
2.1.3 Teaching Strategies ... 16
2.1.3.1 K-W-L Strategy ... 17
2.1.3.1.1 The Nature of K-W-L Strategy ... 17
2.1.3.1.2 The Procedures of K-W-L Strategy ... 19
2.1.3.2 Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 21
2.1.3.1.1 The Nature of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 21
2.1.3.1.2 The Procedures of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 23
2.1.4 The Self-Efficacy ... 26
2.1.4.1 The Sources of Self-Efficacy... 26
2.1.4.2 The Effects of Self-Efficacy ... 27
2.1.4.3 Self-Efficacy Improvement ... 28
2.1.4.4 Self-Efficacy and Reading Comprehension ... 30
2.2 Relevant Studies ... 31
(11)
2.3.1 The Differences between the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using K-W-L Strategy and taught
by using Reciprocal Teaching ... 33
2.3.2 The Differences between the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy and Low Self-Efficacy ... 34
2.3.3 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension ... 36
2.4 Hypotheses ... 38
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 39
3.1 Research Design ... 39
3.2 Population and Sample ... 40
3.2.1 Population ... 40
3.2.2 Sample ... 40
3.3 Procedure of Treatment ... 41
3.4 Control of Treatment ... 42
3.5 The Instrument of Data Collection ... 44
3.5.1 Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 44
3.5.2 Reading Comprehension Test ... 45
3.6 Validity ... 46
3.6.1 Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 46
3.6.2 Reading Comprehension Test ... 47
3.7 Reliability ... 48
3.7.1 Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 48
3.7.2 Reading Comprehension Test ... 48
3.8 The Technique of Analyzing Data ... 50
3.9 Statistical Hypotheses ... 51
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ... 52
4.1 The Data Description ... 52
4.1.1 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 53
4.1.2 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 54
4.1.3 The Students’ Achievement in Reading with High Self-Efficacy ... 55
4.1.4 The Students’ Achievement in Reading with Low Self-Efficacy ... 57
4.1.5 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 58
(12)
4.1.6 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy
Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 59
4.1.7 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 61
4.1.8 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 62
4.2 Requirements of Data Analysis ... 64
4.2.1 Normality Test... 64
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test ... 64
4.2.2.1 Groups of Teaching Strategies ... 65
4.2.2.2 Groups of Self-Efficacy ... 65
4.2.2.3 Groups of Interaction ... 66
4.3 Hypotheses Testing ... 67
4.3.1 The students’ achievement in reading comprehension that was taught by using K-W-L strategy is higher than reciprocal teaching strategy ... 68
4.3.2 The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy... 68
4.3.3 Interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension ... 69
4.4 Discussion... 72
4.4.1 The Differences between the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using K-W-L Strategy and taught by using Reciprocal Teaching ... 72
4.4.2 The Differences between the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy and Low Self-Efficacy ... 75
4.4.3 The Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy on the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension ... 75
(13)
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
SUGGESTIONS ... 78
5.1 Conclusions ... 78
5.2 Implications ... 78
5.3 Suggestions ... 80
REFERENCES ... 81
(14)
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension in
SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa ... 3
Table 2.1 K-W-L Chart ... 20
Table 2.2 Strengthens and Weaknesses between K-W-L Strategy and Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 24
Table 2.3 Characteristics of the Students with High and Low Self-Efficacy ... 30
Table 3.1 Factorial Research Design ... 39
Table 3.2 Procedure of K-W-L and Reciprocal Teaching Strategies ... 41
Table 3.3 Specification Table of the Students’ Self-Efficacy Indicators .... 45
Table 3.4 Specification of Reading Comprehension Test ... 46
Table 4.1 Summary of Research Data Description ... 52
Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 53
Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 54
Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy ... 56
Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy... 57
Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 58
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 60
Table 4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 61
Table 4.9 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 63
Table 4.10 Summary on the Result of Normality Test ... 64
Table 4.11 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Teaching Strategies ... 65
Table 4.12 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Self-Efficacy ... 65
Table 4.13 Result of Homogeneity Test on Groups of Interaction... 66
Table 4.14 Result of Homogeneity Test on Each Group ... 66
Table 4.15 Two-Way ANOVA with Factorial Design 2x2 ... 67
Table 4.16 Summary on the Calculation of Two-Way ANOVA ... 67
Table 4.17 Summary of the Calculation Result on Tuckey Test ... 70
