THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND LEARNING STYLES ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION.

(1)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND LEARNING

STYLES ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING

COMPREHENSION

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By: PARWATI

Registration Number: 8106112044

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND LEARNING

STYLES ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING

COMPREHENSION

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By: PARWATI

Registration Number: 8106112044

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Parwati. Registration Number: 8106112044. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Learning Styles on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Program. State University of Medan. 2013.

The objectives of this experimental research were to investigate whether: 1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using CIRC method was higher than taught by using Jigsaw method. 2) students’ achievement in reading comprehension with visual style was higher than that students with kinesthetic style, 3) there was interaction between teaching methods and learning styles on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. The population of this research was the students in grade X of State Senior High School 1 Delitua in 2011/2012 school year.

The total number of population were 120 students. There were 100 students selected as sample of this research by applying cluster random sample technique. The research design was experimental research by using factorial design 2x2. The students were divided into two experimental groups. The experimental group 1 was treated by using CIRC method and experimental group ll was treated by using Jigsaw method. The questionnaire was conducted for classifying the students upon the visual and kinesthetic learning style. 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 reveals that (1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using CIRC was higher than that taught by using Jigsaw method, with Fobs= 3.36>Ftab=2.70, (2) students’ achievement in reading comprehension with visual learning style was higher than that with kinesthetic learning style with Fobs= 8.64>Ftable=2.70, (3) there is interaction between teaching method and learning styles on students’ achievement in reading comprehension with Fobs=7.74>Ftable=2.70. After computing the Scheffe-Test, the result showed that visual style students got higher achievement if they were taught by using CIRC method while kinesthetic style students got higher achievement if they were taught by using Jigsaw method.

(6)

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……….... i

ABSTRACT……… ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……… iii

LIST OF TABLES……….. vi

LIST OF FIGURES……… viii

LIST APPENDICES………... ix

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION... 1

1.1 The Background of The Study... 1

1.2 The Problem Identification of The Study... 8

1.3 The Problem of The Study... 8

1.4 The Scope of The Study... 9

1.5 The Objective of The Study... 9

1.6 The Significance of The Study... 10

CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 11

2.1 Theoretical Framework... 2.1.1 Students’ achievement in Reading Comprehension... 11

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension... 13

2.1.2.1 Purposes of Reading... 18

2.1.3 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension... 20

2.1.4 Genre………... 21

2.1.5 Teaching Methods... 24

2.1.6 Cooperative Learning... 27

2.1.6.1 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition(CIRC)... 28

2.1.6.2 Jigsaw... 31

2.1.6.3 The difference between Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw33 2.1.7 Learning Style... 34

(8)

2.1.7.2 Visual Learning Style... .. 37

2.1.7.3 Kinesthetic/ Tactile Learning Style... 39

2.2 Conceptual Framework...42

2.2.1 The Difference of Students’ Learning Achievement Taught By Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw Methods on Students’ Reading Comprehension ………... 44

2.2.2 The Differences Students’ Learning Achievement between Visual and Kinesthetic Learning Style on Students’ Reading Comprehension... 45

2.2.3 The Interaction Between Teaching Methods and Learning Style... 47

2.3 Relevance studies……….. 49

2.4 The Hypothesis of the Study... .. 50

CHAPTER III : METHOD OF RESEARCH... .. 50

3.1 Research Design... .. 51

3.2 Population and Sample... 51

3.2.1 Population... 51

3.2.2 Sample... 51

3.3 Procedure of The Treatment ... 52

3.4 Control Treatment……….. 54 3.5 The Variables... 55

3.6 The Instruments of Data Collection... 55

3.6.1 Questionnaire... 55

3.6.2 Reading Comprehension Test……….. 56 3.7 Validity of The Test... 57

3.8 Reability of Reading Comprehension Test………. 59 3.8.1 Difficult Index... 60

3.8.2 Discrimination power... 60

3.9 The Technique of Analyzing Data... 62

3.10 Statistical Hypothesis... 63

CHAPTER IV : Data Analysis and Research Finding……….. 64 4.1 The Data Analysis…………... 64

(9)

4.2 Requirement of Data Analysis………... …… .. 75 4.2.1 Hypothesis Testing…………..………... 77 4.3 Discussion……… 81 CHAPTER V : Conclusions, Implication, And Suggestions………... 91

