THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS SELF-EFFICACY ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANG SIANTAR.
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY
ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA
Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2014
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY
ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA
Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2014
ABSTRACT
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. A Thesis. The effect of Teaching strategies and
Students’ self-efficacy on Students’ achievement in reading Comprehension At Grade
VIII of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. English Applied Linguistics Study
Program, Postgraduate Program State University of Medan 2013.
This study was intended to find out: 1) whether students that taught by using Metacognitive
strategy have higher achievement than students that taught by using Strategic instruction
model in reading comprehension., 2) whether students that have high self-efficacy have
higher achievement than students that have low self-efficacy in reading comprehension
achievement, and 3)if the interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy
significantly affects reading comprehension achievement. The study was conducted on
students grade VIII of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pemnatangsiantar academic year 2013/2014.
The population was more than 120 students and the sample was 70 students. This study was
conducted by using factorial design 2 X 2. The instruments of collecting data were reading
comprehension test and questionnaire. The technique of collecting data was done by using
Two Way of Analysis of Variance(ANOVA). The first result proved that 1) the teaching
strategies have a significant effect on students’ reading comprehension achievement, it was
supported by the calculation that showed the mean score of students’ achievement taught by
using Metacognitive strategy was 79,89 is higher than mean score of students’ achievement
taught by Strategic Instruction Model was 75,71(79,89 > 75,71), and the calculation of Two
way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed that F observed = 4,07 is higher than F table =
3,99 (4,07>3,99) .
2) self-efficacy has a significant effect on students’ reading
comprehension achievement, the calculation two way Analysis Variance (ANOVA) showed
F Observed 8,05 is higher than F Table 3,99 (8,05>3,99). 3) there is significant interaction
between teaching strategies and self-efficacy students reading comprehension achievement.
The calculation showed that F Observed= 9,53 higher than F table= 3,99. (9,53>3,99). The
multiple comparisons was conducted by using T-Test. The findings showed that 1) There is
significant effect of teaching strategies on students reading comprehension achievement, 2)
there is a significant effect of self-efficacy on students’ reading comprehension achievement,
and 3) there is a significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on
students’ reading comprehension achievement.
ABSTRAK
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. Thesis. Pengaruh Strategi Mengajar dan Selfefficacy Terhadap Hasil Belajar Reading Comprehension Pada Siswa Kelas VIII SMP
Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Program studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris,
Universitas Negeri Medan 2013.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui: 1) Apakah hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan
dengan menggunakan Metacognitive strategy lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang diajarkan
dengan menggunakan Strategic instruction model, 2) Apakah siswa yang menpunyai selfefficacy yang tinggi memeperoleh hasil yang lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang mempunyai
self-efficacy yang rendah, 3) Apakah ada interaksi antara strategi mengajar dengan selfefficacy siswa dalam pencapaian hasil belajar dalam reading comprehension. Penelitian ini
diadakan terhadap siswa kelas VIII SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar pada tahun
pelajaran 2013/2014. Populasi siswa adalah 120 siswa dan yang dijadikan sebagai sampel
penelitian sebanyak 70 siswa. Penelitian ini digunakan dengan menggunakan Factorial
Design 2 x 2. Pengukuran instrument dilakukan dengan cara test dan kuesioner. Teknik
pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara Two Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Hasil
penelitian menujukan: 1) Strategy pengajaran mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant terhadap
hasil belajar reading comprehension siswa. Ini dapat dilihat dari skor mean perolehan siswa
dengan menggunakan strategi mengajar Metacognitive Strategy( 79,89) lebih tinggi dari pada
peolehan siswa yang menggunakan Strategi strategic instruction model (75,71). Perbandingan
tersebut adalah (79,89 > 75,71), lebih lanjut dapat dilihat dari perhitungan Two Way Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) menunjukan F Hitung 4,07 lebih tinggi dari F tabel 3,99(4,07 > 3,99).
Hasil kedua menunjukan 2) self-efficacy siswa mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant
terhadap pencapain hasil belajar siswa.perhitungan dengan menggunakan Two Way ANOVA
menunjukan F hitung(8,05) lebih tinggi dari F tabel (3,99). Interaksi antara strategi mengajar
dan self-efficacy siswa mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant terhadap hasil belajar reading
comprehension siswa. Berdasarkan perhitungan dengan cara Two Way ANOVA diperoleh F
hitung ( 9,53) lebih tinggi daripada F tabel (3,99), (9,53>3,99). Penghitungan kedua variable
tersebut dilakukan dengan cara t-test. Hasil yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa: 1) terdapat
pengaruh yang signifikant dari strategi pengajaran terhadap pencapaian hasil belajar reading
comprehension siswa, 2) Terdapat pengaruh yang signifikant dari self-efficacy siswa
terhadap pencapain hasil belajar reading comprehension siswa, 3) terdapat interaksi yang
signifikant antara strategi mengajar dengan self-efficacy siswa dalam pencapaian hasil bejalar
reading comprehension siswa.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer would like to express a very grateful to Jesus Christ who has granted his
blessings, mercy, health and luck that had been continuously poured to the writer, so that this
thesis could be finished. This thesis is intended to fulfill a part of requirements to get degree
of Master Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Program, Postgraduate School, State
University of Medan.
The completion of this thesis would have never been possible without the assistance
of many people that give suggestions, comments and guidance. For this the writer express a
special note of thankful to those that support this thesis.
Firstly, The writer would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
M. Pd., as a Head of English Applied Linguistics Program, and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S.,
as the Secretary of Head of English Applied Linguistics Program for their special care,
attention, encouragement full support give to his until he can complete this thesis.
Secondly , he would like to say his sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing,
M.Pd and Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed., TESP as his first and second adviser. Thanks for your
excellent suggestion, comments, encouragement and valuable time spent for consulting in the
process of completing this thesis. For Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Prof. Dr. Berlin
Sibarani, M. Pd., Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd., as his reviewers and examiners for their valuable
suggestions and corrections of the draft of the thesis during seminars and examination.
Furthermore he would like to express thanks to Jamesdin Sinaga, S. Pd., as the
principal of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar and all staffs that have given him much
help and support in conducting his research.
His profound and sincere gratitude are directed to his beloved Mom, Rosdelina
Saragih, his lovely sisters Ida darli, Septi Dewi, Nenny Friani and his brother Darwin,
Renhard Purba, who have patiently given pray and never anding spiritual and material
support.
She also thanks to all his friends in XX Executive Class for their friendship and
cooperation, in addition to his beloved friends Wannie Harahap, Merry Sinaga, Lambok
Sitompul, Deska Harahap, Ewin Sitijak, Lino naiborhu. Thank you for being a great friends.
The Writer,
Elisa Kander Purba
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………..
1
1.1 The Background of the study
1
………………………………………………..
1.2 Identification of The Problem
………………………………………………..
6
.......................................................................
7
1.3 The Problems of the study
1.4 The Objectives of the study
1.5 The Scope of the study
..............................................................
..........................................................................
1.6 The Significances of study
......................................................................
8
9
………………...........................
10
...................................................................... …
10
2.1.1 Reading Comprehension ………………………..………………….
2.1.2 Students’ achievement in Reading Comprehension........................ ….
10
14
2.1.3 Reading Process
………….……………....................................
16
2.1.4 The Levels of Reading Comprehension ……………......................
19
2.1.5 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension...……….....................
21
2.1.6 Narrative Text
23
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.2
7
Teaching Strategy
.........................................................................
…………..............................................................
2.2.1 Metacognitive Strategy ………….………………………………………..
24
25
2.2.1.1 The Nature of Metacognitive Strategy....................................................
25
2.2.1.2 The procedure of Metacognitive Strategy...............................................
27
2.2.2 Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
…….............................................
34
2.2.2.1 The Nature Of SIM
……………..............................................
34
2.2.2.2 The Procedure of SIM
2.3
2.4
Self-efficacy
………………………........................
37
……………………............................................
43
2.3.1 Self-efficacy and Achievement Outcome …….. ……………...........
45
Conceptual Framework
51
………………………........................
2.4.1 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension
That taught by using metacognitive and strategic instruction model..
51
2.4.2 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension
That have high and low self-efficacy ………………………………..
52
2.4.3 The interaction between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy
2.5
On students’ achievement in reading comprehension ………………
53
Hypothesis of study ……………………………………………………….