(15)
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 4.1 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension Taught by Using K-W-L Strategy ... 54 Figure 4.2 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension Taught by Using Reciprocal
Teaching Strategy ... 55 Figure 4.3 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy ... 56 Figure 4.4 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy ... 58 Figure 4.5 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using
K-W-L Strategy ... 59 Figure 4.6 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using
K-W-L Strategy ... 60 Figure 4.7 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with High Self-Efficacy Taught by Using
Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 62 Figure 4.8 Histogram of the Students Achievement in Reading
Comprehension with Low Self-Efficacy Taught by Using
Reciprocal Teaching Strategy ... 63 Figure 4.9 Interaction between Teaching Strategies and Self-Efficacy ... 69
(16)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 84
Appendix B The Calculation of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 85
Appendix C Description of Students’ Score on Self-efficacy Questionnaire ... 86
Appendix D Reading Comprehension Test ... 87
Appendix E Description of Students’ Score ... 97
Appendix F The Computation of Validity and Reliability of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ... 99
Appendix G The Computation of Validity and Reliability of Reading Comprehension Test ... 101
Appendix H Description of Research Data ... 104
Appendix I Requirements of Data Analysis ... 119
Appendix J Homogeneity Test ... 128
Appendix K Hypotheses Testing ... 130 Appendix L Tuckey Test 134
(17)
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
Reading comprehension plays an important role in human life. Its role is realized as very substantial because it opens up new knowledge for individual. The goal is to gain information from what the writer conveyed through a text and uses this information to enrich his/her experiences and to improve his/her intellectual ability.
Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning by coordinating a number of complex processes that include word reading, word and world knowledge, and fluency (Harris and Graham, 2007). Readers comprehend a text when they are able to communicate with a text. They are able to draw the information from written text and interpret this information appropriately. In other words, reading comprehension is a kind of interaction between the readers and the text through written symbol in order to grasp the information from written text.
The importance of reading comprehension is really realized by government to make a policy in educational system; reading as one of the four language skills must be taught for the students in the classroom especially for senior high school students. Through teaching and learning reading, the students are expected to be able to comprehend the reading passages they read well. This is in the line with the objective of reading instruction in Senior High School is to develop the students’ reading skill so that they can read and comprehend the English texts effectively and efficiently (Curriculum 2006).
(18)
Although reading comprehension is very important, but there are still most of people who are able to read out loud some texts with the appropriate pronunciation but they do not know what they are reading about. It is because they do not apply the way they use when reading in their native language to reading in foreign language they are learning. They just spent their time to earn the meaning word by word, then consult the unknown vocabularies, continue with the meaning of each sentences.
Furthermore, based on the researcher’s preliminary research by interview with the teachers and the students in SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa, there are number of crucial issues concerning the teaching and learning of reading comprehension. First of all, some students always feel bored when they are studying reading because they do not know the technique to understand the reading material easily and they lack of vocabulary. Secondly, students’ poor knowledge becomes one problem that makes them difficult to comprehend the reading text. Thirdly, the teachers do not use background knowledge to activate their students’ schemata about what they are going to learn; the teachers do not let their students to ask questions due to the use of traditional methods in which the teachers take the major role to explain everything; do what the student is supposed to do; while the students role is restricted to only listening to what is inculcated to them by their teachers. In this situation, the students are just listeners to what the teacher explains; they do not have a chance to articulate what they know about the topic, what they want to know about the topic or what they have learned about the topic. That situation makes the students misunderstand and fail to construct the
(19)
meaning. It is showed from their achievement last year that cannot get the minimum passing grade (KKM) that is 70 in the academic year 2013/2014.
