THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES ON CURIOSITY LEVELS ON READING COMPREHENTION.
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES AND CURIOUSITY
LEVELS ON READING COMPREHENSION
A thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
SRI MURNIATI
Registration Number : 8106111032
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF
MEDAN
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, a since gratitude to Allah SWT, for the blessing, Guidance, health and luck that has always been given to her to complete this project.
Next, she would like to express her thankfulness to Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd. her first Adviser, for his time, patience, kindness, and contribution, criticism, suggestion, and valuable comments in correcting her thesis and helping her in finishing it.
A very special appreciation is offered to Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A, Ph.D. as her second Adviser, for her kindness, support, attention, and suggestion in completing this thesis.
A big thanks to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. as the Head and the secretary of English Applied linguistics Study Program of State university of Medan who have assisted me in processing all administrative requirements during the process of my studying this program. All lecturers who have shared expertise during the times of lecturing
Special thanks to board of examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., for every single detail of correction and criticism to construct this thesis near to ideal.
Her sincere indebtedness is rendered to her beloved parents; Mr. M. Jamil and Mrs. Rahmawaty. S.Pd. for their endless love and support during her academic year has lent a hard galore
(6)
Her endless special gratitude is specially addressed to her beloved husband, Muhammad Taufan Rizka Lubis. S.T., for his full understanding, support and for being so good and countinous motivation.
Then thanks to classmates, friends and the writers mentioned in references of this thesis, they are highly appreciated for sharing wisdom through academic writing.
There is no anything that the writer can dedicate for expressing her thanks to all of the people for having helped her in finishing her thesis besides a little bit of writing on this page. Success and prosperity are the only hope that the writer can pray to God for all of them.
Medan, Januari 2016
The Writer,
Sri Murniati
(7)
ABSTRACT
Sri Murniati, Registration Number : 8106111032. The Effect of Teaching Techniques on Curiosity levels on Reading Comprehention. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State Univesity of Medan. 2016
The objectives of this study are to find out whether or not: (1) student’ achievement in reading comprehention taught by directed reading thinking activity tehnique is significantly higher than explicit instruction technique, (2) student’ achievement in reading comprehention those who have high curiosity is higher than those who have low curiosity. (3) there is interaction betwen Teaching Techniques on Curiositylevels on Readingcomprehention. An experimental research whith factorial desigh 2 x 2 wa used in this study. the population will be taken as a simple it is 120 students that will be devided into two groups. The first group that consist of 60 students will be given a treatment by using task based language teaching and the second group 60 students will be given a treatment by using inquiry based learning.Curiosity was measured by given questionnaire for classifying the student that have high Curiosity and low Curiosity. ANOVA with factorial design 2x2 above indicated that F observed of teaching strategies = 143.18>Ftable = 3.92 at level of significance α = 0.05. So, it can be concluded that there is significant effect of teaching strategies on students’ achievement in reading comprehension, F observed of self-efficacy = 4.19>Ftable = 3.92 at level of significance α = 0.05. So, it can be concluded that there is significant effect of curiousity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension, F observed of interaction = 1.69<Ftable = 3.92 at level of significance α = 0.05. So, it cannot be concluded that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and curiousity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
(8)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTIONS
1.1 Background of Study... 1
1.2 The Problems of Study...9
1.3 The Objectives of Study...9
1.4 The Scope of study...10
1.5 The Significant of the Study...10
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Reading Comprehension...11
2.1.1 The Nature of Reading Comprehension...11
2.1.2 The process of Reading Comprehension...12
2.1.3 factors of Reading Comprehension...13
2.2 Teaching Technique...23
2.2.1 Task Based Language Teaching Technique...23
2.2.2 Inquiry based Learning Technique...42
2..2.3 Curiousity...54
2.2.3.1 High and Low Curiousity of student on learning...56
2.4 Relevant Studies...57
2.5. Conceptual Framework...58
2.5.1 The difference of students’ achievemennt Reading Comprehens that will be taught by using task-based language teaching and inquiry-based learning...58
(9)
2.5.2 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension that have high curiosity and that have low
curiosity ...60
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design ...63