55
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................
56
3.1 Research Design ...............................................................................................
56
3.2 The Population and Sample
57
……………......................................................
3.2.1 Population ......................................................................................
57
3.2.2 Sample ………………………………………………………………
57
3.3
The Instument of Data Collection ...............................................................
58
3.3.1
Reading Comprehension Test ...................................................................
58
3.3.1.1 Conceptual Definition
…………................................................
58
3.3.1.2 Operational Definition
…………………………………………..
59
3.3.1.3 Specification ……………………………………………………… …
60
3.3.1.4 Calibration ………………………………………………………
62
3.3.2 Questionnaire of Self-efficacy ………………………………………………
67
3.3.2.1 Conceptual Definition …………………………………………
67
3.3.2.2 Operational Definition ………………………………………………
68
3.3.2.3 Specification ………………………………………………………
68
3.3.2.4 Calibration …………………………………………………………
71
3.4 The procedure of Data Collection …………………………………………
73
3.4.1 Preparation …………………………………………………………………
73
3.4.2 Control of Treatment …………………………………………………
73
3.4.2.1 The Internal Validity ………………………………………………
73
3.4.2.2 The External Validity ………………………………………………
76
3.4.3 Try Out Test ……………………………………………………………..
84
3.5
The technique of Analyzing Data ………………………………………….
84
3.6
Statistical Hypothesis……………………………………..........................
87
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1
The Data
………………………………………………..
88
4.2
Data Analysis
……………………………………………….
89
4.3
Requirement of Data Analysis ……………………………………………
102
4.4
Testing Hypothesis
………………………………………………..
105
4.5
Research Findings
……………………………………………….
111
4.6
Discussion
………………………………………………..
113
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1
Conclusions
……………………………………………….
118
5.2
Implications
……………………………………………….
119
5.2
Suggestions
……………………………………………….
121
References
Appendix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 The mean of Students’ score in Reading Comprehensionat SMP GKPS 3
Pematangsiantar........................................................................................
4
Table 2 The characteristic of Self- Efficacy Levels………………....................
50
Table 3 Factorial Research Design 2x2................................................................
56
Table 4 Table of Specification for Reading comprehension...............................
61
Table 5 Students’ Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Indicators …………...................
68
Table 6 The Procedures of The Treatment in Metacognitive Strategy ...…...........
56
Table 7 The Procedures of the treatment in SIM ..................................................
78
Table 8 Table of Two Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) ……..................... ..
84
Table 9 The Descriptive Data................................................................................
89
Table 10 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy High Self-Efficacy...........
90
Table 11 Descriptive Statistic of Low Self-efficacy Low Self-Efficacy.............
92
Table 12 Descriptive Statistic of Metacognitive Strategy Metacognitive…............
93
Table 13 Descriptive Statistic of Strategic Instruction Model
Strategic Instruction Model……….........................................................
95
Table 14 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Metacognitive strategy…………………………....................................
96
Table 15 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Using Strategic Instruction Model..................................................................
98
Table 16 Low Self-Efficacy & Metacognitive…………………….........................
99
Table 17 Low Self-Efficacy & SIM..........................................................................
101
Table 18 Normality Test……………………...............................................................
103
Table 19 Homogeneity Test.........................................................................................
104
Table 20 Testing Hypothesis ………………………….............................................
104
Table 21 The result of T-test..............................................................................
109
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with High Self-efficacy…..................................................................
91
Figure 4.2 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy……….......................................................
93
Figure 4.3 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Metacognitive strategy…………………….............................
95
Figure 4.4 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Strategic Instruction Model......................................................
96
Figure 4.5 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Metacognitive strategy………………………………………….....
98
Figure 4.6 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Strategic Instruction Model.............................................................
99
Figure 4.7 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Using Metacognitive Strategy……………………........................
101
Figure 4.8 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Metacognitive strategy…………………........................................
102
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix A Reading Comprehension Test..………………………….............
130
Appendix B Learning Style Questionnaire……………………………............
139
Appendix C The Computation of Validity, Reliability Index,
and Discrimination of Questionnaire & Reading
Comprehension Test …………………………………………..…
141
Appendix D Description of Students’Achievement in Each group....................
147
Appendix E The Descriptive Data ……….........................................................
148
Appendix F Statistic Description Of Normality and Homogeneity
of Questionnaire And Reading Comprehension ...........…………..
149
Appendix G Calculation of Two Way Anova......................................................
155
Appendix H Calculation of Two Way Anova Manually.....................................
157
Appendix I Statistic Hypothesis ………………….............................................
163
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study
In Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985), Anderson, R., Hiebert, Scott,
and Wilkinson stated that the basic life skill of reading is a cornerstone for success
in both school and life. They further state that without the ability to read well,
people will lose opportunities for personal fulfillment and job successes. Without
the ability to read, a person might not be able to cure cancer, invent the next
technological breakthrough, or fix a complex piece of machinery. That’s why
learning a language is very important for students. For instance English. Since
English has been used as a international language, that used as a medium to
communicate with others from various countries. In preparing for an information
era, it makes the language users should be upgrade their ability in reading, for so
many information presented on a text. This consideration will happen by
mastering it means one can access information and technology easily. By learning
English one would be able to express his/her ideas and feelings in the international
aspects in English language.
Establishing a clear definition of reading provides an important
perspective for evaluating approaches to teaching word-identification skills. For
reading is an important skill for all students at all level. Most educators would
agree that the major purpose of reading should be the construction of meaning,
1
comprehending and actively responding to what is read. Two of the most widely
cited and agreed-upon definitions of reading are the following: Reading is the
process of constructing meaning from written texts. It is a complex skill requiring
the ordination of a number of interrelated sources of information. Anderson et al.,
(1985). Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic
interaction among: (1) the reader's existing knowledge; (2) the information
suggested by the text being read; and (3) the context of the reading situation.
Wixson, Peters, Weber, & Roeber, (1987) citing the new definition of reading for
Michigan). Older, mechanistic definitions of reading as the translation of printed
symbols into oral language equivalents are incomplete, given the progress made in
understanding the nature of the reading process.
The definitions of reading emphasize meaning indicate that reading is
activated by print. The reader must be able to translate the written words into
meaningful language. Virtually all four- and five-year-old children can
communicate with and learn from oral language, but very few can read, because
they lack the ability to identify printed words. While simply being able to
recognize or "say" the printed words of text without constructing the meaning of
that text is not reading, constructing meaning from written text is impossible
without being able to identify the words. The terms word identification, word
recognition, and decoding are frequently used interchangeably. The Literacy
Dictionary. Harris & Hodges (1995) defines both word recognition and word
identification as "the process of determining the pronunciation and some degree of
meaning of an unknown word" (pp. 282-283). For words that are in a reader's
2
meaning vocabulary, unlocking the pronunciation leads to the word's meaning. If
a printed word is not in a reader's meaning vocabulary, word-identification skills
may allow access to the word's pronunciation, but not its meaning. Being able to
arrive at the pronunciation of a printed word constitutes word identification in the
most minimal sense; however, if the reader is unable to attach meaning to the
word, then he or she has not read the word, since reading must end in meaning
construction.
In fact, teacher and students have challenges to achieve competence in
reading comprehension. In teaching learning process in reading comprehension in
class, students are very difficult to get the meaning of the text. While reading the
text, they often focus on translating word per word instead of understanding the
text. It sometimes makes them in low motivated as well as they have low in
vocabulary mastery. Harmer (2003:208) stated that students sometimes have low
expectation of reading. Reading passage is bound to be too difficult for them to
predict that the whole experience will be frustrating and low in vocabulary
mastery. As a result the students’ achievement in reading is low. Based on Willis
(1996:72) explains “I understand all the words but I do not know what the writer
is getting at” is a common complaint from the students reading a foreign
language. Therefore students have read many times to get an appropriate sense.
This fact makes many students less motivated to read. In this situation the role of
teacher in applying some more interesting teaching strategies in teaching learning
process towards reading comprehension.
