A study on the implementation of self questioning to improve students` reading comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta

i

A STUDY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SELF-QUESTIONING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

AT SMP MARIA IMMACULATA YOGYAKARTA

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Fransisca Agustin S. 051214074

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

iv

Be True to Your Heart

And Your Dreams Will Come True

Stay true to all your beliefs and goals.

Stand tall.

Through all life’s setbacks and disappointments, your dreams will come true.

When no one else is with you, and no one seems to care,

just whisper to yourself, "I am the controller of my destiny. It’s up to me what comes to pass, and if I keep my thoughts positive and strong,

my dreams will come true."

When what seem to be impossible obstacles stand in your way, just think of all the times

you got through yesterday. There is a place for you in this world.

Stay on your chosen path. All the power is within you; be true to what is in your heart.

Be honest within yourself; if you are, then you cannot fail.

Your dreams will come true.

~ Debra Ruegg−Jenkins ~

vii ABSTRACT

Suryaningtyas, Fransisca Agustin. 2010. A Study on the Implementation of Self-Questioning to Improve Students’ Reading Comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Nowadays, there is research done to propose strategies to improve reading comprehension. Many researchers propose that self-questioning or readers’ generating questions could cause a greater degree of comprehension. However, all of the research was done in the participants who learn English as a first language. Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct study to find out if self-questioning improves reading comprehension in the participants who learn English as a foreign language through experimental research. There are two research problems formulated in this study: (1) How is the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom of the seventh grade students at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta? (2) Does the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom improve the seventh grade students’ reading comprehension?

The experiment method employed in this study was One Group Pretest Posttest Design. The sample of this study was chosen through cluster sampling. The instruments used to gather the data were interview, observation during the treatment, and the two types of tests, namely the pretest and the posttest. The observation sheet used in the treatment was field notes in order to record specific events happened during the treatment.

The analysis of the data was divided into two main parts to answer the research problems. Dealing with the first research problem of this study, the researcher implemented self-questioning into three main steps, namely, pre-reading, while pre-reading, and post reading. The steps were suggested by Armbruster and Osborn (2002) who propose steps of teaching reading. The steps were conducted by applying self-questioning as a strategy.

Dealing with the second research problem of this study, the researcher presented the result of the data through descriptive statistic of the pretest and the posttest scores. The researcher used t-test non independent sample to find out the correlated means of the pretest and the posttest. This technique aimed to prove whether there was significant difference between the mean of the pretest and the posttest. The data gained from the pretest’s and the posttest’s scores indicated that the mean increased from 62.4 in the pretest to 66.7 in the posttest. Using t-test non independent sample, it was found that the the t-table (2.052 ) was higher than the t-observed statistic (2.03). As a result, the null hypothesis was accepted and the research hypothesis was rejected. In other words, implementing self-questioning strategy is not statistically significant to improve the seventh grades learners’ reading comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta.

viii

Based on the discussion of the two problem formulations, the researcher proposes some suggestions and consideration for English teacher and other researchers who are interested to investigate further about the same topic in the last chapter of this thesis. The researcher expects that the suggestions could be beneficial for the teaching learning process.

ix ABSTRAK

Suryaningtyas, Fransisca Agustin. 2010. A Study on the Implemention of Self-Questioning to Improve Students’ Reading Comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Saat ini telah banyak penelitian dilakukan untuk mengusulkan cara maupun strategi yang mampu meningkatkan kemampuan memahami suatu bacaan Penelitian-penelitian tersebut mengusulkan bahwa self-questioning atau kegiatan pembaca menuliskan pertanyaan akan meningkatkan pemahaman dalam membaca. Walau begitu, penelitian-penelitin tersebut dilakukan pada siswa yang belajar Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pertama atau bahasa pengantar sehari-hari. Oleh sebab itu, peneliti melalukan penelitan untuk menguji apakah strategi self-questioning mampu meningkatkan pemahaman dalam membaca pada siswa yang belajar bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing melalui penelitian eksperimen. Ada dua permasalahan yang dirumuskan dalam studi ini, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana penerapan strategi self-questioning di kelas siswa kelas 7 di SMP Maria Immaculata dijalankan? (2) Apakah penerapan strategi self-questioning di kelas mampu meningkatkan kemampuan siswa dalam memahami suatu bacaan?

