The effects of vocabulary before reading and question before reading on the students' reading comprehension achievement - Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya Repository
THE, EFFECTSOF VOCABULARY BEFORE
READING AND qUESTION BEFORE READING ON
THE STUDENTS'READING COMPREHENSION
ACHI EVEMENT
A THESIS
As PartialFulfrllmentof the Requiroments
Forthe SarjanaPendidikanDegreein
EnglishLanguage
TeachingFaculty
a 1-rXU
By:
r 213002046
U N IV E R S IT AK
SA T OL IKWIDYA MANDALASURABAYA
FAKULTAS
KEGURUAN
DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN
J U R U S A NP E N D I D I K AB
NA H A S AD A N S E N I
F ROGR A MS T U D I P E N DIDIKAN
BAHASAINGGRIS
JU L t, 2006
THE EFFECTSOF VOCABULARYBEFOREREADN\IG
AND QUESTIONBEFOREREADINGON THE
READ1NG
COMPREHENSION
STUDENTS'
ACHIEVEMENT
A THES1S
As a Partiai Fulfilhnentof the Requirentettts
fbr the SarlanaPendidikanDeE-eein
EnglishLanguageTeachingFaculty
B)':
SHIENNY VERONICA WIJAYA
1213002046
KATOLIK WIDYA MANDAIA SURABAI'A
UNIVERSITAS
FAKULTAS KEGURUANDAN ILlVruPENDIDIKANJLIRUIiAN
PE\IDIDIKANBAHASADAN SENI
PROGRAMSTUDIBAHASA INGGRIS
JL]LI,2006
APPROVAL SHEET
(1)
The thesis entitlcd "-IHE EFFECTSOF VOCABULARY BEEQRE
READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT" preparedand submittedby
Shienny Veronica Wijaya (1213002046) has been approved and accepted as a
partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in
English LanguageTeaching by the following advisors:
Dr. AgustinusNgadiman
First Advisor
A. Lenn-vSetiawati.M. TESOL
SecondAdvisor
APPROVAL SHBBT
(2)
This thesishasbeenexamincdby the Committeeon Oral Examination
on July 3'd,2006.
with the gradeof
r i-\
\\
,T\ ,
../--'/
Dra. M.N. Siti Mina Tamah.M.Pd
Chairperson
Member
P. Hady Sutris Winarlim. M.Sc
Member
Member
A.Lenny Setiawati.M.TESOL
Member
6ninsTinsastutiS.
Approved by:
d.
ACKI\{OWLEDCEN,IENTS
First of all. the rvriter rvould like to thank God tbrHis blessingso that she
r i a sa b l et o t l n i s ht h i st h e s i s
The rvriter also *ould like to expressher _eratitude
to some marvelous
peoplervho have played importantroles in helping and guiding her to make this
.r-l----
-l---:-
- -,-,I-
I it es ls . i nr ls e p e o p i e w e te .
l. Dr Agustinus Ngadiman as the u'riter's first advisor, u'ho has spent his
r.aluabletime in guiding. helpingand encouragingher so that the u'riter c,ould
^^^-_--_-t:-r-t-:- -l--,:- - -:,-- a ( { - ( ) r n p l t 5 { lt I S L I l e s l S( ) I l t r r n e .
I
A. Lennl Setiar.vati,\1 TESOL as the rvriter's second adr,isor vu.hohas
devoted manv valuable hours in supporting,encouragingand helping her
l-
-.-: .-
rI-_
-t__-:_
-.--:-
iiilfin3 Inc iitesis\\ f iliitg.
i.