3
This phenomenon also happened in teaching learning process in SMP
GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Most of them got low score in reading comprehension
based on data taken from that school. It can be seen as follows:
Table 1.1. The Mean of Students’ Score in
Reading Comprehension at SMP GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar
NO
1
2
3
4
Academic
Year
KKM
2009/2010
2010/2011
2011/2012
2012/2013
60
63
65
67
The Mean
Lowest Score
Highest Score
50
55
60
65
55
60
68
70
Based on the criteria standard based (KKM) of reading of students of SMP
GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar grade eight of the year 2013/2014 found that only 28
percent of the students passed 67 grade in reading comprehension. It means that
the teaching reading comprehension has not been successful; therefore this
teaching should be improved in order to achieve the criteria standard based.
There are many factors that made the students got low score in reading
comprehension, there are internal and external. The internal factors, they are
intelligence, self-efficacy, motivation, attention, learning style, interest and
personality. The external included teacher performance, environment, materials
and teaching strategies. In external factors found that the teachers still use the
traditional instruction on teaching learning process. Concerning to the process of
identifying some of the variables that may be affecting reading comprehension
4
among grade eighth students. And found one potential reason for poor reading
comprehension that has been largely overlooked by research and the recent
scholarly literature, however, is that of the relationship between teaching strategy
and self-efficacy and the impact that this relationship may have on reading
comprehension. The teacher reads the text first then followed by students to repeat
then asked students to the repeated material into Indonesian, discussed the
content, finally asked them to answer some question given based on the text. Most
of them have difficulties in searching the meaning for most of them didn’t bring
dictionary. So the students just waiting for the teacher’s information and
explanation about the subject material. In addition they also have some difficulties
in finding the main idea and to answer the question given.
There are many instruction strategies on teaching learning process toward
reading comprehension. To increase the students’ achievement on reading
comprehension that can make students interest and active in the classroom, the
writer would like to conduct Metacognitive and strategic instruction model (SIM)
strategies in teaching reading comprehension. Metacognitive strategy is defined as
"cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing. It is said that learners
who are metacognitively aware know what to do when they don’t know what to
do. In addition, The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) is an approach to
reforming classrooms and schools around the goal of increasing content literacy
through more strategic approaches to learning and teaching. Based on the
explanation above, it can be predicted that student’s achievement in reading
comprehension that taught by using metacognitive is higher than taught by using
5
strategic instruction model (SIM). For in metacognitive gives the freely condition
to the students to think/ predict what they are thinking about while in the reading
process takes place.
Moreover students who have high self-efficacy are believed can tackle
difficult texts and are confident that their efforts will be beneficial to them.
Students with low self-efficacy will state that they can not do this, when
confronted with a text that appears lengthy, complex, or cognitive challenging.
Lack of belief in their capacity to comprehend undermines their initiation and use
of whatever comprehension skills they posses.
1.2 Identification of the Problems
Based on the explanation presented in background, the problem
identification because of low achievement in english are: (1) what teaching
strategies often used for students’ reading comprehension. (2) Other factors in
students self-efficacy such as personality, motivation, and ability to pay attention
affect the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. (3) metacognitive
strategy improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. (4) There
is any differences in the students’ achievement in reading comprehension using
metacognitive strategy and strategic instruction model. (5) There is an influence
on the students’ achievement through self-efficacy. (6) Different teaching
strategies and students’ self-efficacy cause the different achievement. (7) The
teacher can improve the students’ achievement by knowing and modifying their
6
self-efficacy. (8) The students improve their achievement by knowing their selfefficacy. (9) The students’ background knowledge affect the students’ selfefficacy and achievement. (10) The students’ characteristics as one of the
variables of learning condition affect the students’ achievement.
1.3
The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the problem of this study is
formulated as the following.
1. Is the students’ achievement on reading comprehension taught by
using metacognitive is higher than taught by using strategic instruction
model (SIM)?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that has high
self-efficacy higher than that has low self-efficacy?
3. Is there any interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy
on students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
1.4
Objectives of Study
Concerning to answer the question on the research problem, they can be
listed as follows.
7
1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension
that was taught by metacognitive is significantly higher than strategic
instruction model (SIM).
2. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension that
have high self-efficacy higher than that have low self-efficacy.
3. To find out whether there is interaction between teaching strategies and
self-efficacy significantly affect to reading comprehension.
1.5
The Scope of the Study
There are various teaching strategies on reading comprehension. In this
study the writer focuses on two teaching strategies, they are metacognitive and
strategic instruction model (SIM). In relation to these strategies, students’ selfefficacy has the relationship to reading comprehension in terms of accomplishing
the task (e.g. to find main idea, detailed information, vocabulary meaning,
inferences, implied meaning, the writer purpose or draw conclusion and
paraphrasing). The teaching strategies hoped increase the students competence in
gaining the reading comprehension. And students’ self-efficacy hoped can
increase the students’ competence in continuing advancement on reading
comprehension.
In addition the writer focuses on narrative which is explained as one of the
objectives of the study stated in the syllabus on Educational unit curriculum level
8
(KTSP: Kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan). And the writer constructed the
reading comprehension test based on the topics in the syllabus and taxonomy of
reading in order to identify the behavioral outcomes. The writer expected the
students went with the literal and inferential levels. In literal comprehension, the
students were expected to identify the main idea, detailed information, and
vocabulary meaning. Furthermore, in inferential comprehension level, the students
were expected to identify reference, communicative purpose, and implied
meaning.
1.6
The Significance of the Study
Reading comprehension is an extraordinary feat of balancing and
coordinating many abilities in a very complex and rapid set of routine that makes
comprehension a seemingly effort and enjoyable activity for fluent readers.
Theoretically the findings of this study is expected to provide information which
may have practical as well as theoretical values for English language teachers,
students or readers and to those who intended to conduct further in-depth study in
reading comprehension. Meanwhile, practically To assist the English teachers in
their attempts to improve students’ reading comprehension, For the English
teachers as one of alternative strategies when teaching reading.
9
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and the discussion, the conclusion can be
drawn as follows:
1. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension that taught by
Metacognitive strategy is higher than taught by Strategic instruction
Model.
2. There is a significant effect of self-efficacy on students’ reading
comprehension achievement. Showing that students’ achievement that
have high self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy students.
3. There is a significant interaction between teaching strategies and selfefficacy on students’ reading comprehension achievement. Students’
achievement on reading comprehension is influenced by teaching
strategies and self-efficacy. High self-efficacy students showed significant
effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by
using Metacognitive Strategy than that taught by using Strategic
Instruction Model. In addition, low self-efficacy students showed a
118
significant effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were
taught by using Strategic Instruction Model.
5.2 Implications
Based on study found that the findings give implication to English
teachers and students in upgrading their achievement in reading comprehension.
There are two teaching strategies were done in this study, they are metacognitive
strategy and strategic instruction model. They were applied on students’ high and
low self-efficacy in order to know which teaching strategies are suitable for them
in improving reading comprehension.
The first result of this study showed that students’ achievement taught by
using Metacognitive strategy is higher than students taught by using strategic
instruction model because in metacognitive strategy students know what to do
when they don’t know what to do, moreover, metacognitive strategies are ordered
processes used to control one’s own cognitive activities to ensure that a cognitive
goal has been met.
The second result of this study showed that students’ achievement of high
self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy. It gives implication to English
teachers in giving the students to utilize develops their expertise as reader which
helps them develop a sense of efficacy for reading. The students with high selfefficacy do better on different achievement activities, choose more difficult
activities to try, and persist at them even if they are having trouble completing
them because of self-efficacy’s influence on motivation and performance, it is
119
essential that students develop a strong sense of their efficacy for reading for them
to be engaged in reading.
The third result of this study showed that there is a significant interaction
between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy on students’ achievement
in reading comprehension. It gives implication that teaching strategies applied by
teachers should relate to students’ self-efficacy. Metacognitive provides high and
low self-efficacy with the tools they need to become good readers. On one hand,
the high self-efficacy students will have a challenge and get better skills in terms
of reading comprehension. On the other hand, the low self-efficacy will improve
their self-efficacy in terms of accomplishing the task and participating in the class
by using metacognitive strategy.
In addition Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) can help high and low selfefficacy students by acquiring, using, integrating, storing, and retrieving
information across time, setting, and situation. The high self-efficacy students will
use the strategies easily and have better ability in terms of reading comprehension,
meanwhile the low one will get help in comprehend the reading materials and
improve their self-efficacy by using SIM. Students’ achievement on reading
comprehension is influenced by teaching strategies and self-efficacy. High selfefficacy students showed significant effect on their reading comprehension
achievement if they were taught by using Metacognitive Strategy than that taught
by using Strategic Instruction Model. In addition, low self-efficacy students
showed a significant effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they
were taught by using Strategic Instruction Model.