5.1 Conclusions………. 91 5.2 Implications………. 91 5.3 Suggestions……….. 93

REFERENCE……….. 94

(10)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. English Semester Data of SMAN 1 Delitua……… 5

Table 2. The Difference between CIRC and Jigsaw Method 33

Table 3. Visual and Kinesthetic Learning Styles’ Characteristics 41

Table 4. Research Design……… 50

Table 5. Procedure of Treatment……… 52

Table 6. The outline of Students’ learning style Test…….. 56

Table 7. The indicators in reading comprehension Test…… 57

Table 8. The format of Two-Way ANOVA……… 62

Table 9. Summary of Research Data Description………….. 64

Table 10. Frequency Distribution Score of Students taught by Using CIRC Method……….. 65

Table 11. Frequency Distribution Score of Students taught by Using Jigsaw Method……….. 66

Table 12. Frequency Distribution Score of Students with Visual Learning Style………. 68

Table 13. Frequency Distribution Score of Students with Kinesthetic Learning Style………. 69

Table 14. Frequency Distribution Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension with Visual Learning Style and Taught by Using CIRC Method………. 70

Table 15. Frequency Distribution Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension with Visual Learning Style and Taught by Using Jigsaw Method………. 72

Table 16. Frequency Distribution Score of Students’ with kinesthetic Learning style and are taught by CIRC method……... 73

Table 17. Frequency Distribution Score of Students’ with kinesthetic Learning style and are taught by Jigsaw method……... 74

Table 18. The summary on result of Normality test………... 76

Table 19. Homogeneity Test………. 77

Table 20. Two-Way ANOVA with 2 x 2 Factorial Design………. 77

(11)

Table 22. The Result Calculation by Using Scheffe-Test………… 80

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1. VAKT Learning Style……….. 36

(12)

Table 22. The Result Calculation by Using Scheffe-Test………… 80

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1. VAKT Learning Style……….. 36

(13)

Figure 2. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught

by Using CIRC Method………. 66 Figure 3. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught

by Using Jigsaw Method……… 67 Figure 4. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught

by Using Visual Learning Style………. 68 Figure 5. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught

by Using Kinesthetic Learning Style……… 70 Figure 6. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement Taught

by CIRC method with Visual Learning Style………….. 71 Figure 7. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students

with Visual Learning Style and taught by using Jigsaw

Method……….. 72 Figure 8. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students

with Kinesthetic Learning Style and taught by using CIRC

Method……….. 74 Figure 9. Students Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students

with Kinesthetic Learning Style and taught by using Jigsaw

Method……….. 75 Figure 10. Interaction between teaching methods and learning style on

(14)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix 1. Personal Learning Style Test………. 98 Appendix 2. Reading Comprehension Test……… 101 Appendix 3. The Computation of Validity Test……… 114

Appendix 4. The Computation of Reliability Test………. 115 Appendix 5. The Computation of Difficulty Index……… 116 Appendix 6. The Computation of Discrimination Power……….. 117

(15)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of the Study

In mastering English, there are many skills that students have to master. Huda (1997) stated the specific language skills to be mastered by students are (1) effective reading ability, (2) ability to understand spoken English, (3) writing ability and (4) speaking ability. Thus, the order of language skills are reading, listening, writing, and speaking. One of the steps that learners should be mastered is reading comprehension. This thing puts reading comprehension as the main purpose of foreign language teaching in Indonesia but acquiring and mastering this step seems complex to many learners and they often find it is difficult to exploit this skills in their learning experience.

Reading is an essential skill for an students all levels and it has a large portion in teaching and learning. It is supported by Brown (2000: 185) stating that reading is arguably the most essential skill for success in all education contexts and remains a skill of paramount importance as one creates assessment of language ability.

The purpose of reading is to connect ideas in the page to what you already know. By reading the students are able to gain information and to improve their knowledge. Nunan (1999: 68) stated that reading is a fluent process of readers combining information from a text and their own background knowledge to built meaning. The fact shows that the result of teaching learning English is still low. For example, the students who have graduated from junior high school, they still find difficulty in reading. (Balitbang Depdiknas, 2002). An other fact, reading is not as a people think. It is difficult to have an ability to draw meaning from the passage and interpret the

(16)

information appropriately. Willis (1996:72) states that “I understand all the words but I don’t know what the writer is getting at” is a common complaint from the students reading a foreign language. Consequently, students will need to read the text two or three times to get even an appropriate sense. All this takes time and many less motivated students to give up.