Metode eksperimen yang diterapkan dalam studi ini adalah dengan menggunakan pola pretest and posttest pada satu kelompok atau One Group Pretest Posttest Design. Subjek penelitian pada studi ini dipilih menggunakan cluster sampling. Alat yang digunakan untuk memperoleh data adalah wawancara, pengamatan yang dilakukan selama penelitian, serta dua macam tes berupa pretest and posttest. Lembar pengamatan yang digunakan selama penerapan strategi self-questioning adalah berupa catatan lapangan untuk mencatat peristiwa-peristiwa yang terjadi selama penerapan.

Analisa data di bagi menjadi dua pokok bahasan untuk menjawab rumusan masalah di atas. Sehubungan dengan permasalahan pertama, peneliti menerapkan strategi self-questioning dengan membagi tiga tahap aktifitas yaitu pre-reading, while reading, dan post reading. Langkah-langkah tersebut disarankan oleh Armbruster and Osborn (2002) yang mengungkapkan metode dalam mengajar membaca. Tiga tahapan aktifitas tersebut diterapkan dengan strategi self-questioning.

Sehubungan dengan permasalahan kedua, peneliti mempresentasikan hasil-hasil statistic deskriptif dari nilai-nilai yang didapat melalui pretest dan posttest. Peneliti menggunakan t-test non independent sample untuk menemukan nilai rata-rata pretest dan posttest yang saling berhubungan. Teknik ini bertujuan untuk membuktikan apakah ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara rata-rata nilai pretest dan posttest. Hasil dari studi ini mengidentifikasikan bahwa nilai rata-rata meningkat dari 62.4 di pretest menjadi 66.7 di posttest. Melalui t-test non independent sample, ditemukan bahwa table (2.052 ) lebih tinggi daripada t-observed (2.03). Sebagai hasilnya, null hypothesis diterima dan research

x

hypothesis ditolak. Arti kata lain, penerapan strategi self-questioning strategy tidak secara signifikan meningkatkan kemampuan siswa kelas 7 SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta dalam memahami suatu bacaan.

Dari pembahasan atas dua pokok permasalahan dalam studi ini, peneliti mengusulkan beberapa saran dan pertimbangan bagi para guru Bahasa Inggris maupun peneliti lain yang tertarik pada topik yang sama di bab terakhir penelitian ini. Peneliti berharap saran-saran tersebut dapat bermanfaat bagi aktifitas belajar mengajar.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to Lord Jesus Christ for His enormous blessing, guidance, and love given to me in accomplishing this thesis. He always stands by me whenever and wherever I need His help.

My gratitude and honor also go to my major sponsor Dr. Retno Muljani, M.Pd. who was willing to share her time reading and checking my thesis. Her knowledge, correction, suggestion, criticism, and support were very beneficial for me in finishing my thesis.

My thankfulness also goes to all PBI lecturers who have guided me during my study and PBI staffs (Mba Danik and Mba Tari) who have been very informative during my years of study in PBI.

Concerning to the data collection, I would also express my gratitude to the headmaster of SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta who had let me do the research. I also thank Pak Adi, the English teacher, as he had given me opportunity and trust to conduct research in his class. My appreciation also goes to the seventh grade students of SMP Maria Immaculata, especially Class C, who became the participants of my research.

Affection, care, and love have surrounded my life throughout my beloved family: my father, Bapak Chrys Budiharta, my mother, Ibu Christina Suprijati, and my sister, Mba Atha. They have shaped me to be who I am now. I thank them for

xii

their never-ending love, supports, advice, and prayer. They will always be the important people in my heart.

Life seems so hard if I have not got friends who have filled my life with joy and happiness and have supported me whenever I am down. I feel grateful to Datia, Rimas, Wahyu “Joex”, Tunjung, Nita, Adith “Kotak”, Endru, Daniel “Danconk”, Marshel’04, Yayas, Invani, Filus, and Kanya and those whose names cannot be mentioned one by one. I shall always remember every single moment we had and I shall always miss all those memories with them all!