120
5.3 Suggestion
In line with conclusion, there are four suggestions as follows:
1. To the teachers:
a. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy and
Strategic Instruction Model since these two teaching strategies can
improve students’ achievement on reading comprehension.
b. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy in the
class of which is dominated by low self-efficacy students.
c. English teachers are recommended using Strategic Instruction Model
in the class of which by low self-efficacy.
d. English teachers should encourage low self-efficacy students to
participate in studying English in term of getting better achievement on
reading comprehension.
2. Other researchers:
Other researcher can develop further study in the area of
Metacognitive Strategy and Strategic instruction Model that improve
students achievement on reading comprehension.
121
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R., and Lebiere, Ch. (1998). The atomic components of thought. N.
J.: Erlbaum
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation
of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL:
Center for the Study of Reading.
Alexander, M.J.1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in
Reading.
New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum
Allison, Davis, 2011Building Comprehension strategy.
Eleanor Curtain
Publishing Level 1, Suite 3 102 Toorak Road South Yarra, VIC 3141
Australia Alderson, J.C., 2000
Ary, D., Chaesar, L.J., & Rajaviah, A. 1979.
Introduction to research in
education. New York: Holt, Renehart and Winston
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy of Control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W.H.
Freeman.
122
Bloom,B. 1982. Taxonomy of education objectives, handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay.
Brasell, D. 2008. Comprehension That Works Taking Students Beyond Ordinary
Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Shell Education Bloom, B.
1982.
Taxonomy
of
education
Objectives,
Handbook
I:
Cognitivedomain. New yorkDavid McKay
Bremer, D.Christine ., Ann T. Clapper, and Donald D. Deshler.(2002). Improving
Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Strategies. Vol. 1, Issue 4
Brown, D. H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices.
New York: Pearson Education.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference ability and its relation to
comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–
503.
Campbell, D.T & Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research
Chumpavan, S. (2000). A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies
used by Thai students in second language academic reading. SLLT, 9, 6277.
Clark, H.H. & Clark, E.V. 1997. Psychology and Language; An Introduction to
Psycholinguistics. New Jersey: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Collins, Kathy. (2008). Reading for Real. Teach Students to Read with Power,
Intention, and Joy in K-3 Classrooms. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers
123
Coutinbo, S.A.(2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and
academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39- 47.
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. (4th ed.).
London: Prentice-Hall.
Danielle S. McNamara. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies. Theories,
Interventions, and Technologies. University of Memphis.
Desher, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight,
J., & Ehren, B. J. (2002). The Strategic Intervention Model. The
University of Kansas Center for research on leaning: Lawrence, KS. In
Cromly, J.G. Chapter 7. Retrieved on Thrusday, April 18, 2013. http
//www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/SIMRP
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching
students how to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, and M. J. Curtis (Eds.),
Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional
options for all students (pp. 391-411). Washington, DC: National
Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved on Sunday, June 16,
2013. http:/ / w w w.ncset.org/ publications/ view desc.asp?id=720
Elizabeth, L. (2009). Reading Comprehension in Success. In 2o Minutes A Day.
New York: Learning Express
Everson, H. T. & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and
performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science,
26:65-79.
124
Fisher, P. M., and Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, Text Variables, and the Control of
Text Comprehension and Recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L and Trabasso,
T., Learning and Comprehension of Text. (213-250). Hillsdale, New
Jersey., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Flavell, J.H.: 1976. Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In: The Nature of
Intelligence. Resnick, Lauren B (ed.) p.233 Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Flavell, J. (1979). "Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of
cognitive-development inquiry. " American Psycholoqist 34: 906-9
Flavell, J. H., &Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Vail, & J. W.
Hagen, (Eds. ), Perspectives on the development of memo[y and
cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ, L. Erlbaurn.
Fusco, E., & Fountain, G. (1992). Reflective teacher, reflective learner. In A.
Costa, J. Bellanca, & R. Fogarty (Eds.) If minds matter : A foreword to
the future (Vol. 1, pp. 238-255)
Goodman SI, Stein DE, Schlesinger S, Christensen E, Schwartz M, Greenberg
CR, Elpeleg ON. “Glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase mutations in glutaric
acidemia (type I): Review and report of thirty novel mutations,” Hum
Mutat 1998; 12: 141-144.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of Opportunity to
Read and Balanced Instruction on the NAEE journals of Educational
Research, 96(3), 145-162.
125
Gutrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & P Perencevich, K.C. 2004. Motivating Reading
Comprehension Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Harmer, Jeremy. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third
Edition completely revised and updated. Malaysia: Pearson education
Limited
Harris, T. L. & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The
vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, Delaware: International
Reading Association.
Hartman, H.J. (ed.): 2001. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory ,
Research and Practice. Chapter 8 Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 149-169
Harvey, S. & Goudis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse
Horowitz, S. H. 2005. Strategic Instruction Model: How to teach, How to Learn.
Retrieved Saturday March, 30 2013. http :// www.ncld.org/.../strategicinstruction -model-sim-how-to-teach-how-to-learn
Ibe, Helen Ngozi. (2009). Metacognitive Strategies on Classroom Participation
and Student Achievement in Senior Secondary School Science
Classrooms. Science Education International. Vol.20, No.1/2, December
2009, 25-31
John T. Guthrie Allan Wigfield Kathleen C. Perencevich (2004) University of
Maryland, College Park. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Mahwah, New Jersey
126
Johnson , P. Andrew . 2008. Teaching reading and writing. Washington D.C:
Rowman and Littlefield Education
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching
comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C.
Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–26). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Koechlin, Carol, and Sandi Zwaan. 2006. Q tasks: How to empower students to
ask questions and care about answers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for
adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
23(3), 149-158, 163.
Lenz, Keit. (2001). Strategic Instruction Model: New Horozing For Learners.
Retrieved
on
Sunday
June
16,2013.http:/ / education.jhu.edu/ PD/ new horizons/ strategies/ topics/ Graphic
%20Tools%20for%20Learning/ lenz.htm
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2006). s.v. “perceive.” Retrieved May 16,
2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary
Mureillon, Judi. (2007). Collaborative Strategies for Teaching Reading
Comprehension: maximizing your impact. Chicago: AMERICAN
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
127
Niemi, D. (1999, February). Assessment models for aligning standards and
classroom practice. UCLA Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies. Center for the Study of Evaluation. National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Conference
of The American Association of School Administrators.
Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in Foreign Language. London:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Pearson, P. D. & Dole, J. A. (1987). "Explicit comprehension instruction: A
review of the research and a new conceptualisation of instruction. " The
ElementarvSchool Journal 88: 153-167.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1998, September). Science achievement: What we have
learned from two alternative assessments. Paper presented at conference
CRESST.
Ruddell, B. R., & Ruddell, M. R. (1995). Teaching children to read and write:
Becoming an influential teacher. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition, and self-making inb methematics. En D. Grouws, ed.,
Handbook for research on Mathematics teaching and learning. N. Y.:
MacMillan
Scott, G. Paris & Steven, A (2005). Children's Reading Comprehension and
Assessment. London: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
128
Setiawan, Otong
D. 2007. Mengerti Bahasa Inggris SMA/Ma. Margahayu
Permai, Bandung, Yrama Widya
Smith, R.J., & Barret, T.C. 1979. Teaching reading in the Middle Grade.
Virginia, USA: Addition-Wesley Pub.Co
Steinberg, D.D.1982. Pscholinguistics: Language, Mind and World. New York:
Longman
Wixson, K., Peters, C., Weber, E., & Roeber, I. (1987)."New directions in
statewide reading assessment."The Reading Teacher,40, 749-755. Yopp,
H. K. (1992).
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language
classroom. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
129
ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA
Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2014
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS’ SELF-EFFICACY
ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING COMPREHENSION
AT GRADE VIII OF SMP GKPS 3 PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in a
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
ELISA KANDER PURBA
Registration Number 8116112005
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2014
ABSTRACT
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. A Thesis. The effect of Teaching strategies and
Students’ self-efficacy on Students’ achievement in reading Comprehension At Grade
VIII of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. English Applied Linguistics Study
Program, Postgraduate Program State University of Medan 2013.