In another words students may use their productive skills, yet still be able to comprehend texts with some degrees of proficiency. Reading whether in the first or second language context, involves the reader, the text, and the interaction between the reader and the text.

Nowadays, the ability to read and understand written materials in a foreign language is very important. It indicates that reading ability is one of the requirements to succeed not only in academic life but also in occupation, since most information and references are written in English. This condition is turns out to be one of the major concern in developing English teaching in Indonesia. Thus, it is understandable that reading and speaking ability should be acquired by Indonesian students. It is the fact that majority of the students are not independent readers and do not achieve good ability of it. The fact shows that when the students face the time-test, some of them cannot use the time wisely and answer the question correctly. It is said above that the most Senior High School students have difficulties in some English test, especially in reading comprehension. They found difficulties to understand reading text. Both of them are Recount and Narrative text.

It is as what is argued by Light and McNaughton (2012). They uttered that the reading comprehension is require the learner to decode or recognize by sight the words in the written text, understand the meaning of the words/ sentences, relate the meaning of the sentences to the rest of the text, activate prior knowledge and experience about

(17)

the topic, use this prior knowledge to infer meaning and support understanding, monitor understanding of the text continually.

Finally reading is a productive skill. Although one may read fictions for pleasure, one often read nonfictions with eyes to perform the pleasure reading therefore serves to integrate a variety of language activities and purposes. Scientific and technological information written in English are available in large number nowadays. To access such as information, the students need to be able to read and understand written source. One of the requirements of understanding the text is having linguistics competence. Linguistic competence is the system of rules that governs an individual’s tacit understanding of what is acceptable and what is not in the language they use.

In line with above consideration, the improvement of teaching reading comprehension has long been a challenge to the teachers of English and researchers as well. Reading the basic skill in mastering a foreign language since reading is an English proficiency beside listening, speaking, and writing.

Moreover, the Senior High School Curriculum concentrates on the use of genre. According to 2007/2008 the Competency Standard for Senior High School (Depdiknas, 2007 :2) the students should be able comprehend short functional text, dialogue and monologue text in form of Narrative, Recount, News Item, Descriptive, Report, Exposition, Explanation, and Discussion. They are not hoped to write a text in a certain genre, but they are expected to be able to comprehend some shorts of text and answer some questions related to the text. Therefore, it is important for the students to master genres, besides language proficiency, because they will be able to understand a reading text by mastering them.

The fact that must be realized is that to be able to access the world’s scientific and technological information, English teaching in Indonesia has been started by giving

(18)

much more attention to the implementation of developing reading comprehension. And we know, the significance of reading comprehension is really realized by government so that in the national examination (UN), the government inserts some questions which are based on reading comprehension activities from text. Event, the reading comprehension takes dominant point among the other kinds of questions starting from number sixteen until forty.

However, one of the greatest problems is that reading comprehension of senior high school students in SMAN 1 Delitua are still poor. The reality is there are so many students who are able to read aloud some texts in the class with the appropriate pronunciation but they do not know what they are reading about. They just spent their time to earn the meaning word by word, then consult the unknown vocabularies, continue with the meaning of each sentences. The fact the writer found the data from 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, many students of SMAN 1 Delitua failed in the English final Examination. It is shown by the highest scores that they got only 60,5 from 100 and the average score is about 59,5. The students made an argument that it was not easy for them to comprehend the text. Because many specific texts that they have to comprehend and through the text many specific words were needed to translate by them. Other data found that 70 % of the topics taught to the students were about reading comprehension and most of the texts were contain of specific words. It is not easy to solve this problem by the teacher and the students, but there are some books which explain about reading methods and effective reading to help learners in reading comprehension and also there are some books about the methods in teaching reading to help teacher to teach reading comprehension.

Table 1 below show the preliminary data about the scores average of SMAN 1 Delitua’s – students from 2010/2011 and 2011-2012.