3.2 Population and Sample...64
3.2.1 Population...64
3.2.2 Sample...65
3.3 Treatment Implementation...65
3.4 Control of Treatment...69
3.4.1 Interval Validity...70
3.4.2 External Validity ...70
3.5 Instruments of Data Collection ...71
3.5.1 Curiosity Questionnnaire...71
3.5.2 Reading Comprehention Test...72
3.6 Instrument Tryout of Data Collection...,,,,,.,....74
3.6.3 Difficulty Index of Reading Comprehension Test...75
3.7 Technique of Analyzing the Data...77
3.8 Statistical Hypothesis...77
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS 4.1 The Data Description...79
4.1.1 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using TBLT Strategy...80
4.1.2 The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by Using IBL Strategy...88
(10)
4.2 Requirements of Data Analysis...96
4.2.1 Normality Test...96
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test...97
4.3 Hypotheses Testing...98
4.4 Research Findings...101
4.5 Discussion...102
4.6 Limitation of Research...105
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions...107
5.2 Implications...108
5.3 Suggestions...110
REFERENCES ...111
(11)
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES Page
1. The Students’Pretest Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low
Coriousity...81 2. The Students’Postrest Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Coriousity Taught by Using TBLT Strategy...83
3. The Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High
Coriousity...85 4. The Students’Post Test Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Coriusity Taught by using TBLT...86 5. The Improvement of Students’Reading Achievement ...87
6. The Students’Pretest Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low
Coriousity...89 7. The Students’Postetst Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Coriousity Taught by Using IBL Strategy...91 8. The Students’Posttest Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Coriusity Taught by using IBL...95 9. Students’Reading Achievement Taught by Using IBL...96
(12)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1.1 Reading Comprehension Score of X Grade Students of SMA 8 Medan AcademiC Year
2012/2013...4
3.1 Factorial Design of the Study (2x2)...63
3.2 Specification of Students’ Curiosity...72
3.3 Specification of Reading Comprehension Test...73
4.1 Summary of Research Data Description...79
4.2 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Pretest Achievement in Reading omprehension with Low Coriousity...80
4.3 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using TBLT strategy...82
4.4 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Pre Test Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Coriousity ...84
4.5 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Coriousity Taught by using TBLT strategy...86
4.6. Students’ Achievement Taught by Using TBLT...87
4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Pretest Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Coriousity...88
4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using IBL strategy...90
4.9 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Pre Test Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Coriousity...92
4.10 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Coriousity Taught by using IBL strategy...94
(13)
4.11. Students’ Achievement Taught by Using IBL...95
4.12 Summary on the Result of Normality Test...97
4.13 Result of Homogeneity...98
4.14 Table ANOVA with Factorial Design 2x2...98
(14)
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX Page
A. Curiousity Questionnaire...116
B. The Calculation of Curiousity Questionnaire...117
C. Description of Students’ Score on Curiousity Questionnaire...118
D. Computation of Validity of Curiousity Questionnaire...119
E. Description of Students’ Achievement on Each Group...122
F. Computation of Validity of Reading Comprehension Test...124
G. Description of Research Data...127
H. Requirements of Data Analysis...146
I. Homogeneity Test...151
J. Hypotheses Testing...155
K. Reading Comprehension Test...160
L. Lesson Plan Using Task-Based Language Teaching...171
(15)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1The Background of the Study
English has attained increasing importance through out the world in general and in Indonesia in particular. Language is not only used for daily conversation but also used in education, research and science both spoken and written. Considering those function of language, people study language both formal or in class and informal or outside the class. It is important for us to learn language especially English since it is used as a means of communication among nation in the world. Consequently, parents and educators have begun to be concerned about their children’s low level in English, and have begun to look for solutions to this problem (Amara and Marai, 2002).
Although English is not the largest number of native or 'first' language speakers, it is widely used by many people all over the world as their 'second' language (Harmer, 2001: 1-2). In this globalization era, Indonesian people in their daily life will frequently use English. Besides they can communicate with many people from others countries, they can use English to cover the limitation vocabulary in Indonesian language. Actually, Indonesian people have learned some English words subconsciously.