I am also grateful to all members of Youth English Community (YEC) for all the wonderful experiences that I got through this organization. I shall always miss all “the adventures” that we had together. It is also my pleasure to thank All ELTI’s teachers and staffs for giving me an opportunity to join them and to develop my self more.

My special gratitude also goes to my boyfriend, Boni Aditya Firmanda, for all the sad and happy moments we have shared together. I thank him for his love, patience, and support especially in finishing my thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank all my friends and relatives that cannot be mentioned one by one. I thank them for all the support and prayers so that I can finish this thesis. May God bless them all!

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES... ii

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

ABSTRACT... vii

ABSTRAK... ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS... xiii

LIST OF TABLES ... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES ... xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES... xviii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION... 1

A. Research Background ... 1

B. Problem Identification... 4

C. Problem Formulation... 5

D. Problem Limitation ... 6

E. Research Objectives ... 6

F. Research Benefits ... 7

G. Definition of Terms... 8

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE... 10

A. Theoretical Description... 10

1. Reading ... 10

a. The Nature of Reading... 10

b. The Purpose of Reading... 12

c. The Models of Reading... 13

d. Reading Comprehension ... 17

xiv

2. Self-Questioning ... 21

3. Instructional Material Design ... 26

B. Theoretical Framework ... 28

C. Hypotheses ... 30

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY... 31

A. Research Method... 31

B. Research Participants ... 33

C. Research Instruments ... 34

1. Interview Guidelines ... 34

2. Observation Sheet ... 35

3. Tests ... 36

D. Data Gathering Techniques... 41

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 42

F. Research Procedures ... 46

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS... 49

A. The Implementation of Self-Questioning Strategy ... 49

1. The Implementation Self-Questioning Strategy as the Treatment ... 49

2. Other Findings of the Implementation of Self-Questioning Strategy ... 55

a. Students’ Motivation... 55

b. Students’ Vocabulary Mastery... 57

B. The Pretest and the Posttest Result ... 58

1. Presentation of the Raw Data... 58

2. Data Presentation of Pretest ... 59

3. Data Presentation of Posttest ... 61

4. Data Presentation of the Pretest and the Posttest ... 64

5. Presentation of Descriptive Statistic ... 65

xv

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS... 74

A. Conclusions ... 74

B. Suggestions... 76

1. For Other English Teachers ... 76

2. For Other Researchers... 77

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Distribution of the Test Items ……… 38

3.2 The Coefficient Reliability of the Pretest and the Posttest ……… 40

3.3 The Descriptive Statistic Table ……….. 44

3.4 The Classification of the Scores ………. 44

3.5 The table of the raw data of the scores……… 45

4.1 The Implementation of the Treatment ……… 53

4.2 Presentation of the Raw Data ………. 58

4.3 The Classification of the Pretest Scores ………. 60

4.4 The Classification of the Posttest Scores ……….... 63

4.5 The comparison of Pretest and Posttest Scores ………... 64

4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Pretest ………..……… 66

4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Posttest ……… 66

4.8 The Table of Variability Computation of Pretest ……… ……… 68

4.9 The Table of Variability Computation of Posttest ………... 69

4.10 The Descriptive Statistic of Pretest and Posttest ………. 71

4.11 The Hypothesis Testing ……… 72

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 The Definition of Reading ………. 12

2.2 Bottom-up Model ……….. 14

2.3 Top-down Model ………... 16

2.4 Interactive Model ………... 16

xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

APPENDIX A Letter of Permission ... 80

APPENDIX B Statement from SMP Immaculata Yogyakarta... 82

APPENDIX C The Materials ... 84

APPENDIX D The Pretest ... 102

APPENDIX E The Posttest... 106

APPENDIX F The Answer Keys... 113

APPENDIX G The Reliability of the Pretest ... 116

APPENDIX H The Reliability of the Posttest ... 119

APPENDIX I The Lesson Plans ... 122

APPENDIX J The Interview Result... 127

APPENDIX K The Field Notes ... 129

APPENDIX L The T-test Calculation ... 134

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher would like to discuss the background of the study, problem identification, problem limitation, problem formulation and also definition of terms that were used in this study.