Drs. NvomanArcanarvho hasexplainedaboutthe statisticsand lent the rr;riter
s(\nrebooksaboutsratistics
-+ Sr SophiaS Sp S, theheadmistress
ofS\'IPK SantaAgnes.*ho hasbet:nso
kind and gavewarm w.elcomethe writer to do her researchat this school.
i
i s a b e i i aK u t a r - S P d . t h e E r r g i i s ht e a c h e or f S i \ l P K S a r r t a. \ : r r t e sS u r a l r a r a .
rvho has given a rvarnr rveicome. cooperation, helptul guidance and
intbrmationof the studentsto the writer durin.gher research
{r All studentsofS\{PK SantaAgnesSurabaya
especially
those
1.ear3005/?006.
rlltr'r *ere in ciass lllB and lllC rvho hal'e detrnitely createdan enjoyable
in the classroom
in the erperiment.
atnrosphere
andparticipated
7
Prot Dr. \reronicaL Diptoadi rvho has beena truly inspirationtbr the u.riter
in completingher study.
8. Tire rvriter'sfamily rviroirasheipeclmuch and offerecltheir wartnestlove,and
attelltion.
9
The rvriter's best friends q'ho have been man'eloustiiends and helpeclthe
_
,- : . - - ^ : _ -^ - _ - - ^ - -___,. ,
\\ flIefs lll S(l lllalr\'\ a-\-S.
At 1ast.the rvriter also otlers her sincerethanksfor everyonervho cannot
yet cannotbe tbr-sotten.This thesisis dedicatedto all of them.
be rnenticlned
\.eronicaWij aya
Shienn-v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACK\OWLEDGEME\-T
I
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
viii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
ABSTRACT
CH.{PIERS
1 I\-TRODUCT]ON
L i Background
I
1.2Statement
olthe Problem
.1
l.-i Objectire of the Stud1,
5
1 4 Sienitlcance
ofthe Studv
6
l 5 TireoreticalFramervork
1
I 6 Hypotheses
8
I 7 Scopeand Limitation of the Study
I
i.8 Deilnitionsof Ke_vTerurs
10
1.9Tlie Organization
of the Thesis
ll
]. REVIE\\iOF RELATEDLITERATURE
2 I Reading
11
2 I I The Natureof ReadingComprehension
1:
2 I 2 The Role of Readin_u
Comprehension
Teacher
| ,,t
2.I -l The Role of \/ocatrulary
in ReadingConrprehension
15
lll
Page
2 2 Schemata
t5
2l I The Schemata
Theory
15
2 2 2 The FunctionsofSchemata
to
I I i The Tlpes ofSchemata
t6
2 -l Pre-Readin-e
Activities
I7
1.4 \ ocabulary'befbre
Reading
l8
2 5 The Applicationof VocabularybefbreReading
20
i r r P l e - R e a d i n{cc.t i r i t i e s
1.6 QuestionbetbreReading
:'I
2.7 SeveralWavs of ProvidingQuestionbefbreReading
22
1 8 Tvpesof readingCor.nprehensic'rn
Questions
23
I t) The RelatedStudies
25
2 9 1 PreviousStudiesDone at Widya MandalaC'atholic
U niversitv
l cl.l The Similaritiesand Difterencesbet\.veen
the Previous 26
Studiesandthe Writer'sStudy
r RESE\RCH DESIGN.\\D \{ETHODOLOGY
3 l ResearchDesign
28
-l l The Populationand Sample
29
i -l The \/ariables
30
-1.-* Researchlnstrument
3l
-l -l I Validityof the Test
il'
-)-t
P'age
3 4 2 Reliability
)+
-1.4-l ltem Anallsis
l5
-1.-1.-1.