There are some words that sound weird and less appropriate if it is translated in Indonesian language but they are familiar with the words such as: bank, chocolate, computer, hamburger, hotel, piano, restaurant, taxi, telephone, television, university and so on. Indonesian has borrowed many of those words because they do not originally come from Indonesian language. So if we have mastered English well, we will have accustomed to those words and we can apply them appropriately.
(16)
Other advantages of learning English are that we will know the development of knowledge, science and technology because most of books, articles, journals of science are written in English. Because those advantages, Indonesian government has already involved English into some official launched curriculum such as competence-based curriculum, school-based curriculum, and the latest one; curriculum 2013. English has been taught formally since Junior High School and as a local content English has been taught in Elementary School starting from grade four.
Reading is a complex activity deploying a large number of separateactions. One should use the understanding and imagination, observing, andre membering. We cannot read without moving the eyes or using our minds. Comprehension and reading speed become very dependent onproficiency in performing all the necessary organs for it (Soedarso, 1988:4). Reading iscentral to the learning process. By reading activity, people may gain important information that is not presented by teachers in the classroom.
According to cognitive psychology and schema theory, the readeris an active participant who has an important interpretive function in the reading process. Readers construct a meaning they can create from a text,so that "what a text means" can differ from reader to reader. Readers construct meaning based not only on the visual cues in the text (the wordsand format of the page itself) but also based on non-visual information such as all the knowledge readers already have in their heads about the world, their experience with reading as an activity, and, especially, whatthey know about reading different kinds of writing.
The teacher is one who gives knowledge to students. Teachers indeed occupy an honourable position in the eyes of society. That authority causes the teacher is respected, so
(17)
that people do not ask about the teacher features. With the trust given by society, then on the shoulders of teachers are given tasks and heavy responsibilities (SyaifulBahriDjamarah, 2005: 31).
One of the most difficult tasks of a language teacher in the context of teaching English as a foreign language is to foster attitude toward reading. It is caused by the limited time and other constraints they face during the teaching and learning process. Teachers are often unable to encourage students to find entertaining and interesting information inreading materials. Therefore it often creates a negative mind-set instudents who consider the effort to interact with reading materials as anunattractive activity compared to the process they may get from visual electronic media.
However, reading programs may help students develop their language skills necessary for success. But it is hard to implement aneffective reading program, especially in countries where English is treatedas foreign language. The success of implementing reading programs willdepend on the students’ interest. Since the beginning of reading material, reading must be comprehensive and meaningful. That is the teaching ofearly reading; children should be given material in a complete form, suchas stories and poems (John W. Santrock, 2008:424).
In relation to reading, the survey research administered by National Education Department of Republic of Indonesia showed surprising results.It is proved that reading comprehension competence of Senior High School. Almost 76.95% of students were unable touse dictionary. Among those who were able to use dictionary, there wereonly about 5% can search words in Indonesian Dictionary systematically (SyahMuhibbin, 1995: 34).
The same condition also happens in SMA Negeri 8 Medan. The problem they experienced in English is concerning reading competence. Most students are lack in English. Researcher found that English teacher did not have various kinds of teaching techniques. They tended to conduct conventional teaching techniques that did not significantly affect the
(18)
students’ achievement. This condition is line with the statements delivered by the principal of the school. Even most of the students do not have high curiosity to get involved within the teaching and learning activities. It is shown from their passing grade in English that are below minimum passing grade required by the curriculum. As a more intensive observation under taken, the problem is mostly in reading comprehension. Students are unable to comprehend the reading materials in the text. Therefore their understanding on material taught is quite poor. For more detail, data can be seen in the following table 1.2.
Table 1.1 Reading Comprehension Score of X Grade Students of SMA 8 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013
Semester Average Score of Language Skills
Listening Speaking Reading Writing
First 60 60 58 65
Second 62 65 60 67
(Source: Semester Scores in SMA Negeri 8 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013) Based on the curriculum, one of purpose of learning reading inSenior High School at the grade ten is to develop the ability to communicate in English verbally or written, so the students have ability toread the written text correctly (Kurikulum Depdiknas, 2004: 28).
Generally, not all schools can easilyachieve the goal of learning reading in accordance with that state in thecurriculum. Each of schools find the different obstacles in achieve thatpurpose. By considering the difficulties encountered and the solutions needed, the researcher thinks that there should be efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency in learning reading.