This study was intended to find out: 1) whether students that taught by using Metacognitive
strategy have higher achievement than students that taught by using Strategic instruction
model in reading comprehension., 2) whether students that have high self-efficacy have
higher achievement than students that have low self-efficacy in reading comprehension
achievement, and 3)if the interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy
significantly affects reading comprehension achievement. The study was conducted on
students grade VIII of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pemnatangsiantar academic year 2013/2014.
The population was more than 120 students and the sample was 70 students. This study was
conducted by using factorial design 2 X 2. The instruments of collecting data were reading
comprehension test and questionnaire. The technique of collecting data was done by using
Two Way of Analysis of Variance(ANOVA). The first result proved that 1) the teaching
strategies have a significant effect on students’ reading comprehension achievement, it was
supported by the calculation that showed the mean score of students’ achievement taught by
using Metacognitive strategy was 79,89 is higher than mean score of students’ achievement
taught by Strategic Instruction Model was 75,71(79,89 > 75,71), and the calculation of Two
way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed that F observed = 4,07 is higher than F table =
3,99 (4,07>3,99) .
2) self-efficacy has a significant effect on students’ reading
comprehension achievement, the calculation two way Analysis Variance (ANOVA) showed
F Observed 8,05 is higher than F Table 3,99 (8,05>3,99). 3) there is significant interaction
between teaching strategies and self-efficacy students reading comprehension achievement.
The calculation showed that F Observed= 9,53 higher than F table= 3,99. (9,53>3,99). The
multiple comparisons was conducted by using T-Test. The findings showed that 1) There is
significant effect of teaching strategies on students reading comprehension achievement, 2)
there is a significant effect of self-efficacy on students’ reading comprehension achievement,
and 3) there is a significant interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy on
students’ reading comprehension achievement.
ABSTRAK
Purba, Elisa Kander. 8116112005. Thesis. Pengaruh Strategi Mengajar dan Selfefficacy Terhadap Hasil Belajar Reading Comprehension Pada Siswa Kelas VIII SMP
Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Program studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris,
Universitas Negeri Medan 2013.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui: 1) Apakah hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan
dengan menggunakan Metacognitive strategy lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang diajarkan
dengan menggunakan Strategic instruction model, 2) Apakah siswa yang menpunyai selfefficacy yang tinggi memeperoleh hasil yang lebih tinggi daripada siswa yang mempunyai
self-efficacy yang rendah, 3) Apakah ada interaksi antara strategi mengajar dengan selfefficacy siswa dalam pencapaian hasil belajar dalam reading comprehension. Penelitian ini
diadakan terhadap siswa kelas VIII SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar pada tahun
pelajaran 2013/2014. Populasi siswa adalah 120 siswa dan yang dijadikan sebagai sampel
penelitian sebanyak 70 siswa. Penelitian ini digunakan dengan menggunakan Factorial
Design 2 x 2. Pengukuran instrument dilakukan dengan cara test dan kuesioner. Teknik
pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara Two Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Hasil
penelitian menujukan: 1) Strategy pengajaran mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant terhadap
hasil belajar reading comprehension siswa. Ini dapat dilihat dari skor mean perolehan siswa
dengan menggunakan strategi mengajar Metacognitive Strategy( 79,89) lebih tinggi dari pada
peolehan siswa yang menggunakan Strategi strategic instruction model (75,71). Perbandingan
tersebut adalah (79,89 > 75,71), lebih lanjut dapat dilihat dari perhitungan Two Way Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) menunjukan F Hitung 4,07 lebih tinggi dari F tabel 3,99(4,07 > 3,99).
Hasil kedua menunjukan 2) self-efficacy siswa mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant
terhadap pencapain hasil belajar siswa.perhitungan dengan menggunakan Two Way ANOVA
menunjukan F hitung(8,05) lebih tinggi dari F tabel (3,99). Interaksi antara strategi mengajar
dan self-efficacy siswa mempunyai pengaruh yang signifikant terhadap hasil belajar reading
comprehension siswa. Berdasarkan perhitungan dengan cara Two Way ANOVA diperoleh F
hitung ( 9,53) lebih tinggi daripada F tabel (3,99), (9,53>3,99). Penghitungan kedua variable
tersebut dilakukan dengan cara t-test. Hasil yang diperoleh menunjukkan bahwa: 1) terdapat
pengaruh yang signifikant dari strategi pengajaran terhadap pencapaian hasil belajar reading
comprehension siswa, 2) Terdapat pengaruh yang signifikant dari self-efficacy siswa
terhadap pencapain hasil belajar reading comprehension siswa, 3) terdapat interaksi yang
signifikant antara strategi mengajar dengan self-efficacy siswa dalam pencapaian hasil bejalar
reading comprehension siswa.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer would like to express a very grateful to Jesus Christ who has granted his
blessings, mercy, health and luck that had been continuously poured to the writer, so that this
thesis could be finished. This thesis is intended to fulfill a part of requirements to get degree
of Master Humaniora at the English Applied Linguistics Program, Postgraduate School, State
University of Medan.
The completion of this thesis would have never been possible without the assistance
of many people that give suggestions, comments and guidance. For this the writer express a
special note of thankful to those that support this thesis.
Firstly, The writer would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
M. Pd., as a Head of English Applied Linguistics Program, and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S.,
as the Secretary of Head of English Applied Linguistics Program for their special care,
attention, encouragement full support give to his until he can complete this thesis.
Secondly , he would like to say his sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing,
M.Pd and Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed., TESP as his first and second adviser. Thanks for your
excellent suggestion, comments, encouragement and valuable time spent for consulting in the
process of completing this thesis. For Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Prof. Dr. Berlin
Sibarani, M. Pd., Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd., as his reviewers and examiners for their valuable
suggestions and corrections of the draft of the thesis during seminars and examination.
Furthermore he would like to express thanks to Jamesdin Sinaga, S. Pd., as the
principal of SMP Swasta GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar and all staffs that have given him much
help and support in conducting his research.
His profound and sincere gratitude are directed to his beloved Mom, Rosdelina
Saragih, his lovely sisters Ida darli, Septi Dewi, Nenny Friani and his brother Darwin,
Renhard Purba, who have patiently given pray and never anding spiritual and material
support.
She also thanks to all his friends in XX Executive Class for their friendship and
cooperation, in addition to his beloved friends Wannie Harahap, Merry Sinaga, Lambok
Sitompul, Deska Harahap, Ewin Sitijak, Lino naiborhu. Thank you for being a great friends.
The Writer,
Elisa Kander Purba
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………..
1
1.1 The Background of the study
1
………………………………………………..
1.2 Identification of The Problem
………………………………………………..
6
.......................................................................
7
1.3 The Problems of the study
1.4 The Objectives of the study
1.5 The Scope of the study
..............................................................
..........................................................................
1.6 The Significances of study
......................................................................
8
9
………………...........................
10
...................................................................... …
10
2.1.1 Reading Comprehension ………………………..………………….
2.1.2 Students’ achievement in Reading Comprehension........................ ….
10
14
2.1.3 Reading Process
………….……………....................................
16
2.1.4 The Levels of Reading Comprehension ……………......................
19
2.1.5 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension...……….....................
21
2.1.6 Narrative Text
23
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.2
7
Teaching Strategy
.........................................................................
…………..............................................................
2.2.1 Metacognitive Strategy ………….………………………………………..
24
25
2.2.1.1 The Nature of Metacognitive Strategy....................................................
25
2.2.1.2 The procedure of Metacognitive Strategy...............................................
27
2.2.2 Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
…….............................................
34
2.2.2.1 The Nature Of SIM
……………..............................................
34
2.2.2.2 The Procedure of SIM
2.3
2.4
Self-efficacy
………………………........................
37
……………………............................................
43
2.3.1 Self-efficacy and Achievement Outcome …….. ……………...........
45
Conceptual Framework
51
………………………........................
2.4.1 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension
That taught by using metacognitive and strategic instruction model..
51
2.4.2 The difference of students’ achievement in reading comprehension
That have high and low self-efficacy ………………………………..
52
2.4.3 The interaction between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy
2.5
On students’ achievement in reading comprehension ………………
53
Hypothesis of study ……………………………………………………….
55
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................