Table 1.1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension in SMA Swasta Nur Azizi Tanjung Morawa
Semester Means of Students’ Achievement in Language Learning Reading Speaking Listening Writing
I 63.7 71.3 70.1 72.3
II 65.4 73.6 72.2 74.6
The result shown by the table indicates that the achievement of the students in reading comprehension is the lowest one among other language skills namely speaking, listening and writing. The lack of the students in comprehending a written text is affected by several factors: teaching strategy, motivation, and learning style. The use of effective teaching strategy in reading comprehension is perhaps the most important means to help the students to improve their comprehension and learning from text. The teaching strategies needed are those are able to connect the students’ background knowledge with the new information in given text and to overcome the students’ lack desire of reading comprehension in order to increase their motivation in reading. Here, there are two simple strategies which are selected in this study. They are K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy.
K-W-L (Know, Want to know, and Learned) is a strategy which activates the students’ background knowledge, establish the students’ goal and monitor the students’ comprehension in reading (Ogle, 1986). The students recall what they know about the topic of a text before and during reading for the purpose of learning the content as fully as possible and linking the background knowledge to the new knowledge. It will be used to help them to build some questions which
(20)
deepen the understanding that they have. Questions which are built from the activating background knowledge are more interesting and intriguing. Through K-W-L strategy the students are not only encouraged to pose some questions but more to enlarge and deepen their understanding and comprehending actively. They read the text to answer their questions as fully as possible and monitor their comprehending of text by listing what they know after reading the text.
The other strategy that helps the students to increase their comprehension is reciprocal teaching strategy. Reciprocal teaching strategy involves explicit instruction by the teacher in the students’ use of the strategies, such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing, to develop their reading comprehension. As the students become more familiar with the use of the strategies, the teacher plays a less prominent role and the students develop the ability to work co-operatively with their peers (Wisaijorn, 2010).
Finding the worthy strategies in the process of teaching and learning reading is not enough. Guthrie (2004:56) stated that there must be serious attention from the teacher to know the students’ internal factors to encourage their motivation to read. One of the students’ internal factors influencing reading comprehension is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own ability to successfully something (Bandura, 1997). The students with high self-efficacy in reading comprehension are more engaged and motivated to show greater persistence and put more effort into task through their own capabilities. On the other hand, the students with low self-efficacy may perform tasks with resentment and disinterest through coercion of an external goal or reward.
(21)
Research shows that self-efficacy predicts the students’ academic motivation and learning (Pajares, 1996). He added that self-efficacy determines how much effort the students will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will prove in the face of adverse situations-the higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence, and resilience. Self-efficacy also influences the students’ thought patterns, academic behavior, social and emotional reactions.
So, realizing the condition, the researcher is interested to conduct a research on teaching strategies and the students’ self efficacy in order to develop the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. It means that the effect of applying teaching strategies will be proven whether they are effective towards the reading comprehension of the students with high efficacy and low self-efficacy.
1.2The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, it is concluded that the problems of this research are formulated in questions such as the following:
1) Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy significantly higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy?
2) Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy significantly higher than that low self-self-efficacy?
3) Is there any significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
(22)
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
It is necessary to state clearly what the objectives of the study in relation to the problems posed. The objectives of the study are:
1) to find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy is significantly higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy;
2) to find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy is significantly higher than that low self-efficacy; 3) to find out whether there is significant interaction between teaching
strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
1.4The Scope of the Study
There are many strategies which are probably used by the teacher for improving the students’ achievement in teaching reading comprehension but in this case, the scope of the study is limited on the effect of K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension based on self-efficacy. It means that by knowing the level of the students’ self-efficacy whether high or low self-efficacy, it is expected that this research will give the clear description on the effect of both teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
Narrative and analytical exposition texts are used as the reading materials in this study. Since the texts often appears in National Examination and mostly the students give the wrong answer to the question on this type texts. The levels of
(23)
reading comprehension used in this study are literal, inferential, and critical comprehension.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
First of all, findings are expected to be useful for development of theory and practice. Theoretically, it is able to give positive contribution for teaching in overcoming problem in reading through value finding in the area of teaching reading. Moreover, the students also use this finding to another subject. Even, they probably also apply this strategy when reading whatever books in order to gather the comprehension from their reading. It means that it is very useful not only for English but also for another subject in which the key of enhancing the knowledge is reading.