Effective reading is likely to impact on effective writing. Asreceptive skills, reading provides a stimulus to the writing. Thee ffectiveness of learning reading and writing from the viewpoints of the teacher is likely to give optimal results if teachers use the potential efficiently. Learning efficiency of reading is also influenced y the use of the facilities available. The use of facilities available optimally will help students understand the material
(19)
being taught. Usually students will have an idea when they connect language learning with the surrounding condition and their experiences.
Based on the fact above, it is necessary for language teachers to foster reading on their students. It may be done by selecting proper materials to the students. The reading programs may be useless if it is not done properly. Teachers should select reading materials that are relevant tothe students’ needs and interests. Teacher should also select methods thatare fun for to the students, because selecting the wrong method will hinder the achievement of learning objectives (Djamarah, 2003: 223).
Teaching and learning process of English in Senior High School mostly emphasize reading, writing, listening and reading integratedly. Besides those four language skills in teaching English such language components as vocabulary, structure, spelling etc must also be paid attention to. The competence standard should be mastered by SMA students in reading is to understand various meaning in written texts. The competence covers interpersonal, ideational, and textual meaning (Depdiknas, 2004: 16). It means that the students should master the above meanings in written texts.
Teaching English for Senior High School, especially in reading class for the second grade, conveys the competence of identifying ideational meaning in the text, identifying interpersonal rhetoric in the context, and reading loud the texts. Such a process requires certain approach in the teaching. Realizing these facts, Indonesia has tried many end ours such as charging and making the curriculum perfect and also introducing new technique of teaching to English teachers in order to improve the qualities of the teaching of English in Indonesia. The success of the teaching-learning process depends on several factors. And the most important things in the actualization of the teaching and learning process are the teacher and learner.
(20)
Therefore one of the ways, in order to make the teaching learning process effective, the teacher has to have a good classroom management which can stimulate the students to be active in following the system of the teaching learning process. And one way to realize it is by making the teacher know and understand the technique of teaching English. The teacher should be able to choose the appropriate technique of teaching English for students.
The class atmosphere must be planned so that students get the opportunity to interact each other. In this interaction students will enjoy learning process. If the class atmosphere is full of the competition, negative attitude and relationship will be formed and disturb students' support. This atmosphere will disturb the knowledge form actively. That is why, a teacher must create the class atmosphere in such a way that the students cooperate with each other. Thus, in this study the writer chooses task-based language teaching (TBLT), inquiry-based learning (IBL), and Curiosity level as the alternative ways to create an active teaching learning process. Further, TBLT, IBL, and curiosity level are proposed to enhance the reading ability of EFL learners.
TBLT refers to teaching a second/foreign language that seeks to engage learners in interactionally authentic language use by having them perform a series of tasks. It aims to both enable learners to acquire new linguistic knowledge and to procedurize their existing knowledge. According to Ellis (2003), the main characteristics of TBLT are the following; (a) 'natural' or 'naturalistic' use of language, (b) learners- cantered rather than teacher controlled learning, (c) focus on form (attention to form occurs within the context of performing the task; intervention while retaining 'naturalness'), (d) tasks serve as the means for achieving natural use of language, and (e) traditional approaches are ineffective.
TBLT puts tasks at the centre of the methodological focus. It views the learning process as a set of communicative tasks that are directly linked to the curricular goals they serve (Brown, 2001). In other words, Richards and Rodgers (2001) emphasized that the role
(21)
of tasks has received further support from some researchers in second language acquisition who are interested in developing pedagogical application of second language acquisition theory (e.g., Long and Crookes, 1991).
On the other hand, inquiry-based learning (IBL)is a natural human activity in which the learner obtains meaning from experience. Traditionally, inquiry has been most readily associated with the sciences, yet it has been employed in many other fields of study as well (Martinello, 1998). John-Steiner (1985) showed how creative people in the arts and sciences recall their ways of thinking. Whether implicit or implied, specific or general, all inquiries are driven by questions, issues, and wonderings. Over the past century, it has been implemented as a useful and definite approach to teaching and learning.