I ltem Difliculty
3-5
3 4I:
i6
I t e n rD i s c r i n t i n a t i o n
-1.5The Treatments
l8
i.6 The ScoringTechniques
.tl
1.7 Procedure
Data
of Collectin-e
4l
-1.7.1
The Preparation
Stage
tl
-l 7 2 The ExperimentalStage
+',
3 7.1 The Scheduletbr the Experin.rerrt
+-l
-i.8 Procedureoi Analyzing the Data
+.-t
.I RESLILTSOF DATA A}iALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4 1 Findines
-+I I The Resultof Data,A,nalysis
jt "l
-1I 1 I The Total Scoreof ReadinsComprehension
Post-Test
.+8
4 1 1.2Several
Tvpesof Reading
Comprehension
in Post-Test
.+9
4.1 I -l The Resultof t-testfbr EachItem
I l l The Hrpotheses
Testing
4. i.f .1 The NlajorHypothesis
.53
1 1 L.2 The Nlinor Hypothesis
)4
Page
.1.2Discussions
of the Findines
:\7
5 CONCLUSIONAND SLIGGESTION
-i.I Sr-rmmarv
and Conclusion
(il
-i.1 Suggestion
(ri
5.-l Areasfbr FutureResearch
(ii
ri5
REFERE\CES
APPF-\DICES
A The Calculationof the Ditl-rcultyInder and
b8
Discrimination
of the FirstTry Out
B The Calculationof ReliabilityKR-21 of the FirstTry Out
C The Calculationof the Dilficultv Incler and
72
'71
Discrimination
of the SecondTry Out
D The Calculationof ReliabilityKR-2 I of the SecondTry Out
'78
E. The CalcuIation
of t-testfirl Pre-Test
i30
F. The Calculationof t-testibr Post-Test
i32
G. The Calculationof t-testtbr Detail Questions
134
H The Calculationof t-testibr VocabularyQuestions
136
L The Calculationof t-testtbr RetbrenceWord Questions
t38
J. The Calculationof t-testfor i\{ain Idea Questions
,10
K. Critical Valuesof the t Distribution
vl
Page
L. LessonPlanfor the First Treatment
93
\{. LessonPlanfor the SecondTreatment
I L5
N LessonPlan tbr the Third Treatment
l-;6
O. ReadingComprehension
Test..\nsu'er Sheet,and AnsrverKey
lb l
vll
LIST OF TABLES
Pai4e
Tabie
29
-l I The ResearchDesign
I I
-lable
of Populationand Sarnple
t0
-i.-i Tabie ol Speciticationof the ResearchInstrumentof the Study
-)_:
i.4 Tableof the Treatments
i9
-i 5 The Scheciuie
of the Erperiment
44
-+.I -fhe t-testof the ReadingComprehension
Post-TestTotal Score
49
4:
A Sumnrarvof the t{est for DetailQuestions
50
4 -i A Summarvolthe t-testfor VocabularyQuestions
5l
4 4 i\ Summarvof the t-testfbr RefbrenceWord Questions
J/.
4 5 A Suurnrary
of thet-testtbr lv'{ain
ldeaQuestions
52
4 6 ,\ Summar-v
of the Resultof t-testtbr Typesot
5-l
ReadinqComprehension
in the Post-Test
Questions
:17 The Resultof t-testAnall'sison the Total Post-TestScore
54
:1I
55
19
The Resultof t-testAnalysison the Detail Questions
'fhe
Resultof t-testAnalysison the VocabularyQuestions
56
4 l0 The Resultof t-testAnalvsison the ReferenceWord Questions
_s6
-1 tl The Resrrltof t{est Analysison the Main ldeaQuestions
57
vl11
ABSTRACT
\\.ija1a. Sliiennv\-eronica.2006. The Eti-ectsol \-ocabuiarybeforeReadingand
Q u e s t i o nb e l o r e R e a d i n r .ot n t h e S l u d e n t s ' R e a d i n gC o m p r e h e r r s r o n
Achiel'ement,S-l thesis,English Department,TeacherTraining FacuLtyof
\\ridy-a Nlandala Catholic University. Surabaya. Advisors: ( l) Dr.
AgustinusNgadirnan.(2) A LennySetia*'ati.M TESOL
Keluorcis: \iocabuiary belore Reaciing. Question before Reading, Reading
Achievement
Conrpleheusic'rn,
Scientistsprore that schematahold a -ereatint-luencein students'reading
conrprehension.
By activatingstudents'schemata.teachercan help the studentsto
achier,ebetter comprehensionon a reading text. The entire reading teachers
realizethis, theretbre,they alu'aysconducta kind of pre-readingactivity. which is
questionbefbre leadingto activatestudents'schemataon the topic discu:ssed.