(19)

Table 1 English semester data of SMAN 1 Delitua 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 Semester Means of students’ achievement in language learning Reading Writing Listening Speaking I 60,5 72,1 69,7 68,6

II 59,4 70,6 70,2 66,3 III 58,7 71,5 67,8 65,8

Mean 59,5 71,4 69,2 66,9

Based on the score of students list above, it was found out that teaching English hasn’t been satisfied especially in reading skill. It is because the students get bored directly when the text is given for them. As the result, they are less interested with further activities related with the reading text. Consider the fact happened shows that methods which are challenging the students is needed so that they are more curious in reading class. However, not all teaching methods are applicable for reading comprehension. To get effective classrooms, teachers are responsible for helping students develop better metacognitive skills by incorporating active reflection throughout the learning process (Shannon, 2008). The teaching methods needed are those able to connect the students’ prior knowledge with the new information in given text.

By having some facts related to reading comprehension, students need methods in order to overcome their lack desire of reading comprehension. By having those methods, students are expected to achieve good comprehension in reading. There are many methods can be used to increase students’ reading comprehension. Here are two simple methods which are selected in this study. They are Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw.

(20)

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) is a comprehensive approach to instruction in reading and composition/language arts for grades ten in senior high school. In CIRC students are taught in reading groups and then return to mixed ability teams to work on a series of cognitively engaging activities, including partner reading, making predictions, identification of characters, settings, problem and problem solutions, summarization, vocabulary, reading comprehension exercises, and story-related writing. Meanwhile, Jigsaw is a cooperative teaching strategy with a three decade track record of successfully reducing racial conflict and increasing positive educational outcomes. The jigsaw process encaurages listening, engagement, and empathy by giving each member of the group an essential part to play in the academic activity. Group member must work together as a team to accomplish a common goal; each person depends on all the others. No student can succeed completely unless everyone works well together as a team.

These two methods actually are not new anymore. They apply students centered approach where the students are in active learning while the teacher is just a facilitator. These two methods will be treated the different students’ learning styles because students must have different learning style in teaching-learning proccess in reading. Terrence Morrison (2001:53) stated that within each from intellegence, people are also who exhibit different learning style. So, realizing the condition, the learning style is also considered as interesting one to be researched in order to see the effect of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw methods. Visual and kinesthetic learning style are chosen in this research.

Visual learning style is learning style is learning through seeing. It means the students need to see the teacher’s body language and facial expression to fully understand the content of the lesson. The students learn best from visual display

(21)

including pictures, Diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-outs. In visual learning style the students need notes to absorb the information. Kinesthetic learning style is learning more effective through touch. It means kinesthetic learners receive and process information through their sense of touch. Students learn best when they are able to physically participate directly in what they are required to learn or understand. Kinesthetic learners usually excel when they are able to handle something in order to learn about it. Kinesthetic learners may do especially well in classes where lab work is required.

Besides those methods, and learning styles the researcher will carry the reading comprehension focus to Recount and Narrative text. Based on Senior High School Syllabus developed by government, Recount and Narrative are taught in the first grade of Senior High School. That is why the researcher considers that Recount and Narrative is the most important genre since it is taught in the first grade of Senior High Scool.

1.2 The Problems Identification of the study

The problems identification of this study is gathered by the researcher after observing SMAN 1 Delitua. From the observation, it is known that the students’ result in reading is the lowest one if it is compared with other language skills such as listening, writing, and speaking. In edition, the students also stated that they felt difficult in getting the real meaning eventhough they have had known the meaning of each vocabulary. Because of these reason, the researcher identifies that the problem which is the most important to be solved is the problem related with reading comprehension so that they are be able to get the meaning of each words and communicate with the text by activating their schemata with the text they are reading.

(22)

By focus on this research, the researcher want to prove that Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw methods appropriate to the visual and kinesthetic learning styles and will be affected significantly on students’ reading comprehension.

1.3 The Problems of The Study

Based on the background which is given above, this study will investigate the use of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) on visual and kinesthetic learning style in English classroom. The problem of the study can be formulated in the following questions:

1. Is the students’ achievement taught by using Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) higher than Jigsaw on students’ achievement in reading comprehension?

2. Is the students’ learning achievement with visual learning style higher than kinesthetic learning style on students’ reading comprehension?

3. Is there any interaction

between teaching methods and learning styles?

1.4 The Scope of the Study

This research is to know the effect of teaching methods and learning styles on students’ reading comprehension. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and Jigsaw are applied to be the teaching methods in the classroom. And visual and kinesthetic are chosen as a students’ learning style in applying teaching methods. All of the methods and learning styles will be applied to investigate students’ reading

(23)

comprehension. The text of narrative and recount were used as the reading materials for senior high school.

