Based on the problems that the collaborator had delivered, the researcher asked what other problems that she had encountered, and then she answered that
the students could not answer the implied questions and main idea of the text. Finally, both the researcher and collaborator made some planning in order to solve
these problems. It could be described as follows: Table 5
Alternative of Solving the Problem
Problems:
1. They cannot differentiate between WH and YesNo questions 2. They are not active reader, so they seldom find detail questions appropriately.
3. They do not understand the main idea 4. They have the insufficient vocabularies
5. They cannot answer the implied questions appropriately
Alternative of solving the problem Plan of Action I:
Doing reciprocal questioning
b. Students’ field notes
In order to know the students’ interest in reading comprehension, the researcher and collaborator took seven students who were considered able to
represent the students’ characteristics of all students in the class, which were the active learners and passive ones. In their field notes the researcher could find that
most of students were not satisfied enough with their achievement. Besides that, the students thought that comprehending the text was only influenced by the stock
of vocabularies they had. In this case, the students had the view that reading is the
process of translating that demanded them to read the sentence by translating word by word.
Unfortunately, there were different points of view between the students and the teacher. In this case, the students hoped that the teacher would do the
better technique in teaching, whereas the teacher thought that she had tried to give her best to them. It could happen because there was no chance to give suggestions
each other. As a result, the class was in uncomfortable situation. Therefore, in this research, both the students and the researcher should be more open minded to
receive the criticisms and suggestions one to others, so that both students and researcher would be in a comfortable classroom atmosphere.
c. Pretest
In this case, the aim of the research was to solve the problems above. After analyzing the problems, the researcher gave pretest in order to measure students’
reading comprehension before being taught using Reciprocal Questioning technique. The score could be described into the table of system of score category
below: Table 6
Pretest Scores Very poor
Poor Fair
Good Very good
Mean Score
1 student 2.27
19 students 43.18
18 students 40.91
6 students 13.64
-
48 Fair
Based on the pretest scores, it could be seen that there were 19 students 43.18 who were poor, 18 students 40.91 were fair, 6 students 13.64
were good, a student 2.27 was very poor, and none of them is very good. Meanwhile, the students’ main score were in the fair category 48. In order to
know the students’ ability in answering certain types of questions, the researcher analyzed the students’ answers in pretest as follows.
Table 7 Pretest Score Based on Questions Category
Questions Category R
Main idea 13 students 29.54
Detail 28 students 63.64
Vocabulary 16 students 36.36
Inference 8 students 18.18
n 44 students
Notes: n: the number of students
R: the number of students who gave the right answers The table shows that there were 13 students who could identify main idea
well, 28 students could find detail information, 16 students answered vocabulary questions, and there were eight students could answer inference question. Based
on this data, it could be concluded that the students still had the low ability in reading comprehension and the attempts to improve students’ reading
comprehension are still needed.
d. Treatment 1 Meeting 1