Despite of teaching techniques aspects above, another aspects that influence of reading comprehension is the student own personality. One of the student personalities that includes and related in learning process is curiosity. Curiosity is defined as a desire for new information aroused when a person becomes aware of uncertainty in the environment of novel, complex, and/or ambiguous stimuli that can lead to exploration and learning. It may be moderated by both personal and contextual/situational factors.
Interest in human curiosity has increased during the last decade "because of the recognition of its relationship to creativity and problem solving. Current literature abounds in articles dealing with the value of curiosity. Curiosity and how it may he fostered is a common topic of concern when educators convene.
In learning, curiosity provides the motivational for learning at each step of the educational process. When students have curiosity, they learn more and more about their lessons and as a result, are closer connected to it. They will also have a deeper understanding of interactions and the relationship between the various elements.
(22)
Nevertheless, the emphasis in the schools is on teaching knowledge only rather than on helping children develop curiosity. It would seem that since much learning is acquired through reading, a major emphasis upon the child's moves to be curious should be during his classes in reading instruction. The teacher should strive for some transfer to reading in the content areas and in recreational reading.All too often the questioning patterns used by teachers – while they are directing reading require students only to remember, and practically no teachers fully utilize the full range of questions that require students to use ideas.
Schools do not usually teach the art of questioning, but expect students to develop skill in answering questions that they didn't ask. We need to help students to ask better questions—more profound, more provocative, more worthy of study.All the background as mentioned above, it is interesting to analyze the significance effect of TBLT, IBL, and curiosity level on students’ reading achievement.
1.2The Problems of the Study
The present study will be attempted to answer the following questions:
1.Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using task-based language teaching significantly higher than by using inquiry based learning?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity higher than that with low curiosity?
3. Is there any interaction between teaching techniques and curiosity on students’ reading achievement in reading comprehension?
(23)
In line with the problems of the study, the objectives of the research are to discover the questions that stated above, they are listed as follows:
1. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension that will be taught by using task-based language teaching will significantly be higher than by using inquiry based learning.
2. To find out whetherthe students’ achievement in reading comprehension that will have high curiosity will be higher than that will have low curiosity.
3. To find out whether there is interaction between teaching techniques and curiosity on students’ reading achievement in reading comprehension.
1.3 The Scope of the Study
There are many techniques teachers can demonstrate in increasing students’ achievement in English especially in reading comprehension. This study focuses on two teaching techniques; task-based language teaching and inquiry based learning. In line with this, the curiosity of students will be also investigated. By knowing high and low curiosity of students, this study will be expected to give clearer description on the effect of teaching techniques and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
1.4 The Significance of the Study
Through this research, it is expected that the effects of TBLT, IBL, and curiosity level will be valuable both theoretically and practically for English teachers and learners.
(24)
Theoretically, the result of the result of the research will add to what has been found in the field of teaching English as a foreign language, especially reading comprehension.
2. Practical Significance
Meanwhile, practically the result of this research will increase the English teachers’ horizon in their attempt to decide the appropriate approach that should be applied in increasing students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
(25)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analysis and hypotheses testing, it is concluded:
1. Students' achievement in reading comprehension that was taught by task-based language teaching technique is significantly higher than that was taught by inquiry-based leaning technique.
2. Students' achievement in reading comprehension with high curiosity higher than that have low curiosity .
3. There is significant interaction between teaching techniques and curiosity on students' achievement in reading comprehension. Students' achievement in reading comprehension is influenced by teaching techniques and curiosity . High curiosity of students showed significant effect on their achievement-in reading comprehension if they were taught by using: task-based language teaching technique. While low curiosity of students showed significant effect on their achievement in reading comprehension if they were taught by using inquiry-based leaning technique.
(26)
5.2 Implications
The findings of this study give implication to English teachers and students who want to improve their achievement in reading comprehension. This study has tested reading comprehension teaching techniques; they are Task-based Language Teaching and Inquiry-based Learning Technique. They were applied on high curiosity students and low curiosity students in order to know which teaching techniques are suitable for them in improving their achievement in reading comprehension.