Practically, these research findings are hoped to be useful for English teacher, especially, because it can be used as an alternative in varying the English teaching related with reading comprehension. In hope, this research will be able to change paradigm saying that reading is a boring activity. Hopefully, by these strategies is able to be an interesting activity to be done by anyone.
(24)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and discussion, it can be concluded that:
1) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using
K-W-L strategy is higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy;
2) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy is higher than that low self-self-efficacy; and
3) There is significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
5.2. Implications
It is known that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy is higher than taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy. It emphasis that actually whatever the strategy chosen by teachers is good if the teacher pay attention to the students’ self-efficacy in order to obtain better learning achievement, especially in reading comprehension. It is because every strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses.
In this research, the strategies had attempted to be matched with the students’ self-efficacy. Although the conclusion from data analysis, research findings and discussions indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using K-W-L strategy is higher than by using reciprocal teaching strategy especially
(25)
when it is taught for the students with high self-efficacy. It is because the students with high self-efficacy are more curious and have deeper interest in learning something new through what they have known about the text, what they want to know about the text and listing what they have learned after read the text so that they feel challenged when they are asked to make their own knowledge. In this case, the students will be as creative as possible in getting new information which contains all the information in the text through some key words or paraphrase.
However, it does not mean the reciprocal teaching strategy is not as good as K-W-L strategy. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by reciprocal teaching strategy can also achieve satisfactory score when it is taught for students with low self-efficacy. It is because the way of comprehending a text suited for students with low self-efficacy is through questions word in some phases such as predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. That is why reciprocal teaching strategy is suitable to be applied for students with low self-efficacy.
Finally, the fact explained above also proofs that actually the students who have high or low self-efficacy had been able to achieve satisfactory score. What should be done is how to find eligible strategy for the students who have high or low self-efficacy so that their ability can be explored maximally.
(26)
5.3 Suggestions
In connection to the conclusions, there are some suggestions staged as the following:
1) English teachers are recommended using K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy in teaching reading comprehension since these two strategies can improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
2) English teachers are recommended using K-W-L strategy for class dominated by the students with high self-efficacy and for class dominated by the students with low self-efficacy the English teachers are recommended using reciprocal teaching strategy.
3) English teachers should check the students’ characteristics such as their self-efficacy before choosing teaching strategies. Thus, the strategies applied are matched with what they need. As the result, their brightness is able to be explored maximally.
4) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy in order to improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
(27)
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Procedure Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka.
Ary, D. J & Razaviech, H. 1979. Introduction to research in Education. New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Ary, D. et al. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson
Education.
Ary, D. 2011. Introduction to Research in Education. 8th edition. United State of
America: Wardsworth.
Asmin and Mansyur, Abdil. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar
dengan Analysis Klasik dan Modern. Medan: UNIMED.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Actions. A Social
Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Brassell, Danny and Rasinski, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works: Taking
Students beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Shell Education 5301 Oceanus Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649.
Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of Education Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York: David Mckay.
Brown, H. Doughlas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and classroom
Practices. New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D., Abeywickrama, P. 2010. Language Assessment Principles and
Classroom Practices Second Edition. NY: Pearson Education.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan
(KTSP) SLTP/MTs SLTA/MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Elliot, Andrew J and Dweeck, Carol S. 2005. Handbook of Competence and
Motivation. Guilford Press. New York London.
Greenway, C. 2002. The Process, Pitfalls and Benefit of Implementing a Reciprocal Teaching Intervention to Improve Reading Comprehension of a
Group of Year 6 Pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2),
(28)
Gregory, Robert. J. 2000. Psychological Testing: History Principles and Application (3rd edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. 2000. Engagement and Motivation in Reading. In
Snow, C. E., Reading for Understanding. RAND.
Guthrie, John T, et al. 2004. Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept
Oriented Reading Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. England:
Longman.
Harris, Karen. R and Graham, Steve. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to
Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Gilford.