1.5 The Objectives of the Study

Based on the background and the problem above the objectives of the research can be formulated as:

1) to analyze whether the students’ learning achievement are taught by Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) is higher than Jigsaw on students’ reading comprehension.

2) to analyze whether the students learning achievement with visual learning style is higher than kinesthetic on students’ reading comprehension.

3) to analize the interaction between teaching methods and learning styles.

1.6 The Significances of the Study

The significances of the study can be theoretically and practically, namely: a. Theoretically:

-The teachers will get the input which can make the students’ reading comprehension improve.

-The result of this research can be used as the references for those who want to conduct a research in improving the reading comprehension.

b. Practically:

-Students’ ability in reading comprehension can be developed to the higher level comprehension skills.

(24)

-Students’ learning styles should be investigated and accommodated by the teacher before teaching and learning process.

-English teachers as a contribution in improving their teaching methods especially in teaching reading comprehension as well as improving their students’ ability in reading comprehension.

(25)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the data analysis and research findings at the previous chapter, it is concluded that:

1) students’ achievement in reading comprehension text by using CIRC method is higher than that taught by using jigsaw method.

2) in reading comprehension, the achievement of students with visual learning style is higher than students with kinesthetic learning style. 3) there is significant interaction between teaching methods and

learning style on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. On the other words, it can be said that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension is influenced by teaching method and students’ learning style.

5.2. Implications

It is known that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using CIRC method is higher than taught by using jigsaw method. It emphasis that actually whatever the method chosen by teachers is good if it is based on the students’ need, style and background so that it is highly matching. It is because every method has its own strengths and weaknesses.

(26)

In this research, the methods had attempted to be matched with students’ learning styles. Although the conclusion from data analysis, research findings and discussions indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using CIRC method is higher than by using jigsaw method especially when it is taught for students with visual style. It is because students with visual style are more curious in learning something through picture, structure, or chart 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 jigsaw method is not as good as CIRC method. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by jigsaw method can also achieve satisfactory score when it is taught for students with kinesthetic style. It is because the way of comprehending a text suited for students with kinesthetic style is through students work in pairs to identify five critical features of each narrative or recount story: characters, setting, problems, attempted solutions, final solution. That is why jigsaw method is suitable to be applied for students with kinesthetic style.

The fact explained also proofs that actually all learning styles of students are good. Either visual or kinesthetic styles had been able to achieve satisfactory score. Therefore , it can not be argued that a learning style is better than others because it comes naturally in the students’ it selves what should be done is how to find eligible method for the learning styles so that their ability can be explored maximally.

(27)

5.3 Suggestions

In connection to the conclusions, there are some suggestions staged as the following:

1. English teachers are recommended using CIRC and Jigsaw method in teaching reading comprehension since these two methods can be improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Teacher should recognize and understand the students’ learning styles of each student when they are applying the methods in teaching.

2. it is highly recommended for teachers to use CIRC method for class dominated by students with visual style while for class dominated by students with kinesthetic style, teachers is recommended to use jigsaw method.

3. other researchers may take a further research in the area CIRC and jigsaw method that will improve students achievement in reading comprehension. While still many weakness of this research, for the other research who want to conduct this method, it is suggested to learn more about the symbols in CIRC method and the application of the jigsaw’s principles in the application.

(28)

References

Aini. 2011. The effect of teaching methods and vocabulary mastery on students achievement in reading comprehension. Medan. Unpublished Thesis. Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Procedure Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka

Ary, D., Jacobs., L. C, Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education, 8th edition. Canada: Cengage Learning

Asmin and Mansyur, Abdil. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analysis Klasik dan Modern

Bloom, B. 1982. Taxonomy of Education objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay

Bond, Guy. L. et all. 1984. Reading Difficulties (Their Diagnosis and Correction). New Jersy:Practice- Hall.

Brown, H. Doughlas.2000. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. San Fransisco: Addison Wesley Longman

Brown, D.H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education inc.

Carnine, Douglas; Silbert, Jerry; Kameenui, Edward.J. 1990. Direct Instruction Reading (Second Edition). New York: Merill Publishing.

Carter. 2011. Learning Styles and Strategies. Carolina: Carolina State university. Coldwell, Jo Anne Schudut. 2008. Comprehension Assessment. London: The

Fuilford Press.