Hou'er''er-this pre-reading activitv is not sufficient in activating students'
providing thern with vocabularyknowledge befbre they reaclthe
schenrata,-".-et
ie\t. ln ihis studt..the *.riter suggesiedto usevocabular,v
belbre readinginsteadof
o "! Jr i,, '' v" , l
\- t" u
h^t;"^.^'"1;.^
i^
tho
'.'o
.^ri"ir.,
"^.,1i-,,
Furthermore.this experimentalstudy was the conductedto seethe effect
ofvocabulaw beibre readingand questionbefbrereadingon the students'reading
comprehension
achievement.The purposeofthe studvrvasto find out the answer
oi a cluestion: "Is there anv signilicant ditl'erence betu'een the reading
conrpreirensionaclrievenrentof the studentstaught using vocabularv befbre
reatiingancithosetaughtusing questionbelore reading?"The hl,pothesis\.!asthen
put tbru'ard.There is a signiticantdiftbrencebet*,eenthe readin-ccomprehension
achier.ementof the studentstaught using vocabularybefore reading and those
taughtusing questionbefbrereadin_q.
A quasi e\perimental studf in intact classesw'as then carried out 81'
having the studentsof the third gradeof SMPK St.Agnesyear 2005/2006as the
sample.the w.riterconducteda pretest-posttest
two groups design in this studl
The test used u;as in the tbrm of multiple choice coniprehensionquestions,
consistedof 30 numbers The result of the post-testwas then anal-yzed
b1'using
t-test formula to see rvhetherthere is any significant difference bet\'veenthe
reading cornprehensionachievementof the studentstaught using vocabularv
beibre readingand tiroseraugirtusingquestionbetbrereading.
The data analvsis revealedthat vocabularvbefbre reading gave b,etter
eil'ecton the students'readingcomprehension
achievement.A tirrtheranalysison
the str.rcients'
abiiit-vin ansr.verin-9
diilerent kin
READING AND qUESTION BEFORE READING ON
THE STUDENTS'READING COMPREHENSION
ACHI EVEMENT
A THESIS
As PartialFulfrllmentof the Requiroments
Forthe SarjanaPendidikanDegreein
EnglishLanguage
TeachingFaculty
a 1-rXU
By:
r 213002046
U N IV E R S IT AK
SA T OL IKWIDYA MANDALASURABAYA
FAKULTAS
KEGURUAN
DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN
J U R U S A NP E N D I D I K AB
NA H A S AD A N S E N I
F ROGR A MS T U D I P E N DIDIKAN
BAHASAINGGRIS
JU L t, 2006
THE EFFECTSOF VOCABULARYBEFOREREADN\IG
AND QUESTIONBEFOREREADINGON THE
READ1NG
COMPREHENSION
STUDENTS'
ACHIEVEMENT
A THES1S
As a Partiai Fulfilhnentof the Requirentettts
fbr the SarlanaPendidikanDeE-eein
EnglishLanguageTeachingFaculty
B)':
SHIENNY VERONICA WIJAYA
1213002046
KATOLIK WIDYA MANDAIA SURABAI'A
UNIVERSITAS
FAKULTAS KEGURUANDAN ILlVruPENDIDIKANJLIRUIiAN
PE\IDIDIKANBAHASADAN SENI
PROGRAMSTUDIBAHASA INGGRIS
JL]LI,2006
APPROVAL SHEET
(1)
The thesis entitlcd "-IHE EFFECTSOF VOCABULARY BEEQRE
READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT" preparedand submittedby
Shienny Veronica Wijaya (1213002046) has been approved and accepted as a
partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in
English LanguageTeaching by the following advisors:
Dr. AgustinusNgadiman
First Advisor
A. Lenn-vSetiawati.M. TESOL
SecondAdvisor
APPROVAL SHBBT
(2)
This thesishasbeenexamincdby the Committeeon Oral Examination
on July 3'd,2006.
with the gradeof
r i-\
\\
,T\ ,
../--'/
Dra. M.N. Siti Mina Tamah.M.Pd
Chairperson
Member
P. Hady Sutris Winarlim. M.Sc
Member
Member
A.Lenny Setiawati.M.TESOL
Member
6ninsTinsastutiS.