Hinton, Lauren. 2008. Increasing Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Middle School Students using Quantum Learning Techniques. Unpublished Thesis: Piedmont College.
Jamal, M. Kadham. 2010. The Effect of Applying K-W-L Technique on Teaching
ESP Students. University of Baghdad.
Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S. 1997. Mosaic of Thought. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
King, C., & Johnson, L. 1999. Constructing Meaning via Reciprocal Teaching. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(3), 169-186.
Miller, M. David, Linn, Robert, L., & Groundlund, Norman, E. 2009. Measurement and Assessment in Teaching Tenth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Ogle, D. 1986. KWL: A Teaching Model that Develops Active Reading of
Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Olivia, S. Mahmmoud. 2013. The Effectiveness of Using (K.W.L) Strategy on
Developing Reading Comprehension Skills for the Eight Graders in Khanyounis Governorate Schools. Al-Azhar University – Gaza.
Owens, A. 1976. The Effect of Question Generating, Questioning, Answering, and
Reading on Prose Learning. Michigan.
Pajares, F. 1996. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Achievement Settings. Review of
(29)
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. 2001. Response format in writing self efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. 1984. Reciprocal Teaching of
Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. 1987. Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A
Review of Research and a New Conceptualization of Instruction. The
Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot., E. V. 1990. Motivational and Self-Regulated
Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of
Education Psychology, 82 (1), 22-40.
Riswanto et al. 2014. The Effect of Using KWL (Know, Want, Learned) Strategy
on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol 4, 7(1).
Syrja. 2012. How to Reach and Teach English Language Learners. Practical
Strategies to Ensure Success. San Francisco: Jhon Willey.
Schunk, D. H. 1989. Self Efficacy and Cognitive Skill Learning. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Teele, S. 2004. Overcoming Barricades to Reading Multiple Intelligences
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Torgesen, J. K. 2000. Individual Differences in Response to Early Intervention in
Reading: The Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice. Harlow: Longman.
Wagner, R. K. et al. 2009. Beyond Decoding: The Behavioral and Biological
Foundation of Reading Comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wisaijorn, Patareeya. 2010. Strategy training in the teaching of reading
comprehension; Does it work for students whose first language is NOT English?. Ubon Rajathanee: Ubon Rajathanee University.
(1)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and discussion, it can be concluded that: 1) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using
K-W-L strategy is higher than that taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy;
2) The students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high self-efficacy is higher than that low self-self-efficacy; and
3) There is significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
5.2. Implications
It is known that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using K-W-L strategy is higher than taught by using reciprocal teaching strategy. It emphasis that actually whatever the strategy chosen by teachers is good if the teacher pay attention to the students’ self-efficacy in order to obtain better learning achievement, especially in reading comprehension. It is because every strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses.
In this research, the strategies had attempted to be matched with the students’ self-efficacy. Although the conclusion from data analysis, research findings and discussions indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using K-W-L strategy is higher than by using reciprocal teaching strategy especially
(2)
when it is taught for the students with high self-efficacy. It is because the students with high self-efficacy are more curious and have deeper interest in learning something new through what they have known about the text, what they want to know about the text and listing what they have learned after read the text so that they feel challenged when they are asked to make their own knowledge. In this case, the students will be as creative as possible in getting new information which contains all the information in the text through some key words or paraphrase.
However, it does not mean the reciprocal teaching strategy is not as good as K-W-L strategy. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by reciprocal teaching strategy can also achieve satisfactory score when it is taught for students with low self-efficacy. It is because the way of comprehending a text suited for students with low self-efficacy is through questions word in some phases such as predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. That is why reciprocal teaching strategy is suitable to be applied for students with low self-efficacy.
Finally, the fact explained above also proofs that actually the students who have high or low self-efficacy had been able to achieve satisfactory score. What should be done is how to find eligible strategy for the students who have high or low self-efficacy so that their ability can be explored maximally.