56
3.1 Research Design ...............................................................................................
56
3.2 The Population and Sample
57
……………......................................................
3.2.1 Population ......................................................................................
57
3.2.2 Sample ………………………………………………………………
57
3.3
The Instument of Data Collection ...............................................................
58
3.3.1
Reading Comprehension Test ...................................................................
58
3.3.1.1 Conceptual Definition
…………................................................
58
3.3.1.2 Operational Definition
…………………………………………..
59
3.3.1.3 Specification ……………………………………………………… …
60
3.3.1.4 Calibration ………………………………………………………
62
3.3.2 Questionnaire of Self-efficacy ………………………………………………
67
3.3.2.1 Conceptual Definition …………………………………………
67
3.3.2.2 Operational Definition ………………………………………………
68
3.3.2.3 Specification ………………………………………………………
68
3.3.2.4 Calibration …………………………………………………………
71
3.4 The procedure of Data Collection …………………………………………
73
3.4.1 Preparation …………………………………………………………………
73
3.4.2 Control of Treatment …………………………………………………
73
3.4.2.1 The Internal Validity ………………………………………………
73
3.4.2.2 The External Validity ………………………………………………
76
3.4.3 Try Out Test ……………………………………………………………..
84
3.5
The technique of Analyzing Data ………………………………………….
84
3.6
Statistical Hypothesis……………………………………..........................
87
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1
The Data
………………………………………………..
88
4.2
Data Analysis
……………………………………………….
89
4.3
Requirement of Data Analysis ……………………………………………
102
4.4
Testing Hypothesis
………………………………………………..
105
4.5
Research Findings
……………………………………………….
111
4.6
Discussion
………………………………………………..
113
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1
Conclusions
……………………………………………….
118
5.2
Implications
……………………………………………….
119
5.2
Suggestions
……………………………………………….
121
References
Appendix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 The mean of Students’ score in Reading Comprehensionat SMP GKPS 3
Pematangsiantar........................................................................................
4
Table 2 The characteristic of Self- Efficacy Levels………………....................
50
Table 3 Factorial Research Design 2x2................................................................
56
Table 4 Table of Specification for Reading comprehension...............................
61
Table 5 Students’ Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Indicators …………...................
68
Table 6 The Procedures of The Treatment in Metacognitive Strategy ...…...........
56
Table 7 The Procedures of the treatment in SIM ..................................................
78
Table 8 Table of Two Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) ……..................... ..
84
Table 9 The Descriptive Data................................................................................
89
Table 10 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy High Self-Efficacy...........
90
Table 11 Descriptive Statistic of Low Self-efficacy Low Self-Efficacy.............
92
Table 12 Descriptive Statistic of Metacognitive Strategy Metacognitive…............
93
Table 13 Descriptive Statistic of Strategic Instruction Model
Strategic Instruction Model……….........................................................
95
Table 14 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Metacognitive strategy…………………………....................................
96
Table 15 Descriptive Statistic of High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Using Strategic Instruction Model..................................................................
98
Table 16 Low Self-Efficacy & Metacognitive…………………….........................
99
Table 17 Low Self-Efficacy & SIM..........................................................................
101
Table 18 Normality Test……………………...............................................................
103
Table 19 Homogeneity Test.........................................................................................
104
Table 20 Testing Hypothesis ………………………….............................................
104
Table 21 The result of T-test..............................................................................
109
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with High Self-efficacy…..................................................................
91
Figure 4.2 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy……….......................................................
93
Figure 4.3 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Metacognitive strategy…………………….............................
95
Figure 4.4 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Strategic Instruction Model......................................................
96
Figure 4.5 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Metacognitive strategy………………………………………….....
98
Figure 4.6 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Strategic Instruction Model.............................................................
99
Figure 4.7 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension Low High Self-efficacy And Taught By
Using Metacognitive Strategy……………………........................
101
Figure 4.8 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Reading comprehension
with Low Self-efficacy And Taught By Using
Metacognitive strategy…………………........................................
102
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix A Reading Comprehension Test..………………………….............
130
Appendix B Learning Style Questionnaire……………………………............
139
Appendix C The Computation of Validity, Reliability Index,
and Discrimination of Questionnaire & Reading
Comprehension Test …………………………………………..…
141
Appendix D Description of Students’Achievement in Each group....................
147
Appendix E The Descriptive Data ……….........................................................
148
Appendix F Statistic Description Of Normality and Homogeneity
of Questionnaire And Reading Comprehension ...........…………..
149
Appendix G Calculation of Two Way Anova......................................................
155
Appendix H Calculation of Two Way Anova Manually.....................................
157
Appendix I Statistic Hypothesis ………………….............................................
163
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study
In Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985), Anderson, R., Hiebert, Scott,
and Wilkinson stated that the basic life skill of reading is a cornerstone for success
in both school and life. They further state that without the ability to read well,
people will lose opportunities for personal fulfillment and job successes. Without
the ability to read, a person might not be able to cure cancer, invent the next
technological breakthrough, or fix a complex piece of machinery. That’s why
learning a language is very important for students. For instance English. Since
English has been used as a international language, that used as a medium to
communicate with others from various countries. In preparing for an information
era, it makes the language users should be upgrade their ability in reading, for so
many information presented on a text. This consideration will happen by
mastering it means one can access information and technology easily. By learning
English one would be able to express his/her ideas and feelings in the international
aspects in English language.
Establishing a clear definition of reading provides an important
perspective for evaluating approaches to teaching word-identification skills. For
reading is an important skill for all students at all level. Most educators would
agree that the major purpose of reading should be the construction of meaning,
1
comprehending and actively responding to what is read. Two of the most widely
cited and agreed-upon definitions of reading are the following: Reading is the
process of constructing meaning from written texts. It is a complex skill requiring
the ordination of a number of interrelated sources of information. Anderson et al.,
(1985). Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic
interaction among: (1) the reader's existing knowledge; (2) the information
suggested by the text being read; and (3) the context of the reading situation.
Wixson, Peters, Weber, & Roeber, (1987) citing the new definition of reading for
Michigan). Older, mechanistic definitions of reading as the translation of printed
symbols into oral language equivalents are incomplete, given the progress made in
understanding the nature of the reading process.
The definitions of reading emphasize meaning indicate that reading is
activated by print. The reader must be able to translate the written words into
meaningful language. Virtually all four- and five-year-old children can
communicate with and learn from oral language, but very few can read, because
they lack the ability to identify printed words. While simply being able to
recognize or "say" the printed words of text without constructing the meaning of
that text is not reading, constructing meaning from written text is impossible
without being able to identify the words. The terms word identification, word
recognition, and decoding are frequently used interchangeably. The Literacy
Dictionary. Harris & Hodges (1995) defines both word recognition and word
identification as "the process of determining the pronunciation and some degree of
meaning of an unknown word" (pp. 282-283). For words that are in a reader's
2
meaning vocabulary, unlocking the pronunciation leads to the word's meaning. If
a printed word is not in a reader's meaning vocabulary, word-identification skills
may allow access to the word's pronunciation, but not its meaning. Being able to
arrive at the pronunciation of a printed word constitutes word identification in the
most minimal sense; however, if the reader is unable to attach meaning to the
word, then he or she has not read the word, since reading must end in meaning
construction.
In fact, teacher and students have challenges to achieve competence in
reading comprehension. In teaching learning process in reading comprehension in
class, students are very difficult to get the meaning of the text. While reading the
text, they often focus on translating word per word instead of understanding the
text. It sometimes makes them in low motivated as well as they have low in
vocabulary mastery. Harmer (2003:208) stated that students sometimes have low
expectation of reading. Reading passage is bound to be too difficult for them to
predict that the whole experience will be frustrating and low in vocabulary
mastery. As a result the students’ achievement in reading is low. Based on Willis
(1996:72) explains “I understand all the words but I do not know what the writer
is getting at” is a common complaint from the students reading a foreign
language. Therefore students have read many times to get an appropriate sense.
This fact makes many students less motivated to read. In this situation the role of
teacher in applying some more interesting teaching strategies in teaching learning
process towards reading comprehension.