Cottell, P.G., and B.J. Millis, 1992, Cooperative Learning in Accounting, Journal of Accounting Education 10, 95-111.

Cottell, P.G., and B.J. Millis, 1993, Cooperation Learning Structures in the Instruction of Accounting, Issues in Accounting Education 8 (1), 40-60. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students through their Individual

Learning Styles. APractical Approach. Prentice Hall, Reston, VA., ISBN: 10: 0879098082, 336.

(29)

Durukan, E. 2010. Effects of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) technique on reading writing skill. Journal of academic. Vol.6(1), pp.102-109.

Enwistle, NJ.1998. Improving Teaching through Research on Student learning. In JJ Forest (ed) University Teaching : International perspective. Garland: New York

Fauziatul. 2007. The effect of methods of teaching in reading ability on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Medan. Unpublished Thesis. Felder, Richard. M and Henriques, Eunice. R. 1995. Learning and teaching Styles

in foreign and Second Language Education. Journal of foreign language Annals. Vol 28 (1), pp 21-31

Gerot, L, and Peter Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Aintipodean Educational Enterprises

Goodman, K.S.1998. The Reading Process. In Carrel, P.L, Joanne, D. and David, E.E (Ebs) Interacting Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W and Stoller, F.L. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. British: Pearson Education

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English language teaching. London: Longman

Hodge and Kress.1988. Genre and Language Teaching. London:Longman.

Huda, N.1997. A National Strategy in Achieving English Communication Ability Globalization Perspectives, The Journal of Education, December 1997, Volume 4, special edition.

Ishjoni. 2009. Cooperative Learning (2nd Edition). Bandung: Alfabeta.

Kagan, Spencer.1990. Cooperative Learning: Resource for teachers. San Juan Capistrano. CA: Resource teachers.

Knight.1994. Genre in Language Learning . New York: The Gilford.

Light, Jenice and McNaughton, David. 2012. Literacy Instruction for Individuals with Autism Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.

(30)

Linksman, Ricki.1996. How to learn anything quickly. Canada: A Catidel

Litzinger, Thomas. A, et all. 2007. A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles. Pennyslvania: Pennyslvania State University.

Mayer, Robert.1990. America Psichologist. New York: The Guilfor Press.

McCarthy, M., Experiential Learning Theory: From Theory to Practice, 2010 Journal of Business & Economics Research 8 (5), 131-139.

Mcneil, J.D. 1992. Reading Comprehension. New Direction for Classroom Practice. New York: Harper Collin Publisher.

Mitchell, C. 1995. Learning Style. Further Education Development Agency. London

Morrison, Terrence. 2001. Actionable Learning (A Hand book for Capacity Building through Case Based Learning). Tokyo: Asian Development Institute.

Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publisher

O’sullivan,et all.1994. Learning with Genres. New York : The Gilford

Popham, James, and Eva .2003. Teknik Mengajar Secara Sistematis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Purba, D.C.S. 2010. The effect of teaching strategies and learning styles on

students’ reading comprehension. Medan. Unpublished Thesis.

Quandt, Ivan J. 1977. Teaching Reading: a Human Process . Rand McNally College Publishing Co.

Reid, J. 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle

Reid. J. 1996. A Learning Styles unit for the intermediate ESL/EFL writing classroom. TESOL Journal

Rose, C & Nicholle J.M. 2003. Accelerated learning for the 21st century. Cara Belajar Cepat Abad XXI. Penerjemah: Dedi Ahimsah. Jakarta. Nuansa

(31)

Scarcella, Robin. C. and Oxford, Rebecca. L. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning (The individual in the Communicative Classroom. New York : Heinle & Heinle.

Senemeglu N. 1997. Development, learning and teaching: implementing theory. Ankara Spot Publication

Shannon, Steven. V. 2008. Using Metacognitive Strategies and Learning Styles to Create Self-Directed Learners. Journal of learning Style, Vol 1 pp 14-29 Slavin, R. E. 1995. Cooperative Learning (2nd Edition). United States of America:

A Simon & Schuster.

Tornbury, Scott. 2005. An A-Z of English Language Teaching. London. Longman: Macmilian

Weaver, B. 1999. Understanding Reading Assessment Scores. http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4448

Weir, Cyril J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. Prentice Hall International (UK).

Wilis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task Based Learning. London: Longman Williams. (1984) Reading in the Language Classroom. London:Macmillan.