The first result of this study showed that students' achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Task-based Language Teaching is higher than students' achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Inquiry-based Learning Technique because it provides students with the ability to read and learn to apply practice of good readers, and learn to carefully observe, listen, communicate and participate. Through Task-based Language Teaching students is guided to be independent learner and given freedom to improve and develop their ability. The teacher only gives direction by using some steps and students themselves develop their mind and hoped the students can understand all the information since learning process rather than memorization.
The second result of this study showed that students' achievement in reading comprehension that high curiosity is higher than students' achievement in reading comprehension of low curiosity. It gives implication to the English teacher 'that they, should be aware of students' curiosity. The identification of students' curiosity can be a positive step in achieving learning goal. Understanding that students have different curiosity is the key to success in teaching since
(27)
teachers can decide which teaching techniques is suitable to applied for students. Many students need or expect the teacher to inspire, challenge, and stimulate them to more understand the materials. Effective learning in the classroom depends on the teachers' ability to maintain the interest that brought students to the course.
The third result of this study showed that there is significant interaction between teaching techniques and students' curiosity on students' achievement in reading comprehension. It gives implication that teaching techniques applied by teachers should relate to students' curiosity. The way teachers' approaches students influence their attitude and curiosity. By knowing the students' curiosity, the teachers can help their students to overcome their problem in teaching learning process. English teacher are suggested by using Task-based Language Teaching for high curiosity in order to improve their achievement in reading comprehension since high curiosity have their own desire that serves to activate or organize their curiosity of something by some steps that included in Task-based Language Teaching. For low curiosity students, English teacher are suggested using Inquiry-based Learning Technique, teacher provide- modelling of desired behaviour, offering explanations, inviting students participation, verifying student understanding.
(28)
5.3 Suggestions
In connection with the conclusions, some suggested stated as follows: 1. English teachers are recommended using Task-based Language Teaching
and Inquiry-based Learning Technique in reading comprehension since both strategies can improve students' achievement in reading comprehension.
2. English teachers should encourage low curiosity students to participate in study English in order to get better achievement in reading comprehension.
3. Other researchers can develop further study in the area of Task-based Language Teaching and Inquiry-based Learning Technique that will improve students' achievement in reading comprehension.
(29)
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. 1990. Focus on Research: A Guide to Developing Students’
Research Skills. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved July 12, 20104, from http://www.library.ualberta.ca/documents/ focusonresearch.pdf
Amara, M. and Marai, A. 2002. Language Education Policy: The Arab Minority in
Israel. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ary, R., Jacobs. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education, (6th ed.). Orlanda:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.
Bond, G. L. 1979. Reading Difficulties: Their Diagnosis and Correction. (4th ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design
for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. ISBN
0-62-53007-4.
Dupuis, Mary. 1998. Elementary Reading: Principles and Strategies. Harcourt Brace
and Jovanovich.
Drayton, B., & Falk, J. K. 2001. Tell-tale Signs of the Inquiry-oriented Classroom.
NASSP Bulletin, 85(623), 24–34.
Donham, J. 2001. The Importance of a Model. In J. Donham, K. Bishop, C. C.
Kuhlthau, & D. Oberg (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from Library
Power (pp. 13–30). Worthington, OH: Linworth.
Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, R. 2000. Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research,4,193-220.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 2007. Task- based Language Teaching: Sorting out the misunderstanding.
Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2001). Cultivating a culture of inquiry. Retrieved July 12,
2014, from http://www.terc.edu/TEMPLATE/feature/feature.cfm?FeatureID
(30)
Feez, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Center for English Teaching and Research.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Galileo Educational Network. 2004. What is inquiry? Inquiry & ICT.Retrieved July
12, 2014, from http://www.galileo.org/inquiry-what.html.
GLEF (George Lucas Educational Foundation). 2001. Project-based Learning
Research. Edutopia online. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from
http://www.glef.org/php/article.php?id=Art_887
Hacker, D. J. 1999. Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations. The MIT
Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from
http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Entry/moses
Halliday, M.K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of
Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hayes Jacobs, H. 1989. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hermans, T. 1999. Translation in Systems. London: St Jerome.
J. Harmer. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching Longman Handbooks
for Language Teacher. London: Longman Ninth Impression. p.1. 2Ibid, p.1.
John-Steiner, V. 1985, Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press.
John W. Santrock. 2008. Educational Psychology. McGrow-Hill Higher Education.