3
This phenomenon also happened in teaching learning process in SMP
GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar. Most of them got low score in reading comprehension
based on data taken from that school. It can be seen as follows:
Table 1.1. The Mean of Students’ Score in
Reading Comprehension at SMP GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar
NO
1
2
3
4
Academic
Year
KKM
2009/2010
2010/2011
2011/2012
2012/2013
60
63
65
67
The Mean
Lowest Score
Highest Score
50
55
60
65
55
60
68
70
Based on the criteria standard based (KKM) of reading of students of SMP
GKPS 3 Pematangsiantar grade eight of the year 2013/2014 found that only 28
percent of the students passed 67 grade in reading comprehension. It means that
the teaching reading comprehension has not been successful; therefore this
teaching should be improved in order to achieve the criteria standard based.
There are many factors that made the students got low score in reading
comprehension, there are internal and external. The internal factors, they are
intelligence, self-efficacy, motivation, attention, learning style, interest and
personality. The external included teacher performance, environment, materials
and teaching strategies. In external factors found that the teachers still use the
traditional instruction on teaching learning process. Concerning to the process of
identifying some of the variables that may be affecting reading comprehension
4
among grade eighth students. And found one potential reason for poor reading
comprehension that has been largely overlooked by research and the recent
scholarly literature, however, is that of the relationship between teaching strategy
and self-efficacy and the impact that this relationship may have on reading
comprehension. The teacher reads the text first then followed by students to repeat
then asked students to the repeated material into Indonesian, discussed the
content, finally asked them to answer some question given based on the text. Most
of them have difficulties in searching the meaning for most of them didn’t bring
dictionary. So the students just waiting for the teacher’s information and
explanation about the subject material. In addition they also have some difficulties
in finding the main idea and to answer the question given.
There are many instruction strategies on teaching learning process toward
reading comprehension. To increase the students’ achievement on reading
comprehension that can make students interest and active in the classroom, the
writer would like to conduct Metacognitive and strategic instruction model (SIM)
strategies in teaching reading comprehension. Metacognitive strategy is defined as
"cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing. It is said that learners
who are metacognitively aware know what to do when they don’t know what to
do. In addition, The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) is an approach to
reforming classrooms and schools around the goal of increasing content literacy
through more strategic approaches to learning and teaching. Based on the
explanation above, it can be predicted that student’s achievement in reading
comprehension that taught by using metacognitive is higher than taught by using
5
strategic instruction model (SIM). For in metacognitive gives the freely condition
to the students to think/ predict what they are thinking about while in the reading
process takes place.
Moreover students who have high self-efficacy are believed can tackle
difficult texts and are confident that their efforts will be beneficial to them.
Students with low self-efficacy will state that they can not do this, when
confronted with a text that appears lengthy, complex, or cognitive challenging.
Lack of belief in their capacity to comprehend undermines their initiation and use
of whatever comprehension skills they posses.
1.2 Identification of the Problems
Based on the explanation presented in background, the problem
identification because of low achievement in english are: (1) what teaching
strategies often used for students’ reading comprehension. (2) Other factors in
students self-efficacy such as personality, motivation, and ability to pay attention
affect the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. (3) metacognitive
strategy improve the students’ achievement in reading comprehension. (4) There
is any differences in the students’ achievement in reading comprehension using
metacognitive strategy and strategic instruction model. (5) There is an influence
on the students’ achievement through self-efficacy. (6) Different teaching
strategies and students’ self-efficacy cause the different achievement. (7) The
teacher can improve the students’ achievement by knowing and modifying their
6
self-efficacy. (8) The students improve their achievement by knowing their selfefficacy. (9) The students’ background knowledge affect the students’ selfefficacy and achievement. (10) The students’ characteristics as one of the
variables of learning condition affect the students’ achievement.
1.3
The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the problem of this study is
formulated as the following.
1. Is the students’ achievement on reading comprehension taught by
using metacognitive is higher than taught by using strategic instruction
model (SIM)?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension that has high
self-efficacy higher than that has low self-efficacy?
3. Is there any interaction between teaching strategies and self-efficacy
on students’ achievement in reading comprehension?
1.4
Objectives of Study
Concerning to answer the question on the research problem, they can be
listed as follows.
7
1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension
that was taught by metacognitive is significantly higher than strategic
instruction model (SIM).
2. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension that
have high self-efficacy higher than that have low self-efficacy.
3. To find out whether there is interaction between teaching strategies and
self-efficacy significantly affect to reading comprehension.
1.5
The Scope of the Study
There are various teaching strategies on reading comprehension. In this
study the writer focuses on two teaching strategies, they are metacognitive and
strategic instruction model (SIM). In relation to these strategies, students’ selfefficacy has the relationship to reading comprehension in terms of accomplishing
the task (e.g. to find main idea, detailed information, vocabulary meaning,
inferences, implied meaning, the writer purpose or draw conclusion and
paraphrasing). The teaching strategies hoped increase the students competence in
gaining the reading comprehension. And students’ self-efficacy hoped can
increase the students’ competence in continuing advancement on reading
comprehension.
In addition the writer focuses on narrative which is explained as one of the
objectives of the study stated in the syllabus on Educational unit curriculum level
8
(KTSP: Kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan). And the writer constructed the
reading comprehension test based on the topics in the syllabus and taxonomy of
reading in order to identify the behavioral outcomes. The writer expected the
students went with the literal and inferential levels. In literal comprehension, the
students were expected to identify the main idea, detailed information, and
vocabulary meaning. Furthermore, in inferential comprehension level, the students
were expected to identify reference, communicative purpose, and implied
meaning.
1.6
The Significance of the Study
Reading comprehension is an extraordinary feat of balancing and
coordinating many abilities in a very complex and rapid set of routine that makes
comprehension a seemingly effort and enjoyable activity for fluent readers.
Theoretically the findings of this study is expected to provide information which
may have practical as well as theoretical values for English language teachers,
students or readers and to those who intended to conduct further in-depth study in
reading comprehension. Meanwhile, practically To assist the English teachers in
their attempts to improve students’ reading comprehension, For the English
teachers as one of alternative strategies when teaching reading.
9
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the research findings and the discussion, the conclusion can be
drawn as follows:
1. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension that taught by
Metacognitive strategy is higher than taught by Strategic instruction
Model.
2. There is a significant effect of self-efficacy on students’ reading
comprehension achievement. Showing that students’ achievement that
have high self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy students.
3. There is a significant interaction between teaching strategies and selfefficacy on students’ reading comprehension achievement. Students’
achievement on reading comprehension is influenced by teaching
strategies and self-efficacy. High self-efficacy students showed significant
effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by
using Metacognitive Strategy than that taught by using Strategic
Instruction Model. In addition, low self-efficacy students showed a
118
significant effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were
taught by using Strategic Instruction Model.
5.2 Implications
Based on study found that the findings give implication to English
teachers and students in upgrading their achievement in reading comprehension.
There are two teaching strategies were done in this study, they are metacognitive
strategy and strategic instruction model. They were applied on students’ high and
low self-efficacy in order to know which teaching strategies are suitable for them
in improving reading comprehension.
The first result of this study showed that students’ achievement taught by
using Metacognitive strategy is higher than students taught by using strategic
instruction model because in metacognitive strategy students know what to do
when they don’t know what to do, moreover, metacognitive strategies are ordered
processes used to control one’s own cognitive activities to ensure that a cognitive
goal has been met.
The second result of this study showed that students’ achievement of high
self-efficacy is higher than low self-efficacy. It gives implication to English
teachers in giving the students to utilize develops their expertise as reader which
helps them develop a sense of efficacy for reading. The students with high selfefficacy do better on different achievement activities, choose more difficult
activities to try, and persist at them even if they are having trouble completing
them because of self-efficacy’s influence on motivation and performance, it is
119
essential that students develop a strong sense of their efficacy for reading for them
to be engaged in reading.
The third result of this study showed that there is a significant interaction
between teaching strategies and students’ self-efficacy on students’ achievement
in reading comprehension. It gives implication that teaching strategies applied by
teachers should relate to students’ self-efficacy. Metacognitive provides high and
low self-efficacy with the tools they need to become good readers. On one hand,
the high self-efficacy students will have a challenge and get better skills in terms
of reading comprehension. On the other hand, the low self-efficacy will improve
their self-efficacy in terms of accomplishing the task and participating in the class
by using metacognitive strategy.