(3)
5.3 Suggestions
In connection to the conclusions, there are some suggestions staged as the following:
1) English teachers are recommended using K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy in teaching reading comprehension since these two strategies can improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
2) English teachers are recommended using K-W-L strategy for class dominated by the students with high self-efficacy and for class dominated by the students with low self-efficacy the English teachers are recommended using reciprocal teaching strategy.
3) English teachers should check the students’ characteristics such as their self-efficacy before choosing teaching strategies. Thus, the strategies applied are matched with what they need. As the result, their brightness is able to be explored maximally.
4) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of K-W-L strategy and reciprocal teaching strategy in order to improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
(4)
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Procedure Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka. Ary, D. J & Razaviech, H. 1979. Introduction to research in Education. New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Ary, D. et al. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson Education.
Ary, D. 2011. Introduction to Research in Education. 8th edition. United State of America: Wardsworth.
Asmin and Mansyur, Abdil. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar
dengan Analysis Klasik dan Modern. Medan: UNIMED.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Actions. A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Brassell, Danny and Rasinski, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works: Taking Students beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Shell Education 5301 Oceanus Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649.
Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of Education Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York: David Mckay.
Brown, H. Doughlas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D., Abeywickrama, P. 2010. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices Second Edition. NY: Pearson Education.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan
(KTSP) SLTP/MTs SLTA/MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Elliot, Andrew J and Dweeck, Carol S. 2005. Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Press. New York London.
Greenway, C. 2002. The Process, Pitfalls and Benefit of Implementing a Reciprocal Teaching Intervention to Improve Reading Comprehension of a Group of Year 6 Pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 113-138.
(5)
Gregory, Robert. J. 2000. Psychological Testing: History Principles and Application (3rd edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. 2000. Engagement and Motivation in Reading. In Snow, C. E., Reading for Understanding. RAND.
Guthrie, John T, et al. 2004. Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept Oriented Reading Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. England:
Longman.
Harris, Karen. R and Graham, Steve. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Gilford.
Hinton, Lauren. 2008. Increasing Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Middle School Students using Quantum Learning Techniques. Unpublished Thesis: Piedmont College.
Jamal, M. Kadham. 2010. The Effect of Applying K-W-L Technique on Teaching ESP Students. University of Baghdad.
Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S. 1997. Mosaic of Thought. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
King, C., & Johnson, L. 1999. Constructing Meaning via Reciprocal Teaching. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(3), 169-186.
Miller, M. David, Linn, Robert, L., & Groundlund, Norman, E. 2009. Measurement and Assessment in Teaching Tenth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Ogle, D. 1986. KWL: A Teaching Model that Develops Active Reading of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Olivia, S. Mahmmoud. 2013. The Effectiveness of Using (K.W.L) Strategy on Developing Reading Comprehension Skills for the Eight Graders in Khanyounis Governorate Schools. Al-Azhar University – Gaza.
Owens, A. 1976. The Effect of Question Generating, Questioning, Answering, and Reading on Prose Learning. Michigan.
Pajares, F. 1996. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Achievement Settings. Review of Educational Research, Vol 66 (4) pp 543-578.
(6)
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. 2001. Response format in writing self efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. 1984. Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. 1987. Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A Review of Research and a New Conceptualization of Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot., E. V. 1990. Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Education Psychology, 82 (1), 22-40.
Riswanto et al. 2014. The Effect of Using KWL (Know, Want, Learned) Strategy on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol 4, 7(1).
Syrja. 2012. How to Reach and Teach English Language Learners. Practical Strategies to Ensure Success. San Francisco: Jhon Willey.
Schunk, D. H. 1989. Self Efficacy and Cognitive Skill Learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Teele, S. 2004. Overcoming Barricades to Reading Multiple Intelligences
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Torgesen, J. K. 2000. Individual Differences in Response to Early Intervention in Reading: The Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. Harlow: Longman.
Wagner, R. K. et al. 2009. Beyond Decoding: The Behavioral and Biological Foundation of Reading Comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press. Wisaijorn, Patareeya. 2010. Strategy training in the teaching of reading
comprehension; Does it work for students whose first language is NOT English?. Ubon Rajathanee: Ubon Rajathanee University.