Approved by:
d.
ACKI\{OWLEDCEN,IENTS
First of all. the rvriter rvould like to thank God tbrHis blessingso that she
r i a sa b l et o t l n i s ht h i st h e s i s
The rvriter also *ould like to expressher _eratitude
to some marvelous
peoplervho have played importantroles in helping and guiding her to make this
.r-l----
-l---:-
- -,-,I-
I it es ls . i nr ls e p e o p i e w e te .
l. Dr Agustinus Ngadiman as the u'riter's first advisor, u'ho has spent his
r.aluabletime in guiding. helpingand encouragingher so that the u'riter c,ould
^^^-_--_-t:-r-t-:- -l--,:- - -:,-- a ( { - ( ) r n p l t 5 { lt I S L I l e s l S( ) I l t r r n e .
I
A. Lennl Setiar.vati,\1 TESOL as the rvriter's second adr,isor vu.hohas
devoted manv valuable hours in supporting,encouragingand helping her
l-
-.-: .-
rI-_
-t__-:_
-.--:-
iiilfin3 Inc iitesis\\ f iliitg.
i.
Drs. NvomanArcanarvho hasexplainedaboutthe statisticsand lent the rr;riter
s(\nrebooksaboutsratistics
-+ Sr SophiaS Sp S, theheadmistress
ofS\'IPK SantaAgnes.*ho hasbet:nso
kind and gavewarm w.elcomethe writer to do her researchat this school.
i
i s a b e i i aK u t a r - S P d . t h e E r r g i i s ht e a c h e or f S i \ l P K S a r r t a. \ : r r t e sS u r a l r a r a .
rvho has given a rvarnr rveicome. cooperation, helptul guidance and
intbrmationof the studentsto the writer durin.gher research
{r All studentsofS\{PK SantaAgnesSurabaya
especially
those
1.ear3005/?006.
rlltr'r *ere in ciass lllB and lllC rvho hal'e detrnitely createdan enjoyable
in the classroom
in the erperiment.
atnrosphere
andparticipated
7
Prot Dr. \reronicaL Diptoadi rvho has beena truly inspirationtbr the u.riter
in completingher study.
8. Tire rvriter'sfamily rviroirasheipeclmuch and offerecltheir wartnestlove,and
attelltion.
9
The rvriter's best friends q'ho have been man'eloustiiends and helpeclthe
_
,- : . - - ^ : _ -^ - _ - - ^ - -___,. ,
\\ flIefs lll S(l lllalr\'\ a-\-S.
At 1ast.the rvriter also otlers her sincerethanksfor everyonervho cannot
yet cannotbe tbr-sotten.This thesisis dedicatedto all of them.