New York City.
Karlin, Robert. 1971. Teaching Elementary Reading:Principles and Strategies.
Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
Kurikulum Depdiknas 2004. Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris
Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Madrasah Tsanawiyah. Jakarta. Pusat
Kurikulum, Balitbang Depdiknas. http://tlu.fbe.unimelb.edu.au/Depdiknas.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhne, B. 1995. The Barkestorp project: Investigating School Library Use. School
Libraries Worldwide, 1(1), 13–27.
Kuhlthau, C.C. 1988. Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive
(31)
Lance, K. C. 2001. Proof of the Power: Quality Library Media Programs Affect Academic Achievement.Multimedia Schools, 8(4), 14–16, 18, 20.
Lantolf, J. 1996. Second Language Theory Building: Letting All the Flowers Bloom!.
Language Learning, 46, 713-749.
Leaver, B.L. and Willis, J. 2004. Task-Based Instructions in Foreign Language
Education: Practices and Programs. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Loew, H.Z. 1978. DevelopingStrategicReadingSkills. Foreign Language Annals, 17,
301-303.
Long, M.H., and Crooks, G. 1991. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly. 26(1), 27-56.
Lynch, T., and Maclean, J. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and
recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
Martinello, M. L. 1998. Learning to Question for Inquiry: The Educational Forum, 62
(2), 164-171. Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education.
Moskowitz, G. 1977. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. 2006. Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’.
Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 12-18.
Pearson, D.P. Johnson, D.D. 1978. Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. 1991. Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research: Volume II (pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing.
Pica, T. 1997. Second language teaching and research relationships: A North
American view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48-72.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radwan, A.A. 2000. The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language
(32)
Ransom, G.A. 1978. Preparing to Teach Reading. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. 2001. 'Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
(2nd ed.). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the
role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-65). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Seedhouse, P. 1999. Combining meaning and form. ELT Journal 51, 336-344.
Sheen, R. 1994. A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. Tesol
Quarterly 28: 127-157.
Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and
applications. In Edwards, C and J. Willis (Eds).
Skehan, P. 1996. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Soedarso, Speed Reading Sistem Membaca Cepat dan Efektif, Jakarta, Gramedia
Pustaka Utama, 1988.
Edelman, Susan. 1997. Curiosity and Exploration. California State University,
Northridge.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue:
exploring task effects. In M., Bygate, P., Skehan and M., Swain (Eds).
Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Pearson Education.
Syah, Muhibbin, Psikologi Pendidikan Dengan Pendekatan Baru, Bandung, PT.
Remaja Rosdakarya Offset, 1995.
Syaiful Bahri Djamarah, Guru dan Anak Didik dalam Interaksi Edukatif, Jakarta, PT.
Rineka Cipta, 2005.
Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1983. Menulis Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa.
Bandung: Angkasa.
Tinker, M.A. 1965. Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Westera, J., & Moore, D. 1995. Task-based language teaching and inquiry-based
teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32(3), 225-232.
(33)
William, J. 1950. Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt. (original work published 1890).
(1)
5.3 Suggestions
In connection with the conclusions, some suggested stated as follows: 1. English teachers are recommended using Task-based Language Teaching
and Inquiry-based Learning Technique in reading comprehension since both strategies can improve students' achievement in reading comprehension.
2. English teachers should encourage low curiosity students to participate in study English in order to get better achievement in reading comprehension.
3. Other researchers can develop further study in the area of Task-based Language Teaching and Inquiry-based Learning Technique that will improve students' achievement in reading comprehension.
(2)
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. 1990. Focus on Research: A Guide to Developing Students’ Research Skills. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved July 12, 20104, from http://www.library.ualberta.ca/documents/ focusonresearch.pdf Amara, M. and Marai, A. 2002. Language Education Policy: The Arab Minority in
Israel. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ary, R., Jacobs. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education, (6th ed.). Orlanda: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill. Bond, G. L. 1979. Reading Difficulties: Their Diagnosis and Correction. (4th ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. ISBN 0-62-53007-4.
Dupuis, Mary. 1998. Elementary Reading: Principles and Strategies. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
Drayton, B., & Falk, J. K. 2001. Tell-tale Signs of the Inquiry-oriented Classroom. NASSP Bulletin, 85(623), 24–34.