In addition Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) can help high and low selfefficacy students by acquiring, using, integrating, storing, and retrieving
information across time, setting, and situation. The high self-efficacy students will
use the strategies easily and have better ability in terms of reading comprehension,
meanwhile the low one will get help in comprehend the reading materials and
improve their self-efficacy by using SIM. Students’ achievement on reading
comprehension is influenced by teaching strategies and self-efficacy. High selfefficacy students showed significant effect on their reading comprehension
achievement if they were taught by using Metacognitive Strategy than that taught
by using Strategic Instruction Model. In addition, low self-efficacy students
showed a significant effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they
were taught by using Strategic Instruction Model.
120
5.3 Suggestion
In line with conclusion, there are four suggestions as follows:
1. To the teachers:
a. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy and
Strategic Instruction Model since these two teaching strategies can
improve students’ achievement on reading comprehension.
b. English teachers are recommended using Metacognitive Strategy in the
class of which is dominated by low self-efficacy students.
c. English teachers are recommended using Strategic Instruction Model
in the class of which by low self-efficacy.
d. English teachers should encourage low self-efficacy students to
participate in studying English in term of getting better achievement on
reading comprehension.
2. Other researchers:
Other researcher can develop further study in the area of
Metacognitive Strategy and Strategic instruction Model that improve
students achievement on reading comprehension.
121
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R., and Lebiere, Ch. (1998). The atomic components of thought. N.
J.: Erlbaum
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation
of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL:
Center for the Study of Reading.
Alexander, M.J.1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in
Reading.
New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum
Allison, Davis, 2011Building Comprehension strategy.
Eleanor Curtain
Publishing Level 1, Suite 3 102 Toorak Road South Yarra, VIC 3141
Australia Alderson, J.C., 2000
Ary, D., Chaesar, L.J., & Rajaviah, A. 1979.
Introduction to research in
education. New York: Holt, Renehart and Winston
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy of Control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W.H.
Freeman.
122
Bloom,B. 1982. Taxonomy of education objectives, handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay.
Brasell, D. 2008. Comprehension That Works Taking Students Beyond Ordinary
Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Shell Education Bloom, B.
1982.
Taxonomy
of
education
Objectives,
Handbook
I:
Cognitivedomain. New yorkDavid McKay
Bremer, D.Christine ., Ann T. Clapper, and Donald D. Deshler.(2002). Improving
Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Strategies. Vol. 1, Issue 4
Brown, D. H. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices.
New York: Pearson Education.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference ability and its relation to
comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–
503.
Campbell, D.T & Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research
Chumpavan, S. (2000). A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies
used by Thai students in second language academic reading. SLLT, 9, 6277.
Clark, H.H. & Clark, E.V. 1997. Psychology and Language; An Introduction to
Psycholinguistics. New Jersey: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Collins, Kathy. (2008). Reading for Real. Teach Students to Read with Power,
Intention, and Joy in K-3 Classrooms. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers
123
Coutinbo, S.A.(2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and
academic success. Educate, 7(1), 39- 47.
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. (4th ed.).
London: Prentice-Hall.
Danielle S. McNamara. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies. Theories,
Interventions, and Technologies. University of Memphis.
Desher, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight,
J., & Ehren, B. J. (2002). The Strategic Intervention Model. The
University of Kansas Center for research on leaning: Lawrence, KS. In
Cromly, J.G. Chapter 7. Retrieved on Thrusday, April 18, 2013. http
//www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/SIMRP
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching
students how to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, and M. J. Curtis (Eds.),
Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional
options for all students (pp. 391-411). Washington, DC: National
Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved on Sunday, June 16,
2013. http:/ / w w w.ncset.org/ publications/ view desc.asp?id=720
Elizabeth, L. (2009). Reading Comprehension in Success. In 2o Minutes A Day.
New York: Learning Express
Everson, H. T. & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and
performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science,
26:65-79.
124
Fisher, P. M., and Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, Text Variables, and the Control of
Text Comprehension and Recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L and Trabasso,
T., Learning and Comprehension of Text. (213-250). Hillsdale, New
Jersey., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Flavell, J.H.: 1976. Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In: The Nature of
Intelligence. Resnick, Lauren B (ed.) p.233 Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Flavell, J. (1979). "Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of
cognitive-development inquiry. " American Psycholoqist 34: 906-9
Flavell, J. H., &Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Vail, & J. W.
Hagen, (Eds. ), Perspectives on the development of memo[y and
cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ, L. Erlbaurn.
Fusco, E., & Fountain, G. (1992). Reflective teacher, reflective learner. In A.
Costa, J. Bellanca, & R. Fogarty (Eds.) If minds matter : A foreword to
the future (Vol. 1, pp. 238-255)
Goodman SI, Stein DE, Schlesinger S, Christensen E, Schwartz M, Greenberg
CR, Elpeleg ON. “Glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase mutations in glutaric
acidemia (type I): Review and report of thirty novel mutations,” Hum
Mutat 1998; 12: 141-144.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of Opportunity to
Read and Balanced Instruction on the NAEE journals of Educational
Research, 96(3), 145-162.
125
Gutrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & P Perencevich, K.C. 2004. Motivating Reading
Comprehension Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Harmer, Jeremy. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third
Edition completely revised and updated. Malaysia: Pearson education
Limited
Harris, T. L. & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The
vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, Delaware: International
Reading Association.
Hartman, H.J. (ed.): 2001. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory ,
Research and Practice. Chapter 8 Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 149-169
Harvey, S. & Goudis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse
Horowitz, S. H. 2005. Strategic Instruction Model: How to teach, How to Learn.
Retrieved Saturday March, 30 2013. http :// www.ncld.org/.../strategicinstruction -model-sim-how-to-teach-how-to-learn
Ibe, Helen Ngozi. (2009). Metacognitive Strategies on Classroom Participation
and Student Achievement in Senior Secondary School Science
Classrooms. Science Education International. Vol.20, No.1/2, December
2009, 25-31
John T. Guthrie Allan Wigfield Kathleen C. Perencevich (2004) University of
Maryland, College Park. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Mahwah, New Jersey
126
Johnson , P. Andrew . 2008. Teaching reading and writing. Washington D.C:
Rowman and Littlefield Education
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching
comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C.
Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–26). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Koechlin, Carol, and Sandi Zwaan. 2006. Q tasks: How to empower students to
ask questions and care about answers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for
adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
23(3), 149-158, 163.
Lenz, Keit. (2001). Strategic Instruction Model: New Horozing For Learners.
Retrieved
on
Sunday
June
16,2013.http:/ / education.jhu.edu/ PD/ new horizons/ strategies/ topics/ Graphic
%20Tools%20for%20Learning/ lenz.htm
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2006). s.v. “perceive.” Retrieved May 16,
2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary
Mureillon, Judi. (2007). Collaborative Strategies for Teaching Reading
Comprehension: maximizing your impact. Chicago: AMERICAN
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
127
Niemi, D. (1999, February). Assessment models for aligning standards and
classroom practice. UCLA Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies. Center for the Study of Evaluation. National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Conference
of The American Association of School Administrators.
Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in Foreign Language. London:
Heinemann Educational Books.
Pearson, P. D. & Dole, J. A. (1987). "Explicit comprehension instruction: A
review of the research and a new conceptualisation of instruction. " The
ElementarvSchool Journal 88: 153-167.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1998, September). Science achievement: What we have
learned from two alternative assessments. Paper presented at conference
CRESST.
Ruddell, B. R., & Ruddell, M. R. (1995). Teaching children to read and write:
Becoming an influential teacher. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition, and self-making inb methematics. En D. Grouws, ed.,
Handbook for research on Mathematics teaching and learning. N. Y.:
MacMillan
Scott, G. Paris & Steven, A (2005). Children's Reading Comprehension and
Assessment. London: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
128
Setiawan, Otong
D. 2007. Mengerti Bahasa Inggris SMA/Ma. Margahayu
Permai, Bandung, Yrama Widya
Smith, R.J., & Barret, T.C. 1979. Teaching reading in the Middle Grade.
Virginia, USA: Addition-Wesley Pub.Co
Steinberg, D.D.1982. Pscholinguistics: Language, Mind and World. New York:
Longman
Wixson, K., Peters, C., Weber, E., & Roeber, I. (1987)."New directions in
statewide reading assessment."The Reading Teacher,40, 749-755. Yopp,
H. K. (1992).
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language
classroom. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
129