be rnenticlned
\.eronicaWij aya
Shienn-v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACK\OWLEDGEME\-T
I
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
viii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
ABSTRACT
CH.{PIERS
1 I\-TRODUCT]ON
L i Background
I
1.2Statement
olthe Problem
.1
l.-i Objectire of the Stud1,
5
1 4 Sienitlcance
ofthe Studv
6
l 5 TireoreticalFramervork
1
I 6 Hypotheses
8
I 7 Scopeand Limitation of the Study
I
i.8 Deilnitionsof Ke_vTerurs
10
1.9Tlie Organization
of the Thesis
ll
]. REVIE\\iOF RELATEDLITERATURE
2 I Reading
11
2 I I The Natureof ReadingComprehension
1:
2 I 2 The Role of Readin_u
Comprehension
Teacher
| ,,t
2.I -l The Role of \/ocatrulary
in ReadingConrprehension
15
lll
Page
2 2 Schemata
t5
2l I The Schemata
Theory
15
2 2 2 The FunctionsofSchemata
to
I I i The Tlpes ofSchemata
t6
2 -l Pre-Readin-e
Activities
I7
1.4 \ ocabulary'befbre
Reading
l8
2 5 The Applicationof VocabularybefbreReading
20
i r r P l e - R e a d i n{cc.t i r i t i e s
1.6 QuestionbetbreReading
:'I
2.7 SeveralWavs of ProvidingQuestionbefbreReading
22
1 8 Tvpesof readingCor.nprehensic'rn
Questions
23
I t) The RelatedStudies
25
2 9 1 PreviousStudiesDone at Widya MandalaC'atholic
U niversitv
l cl.l The Similaritiesand Difterencesbet\.veen
the Previous 26
Studiesandthe Writer'sStudy
r RESE\RCH DESIGN.\\D \{ETHODOLOGY
3 l ResearchDesign
28
-l l The Populationand Sample
29
i -l The \/ariables
30
-1.-* Researchlnstrument
3l
-l -l I Validityof the Test
il'
-)-t
P'age
3 4 2 Reliability
)+
-1.4-l ltem Anallsis
l5
-1.-1.-1.
I ltem Difliculty
3-5
3 4I:
i6
I t e n rD i s c r i n t i n a t i o n
-1.5The Treatments
l8
i.6 The ScoringTechniques
.tl
1.7 Procedure
Data
of Collectin-e
4l
-1.7.1
The Preparation
Stage
tl
-l 7 2 The ExperimentalStage
+',
3 7.1 The Scheduletbr the Experin.rerrt
+-l
-i.8 Procedureoi Analyzing the Data
+.-t
.I RESLILTSOF DATA A}iALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4 1 Findines
-+I I The Resultof Data,A,nalysis
jt "l
-1I 1 I The Total Scoreof ReadinsComprehension
Post-Test
.+8
4 1 1.2Several
Tvpesof Reading
Comprehension
in Post-Test
.+9
4.1 I -l The Resultof t-testfbr EachItem
I l l The Hrpotheses
Testing
4. i.f .1 The NlajorHypothesis
.53
1 1 L.2 The Nlinor Hypothesis
)4
Page
.1.2Discussions
of the Findines
:\7
5 CONCLUSIONAND SLIGGESTION
-i.I Sr-rmmarv
and Conclusion
(il
-i.1 Suggestion
(ri
5.-l Areasfbr FutureResearch
(ii
ri5
REFERE\CES
APPF-\DICES
A The Calculationof the Ditl-rcultyInder and
b8
Discrimination
of the FirstTry Out
B The Calculationof ReliabilityKR-21 of the FirstTry Out
C The Calculationof the Dilficultv Incler and
72
'71
Discrimination
of the SecondTry Out
D The Calculationof ReliabilityKR-2 I of the SecondTry Out
'78
E. The CalcuIation
of t-testfirl Pre-Test
i30
F. The Calculationof t-testibr Post-Test
i32
G. The Calculationof t-testtbr Detail Questions
134
H The Calculationof t-testibr VocabularyQuestions
136
L The Calculationof t-testtbr RetbrenceWord Questions
t38
J. The Calculationof t-testfor i\{ain Idea Questions
,10
K. Critical Valuesof the t Distribution
vl
Page
L. LessonPlanfor the First Treatment
93
\{. LessonPlanfor the SecondTreatment
I L5
N LessonPlan tbr the Third Treatment
l-;6
O. ReadingComprehension
Test..\nsu'er Sheet,and AnsrverKey
lb l
vll
LIST OF TABLES
Pai4e
Tabie
29
-l I The ResearchDesign
I I
-lable
of Populationand Sarnple
t0
-i.-i Tabie ol Speciticationof the ResearchInstrumentof the Study
-)_:
i.4 Tableof the Treatments
i9
-i 5 The Scheciuie
of the Erperiment
44
-+.I -fhe t-testof the ReadingComprehension
Post-TestTotal Score
49
4:
A Sumnrarvof the t{est for DetailQuestions
50
4 -i A Summarvolthe t-testfor VocabularyQuestions
5l
4 4 i\ Summarvof the t-testfbr RefbrenceWord Questions
J/.