Donham, J. 2001. The Importance of a Model. In J. Donham, K. Bishop, C. C. Kuhlthau, & D. Oberg (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from Library Power (pp. 13–30). Worthington, OH: Linworth.
Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ellis, R. 2000. Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research,4,193-220.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2007. Task- based Language Teaching: Sorting out the misunderstanding. Falk, J., & Drayton, B. (2001). Cultivating a culture of inquiry. Retrieved July 12,
2014, from http://www.terc.edu/TEMPLATE/feature/feature.cfm?FeatureID =3.
(3)
Feez, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Center for English Teaching and Research.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Galileo Educational Network. 2004. What is inquiry? Inquiry & ICT.Retrieved July 12, 2014, from http://www.galileo.org/inquiry-what.html.
GLEF (George Lucas Educational Foundation). 2001. Project-based Learning Research. Edutopia online. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.glef.org/php/article.php?id=Art_887
Hacker, D. J. 1999. Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations. The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Entry/moses
Halliday, M.K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hayes Jacobs, H. 1989. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hermans, T. 1999. Translation in Systems. London: St Jerome.
J. Harmer. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching Longman Handbooks for Language Teacher. London: Longman Ninth Impression. p.1. 2Ibid, p.1. John-Steiner, V. 1985, Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press.
John W. Santrock. 2008. Educational Psychology. McGrow-Hill Higher Education. New York City.
Karlin, Robert. 1971. Teaching Elementary Reading:Principles and Strategies. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
Kurikulum Depdiknas 2004. Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Madrasah Tsanawiyah. Jakarta. Pusat Kurikulum, Balitbang Depdiknas. http://tlu.fbe.unimelb.edu.au/Depdiknas. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhne, B. 1995. The Barkestorp project: Investigating School Library Use. School Libraries Worldwide, 1(1), 13–27.
Kuhlthau, C.C. 1988. Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive and Affective Aspects. Reference Quarterly, 28, 232–242.
(4)
Lance, K. C. 2001. Proof of the Power: Quality Library Media Programs Affect Academic Achievement. Multimedia Schools, 8(4), 14–16, 18, 20.
Lantolf, J. 1996. Second Language Theory Building: Letting All the Flowers Bloom!. Language Learning, 46, 713-749.
Leaver, B.L. and Willis, J. 2004. Task-Based Instructions in Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Loew, H.Z. 1978. Developing Strategic Reading Skills. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 301-303.
Long, M.H., and Crooks, G. 1991. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly. 26(1), 27-56.
Lynch, T., and Maclean, J. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
Martinello, M. L. 1998. Learning to Question for Inquiry: The Educational Forum, 62 (2), 164-171. Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education. Moskowitz, G. 1977. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 2006. Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 12-18.
Pearson, D.P. Johnson, D.D. 1978. Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. 1991. Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing. Pica, T. 1997. Second language teaching and research relationships: A North
American view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48-72.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radwan, A.A. 2000. The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language
(5)
Ransom, G.A. 1978. Preparing to Teach Reading. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. 2001. 'Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-65). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Seedhouse, P. 1999. Combining meaning and form. ELT Journal 51, 336-344.
Sheen, R. 1994. A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. Tesol Quarterly 28: 127-157.
Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C and J. Willis (Eds).
Skehan, P. 1996. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soedarso, Speed Reading Sistem Membaca Cepat dan Efektif, Jakarta, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 1988.
Edelman, Susan. 1997. Curiosity and Exploration. California State University, Northridge.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 2001. Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In M., Bygate, P., Skehan and M., Swain (Eds). Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Pearson Education.
Syah, Muhibbin, Psikologi Pendidikan Dengan Pendekatan Baru, Bandung, PT. Remaja Rosdakarya Offset, 1995.
Syaiful Bahri Djamarah, Guru dan Anak Didik dalam Interaksi Edukatif, Jakarta, PT. Rineka Cipta, 2005.
Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1983. Menulis Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Tinker, M.A. 1965. Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Westera, J., & Moore, D. 1995. Task-based language teaching and inquiry-based teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32(3), 225-232.
(6)
William, J. 1950. Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt. (original work published 1890).