4 5 A Suurnrary
of thet-testtbr lv'{ain
ldeaQuestions
52
4 6 ,\ Summar-v
of the Resultof t-testtbr Typesot
5-l
ReadinqComprehension
in the Post-Test
Questions
:17 The Resultof t-testAnall'sison the Total Post-TestScore
54
:1I
55
19
The Resultof t-testAnalysison the Detail Questions
'fhe
Resultof t-testAnalysison the VocabularyQuestions
56
4 l0 The Resultof t-testAnalvsison the ReferenceWord Questions
_s6
-1 tl The Resrrltof t{est Analysison the Main ldeaQuestions
57
vl11
ABSTRACT
\\.ija1a. Sliiennv\-eronica.2006. The Eti-ectsol \-ocabuiarybeforeReadingand
Q u e s t i o nb e l o r e R e a d i n r .ot n t h e S l u d e n t s ' R e a d i n gC o m p r e h e r r s r o n
Achiel'ement,S-l thesis,English Department,TeacherTraining FacuLtyof
\\ridy-a Nlandala Catholic University. Surabaya. Advisors: ( l) Dr.
AgustinusNgadirnan.(2) A LennySetia*'ati.M TESOL
Keluorcis: \iocabuiary belore Reaciing. Question before Reading, Reading
Achievement
Conrpleheusic'rn,
Scientistsprore that schematahold a -ereatint-luencein students'reading
conrprehension.
By activatingstudents'schemata.teachercan help the studentsto
achier,ebetter comprehensionon a reading text. The entire reading teachers
realizethis, theretbre,they alu'aysconducta kind of pre-readingactivity. which is
questionbefbre leadingto activatestudents'schemataon the topic discu:ssed.
Hou'er''er-this pre-reading activitv is not sufficient in activating students'
providing thern with vocabularyknowledge befbre they reaclthe
schenrata,-".-et
ie\t. ln ihis studt..the *.riter suggesiedto usevocabular,v
belbre readinginsteadof
o "! Jr i,, '' v" , l
\- t" u
h^t;"^.^'"1;.^
i^
tho
'.'o
.^ri"ir.,
"^.,1i-,,
Furthermore.this experimentalstudy was the conductedto seethe effect
ofvocabulaw beibre readingand questionbefbrereadingon the students'reading
comprehension
achievement.The purposeofthe studvrvasto find out the answer
oi a cluestion: "Is there anv signilicant ditl'erence betu'een the reading
conrpreirensionaclrievenrentof the studentstaught using vocabularv befbre
reatiingancithosetaughtusing questionbelore reading?"The hl,pothesis\.!asthen
put tbru'ard.There is a signiticantdiftbrencebet*,eenthe readin-ccomprehension
achier.ementof the studentstaught using vocabularybefore reading and those
taughtusing questionbefbrereadin_q.
A quasi e\perimental studf in intact classesw'as then carried out 81'
having the studentsof the third gradeof SMPK St.Agnesyear 2005/2006as the
sample.the w.riterconducteda pretest-posttest
two groups design in this studl
The test used u;as in the tbrm of multiple choice coniprehensionquestions,
consistedof 30 numbers The result of the post-testwas then anal-yzed
b1'using
t-test formula to see rvhetherthere is any significant difference bet\'veenthe
reading cornprehensionachievementof the studentstaught using vocabularv
beibre readingand tiroseraugirtusingquestionbetbrereading.
The data analvsis revealedthat vocabularvbefbre reading gave b,etter
eil'ecton the students'readingcomprehension
achievement.A tirrtheranalysison
the str.rcients'
abiiit-vin ansr.verin-9
diilerent kin