A. Background of the Study

Nowadays, mastering English as a foreign language has been considered as an important skill in Indonesia. Moreover, in this globalization era, people are demanded to be able to absorb and develop technology, science, culture, and art to build relationships with other countries in this world (Depdikbud, 1994:1). That is the reason why English is placed as a compulsory subject at schools and is taught as early as possible. In other words, it is hoped that Indonesian students are able to obtain a better acquisition of English.

In learning English, there are four skills that should be mastered. They are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Reading is one of the macro skills which plays an important role. Carrell (1988) states that in the study of English as a foreign language, the main motive why students learn language is reading. Muljani (2003) also states that the ability to read in English is considered as an important skill in countries where English is learned as a foreign language. This statement is supported by the fact that people will be able to access information and knowledge through

2

reading. The importance of mastering reading ability is also described in Nunan’s statement:

Reading is an essential skill for learners of English as a second language. For most of these learners, it is the most important skill to master in order to ensure success not only in learning English, but also in learning in any content class where reading in English is required. With strengthened reading skill, learners will make greater progress and development in all other areas of learning (Nunan, 2003:69)

The quotation implies that mastering reading skill will influence the process in mastering other skills. In line with Nunan, Carrell (1988) also states that second language learners cannot perform at levels and cannot compete with native-speakers counterparts without solid reading proficiency. In other words, mastering reading skill in English should be regarded seriously because it is not a simple matter. Moreover, reading does not involve one element only, yet it involves some elements. Dubin (1988) states that reading is a complex skill which is made up of a number of psychological and physical elements.

Reading activities do not focus on vocabulary acquisition, the structure of reading texts, and the grammatical analysis. In teaching reading, the process of teaching will not work effectively if teachers focus on those elements only. Students need to be more exposed to the meaning of the texts and the message that the writers want to convey from the texts. Therefore, comprehension is one important aspect to achieve in reading activities. Muljani (2005) states that, foreign language reading has viewed reading comprehension as one important aspect to explore further.

Nowadays, there is research done to propose strategies to improve reading comprehension. Singer (1985) as cited in Muljani (2005) conducted a study that classified research-based hypotheses for testing strategies for improving reading comprehension into three categories. The first was related to input stimuli, the second was related to cognitive process for encoding, storing and retrieving information, and the third was related to output products. Concerning the second category, which focuses on instructional procedure, he mentioned some studies on questioning strategies. The studies proposed that self-questioning or readers’ generating questions could cause a greater degree of comprehension.

Self-questioning is the ongoing process of asking questions before, during, and after reading that are used by a reader to understand texts (anonymous, 2005). Wong (1985) and Rosenshine and Chapman (1990) as cited in King (1992) concluded “when students receive adequate training in how to generate questions, their use of self-questioning during or after reading usually results in improved comprehension”. In line, Muljani (2005) also states that readers who are accustomed to self-questioning are able to engage themselves in independent reading activity effectively and efficiently. Using this strategy, readers or students are expected to be more critical with the reading text that they are dealing with. In other words, readers or students can be led to become an active reader in their attempts to achieve comprehension through self-questioning strategy. Helfeldt and Henk (1990) as cited in Muljani (2005) state “it is expected that through this self-questioning, the reader can be led become aware of what and how he learns through his reading”.

4

Considering that comprehension is an essential goal in reading activities and that self-questioning strategy may develop students’ reading comprehension actively, therefore this research is intended to find out whether or not self-questioning strategy really brings positive impacts on the students.

B. Problem Identification

Reading is regarded as one of important subjects in language learning. Carrell (1988) states that “reading is by far the most important of the four skills in a second language, particularly in English as a second or foreign language”. For some students, reading is regarded as a complicated task since they have not mastered English yet (i.e. lack of vocabulary). In consequence, it is hard for them to achieve comprehension as the goal in reading. Regarding the situation, a good strategy is needed in reading process. Thus, teachers attempt to provide students some instructional help to lead students become independent and critical in their purpose to achieve comprehension.

Questions are a common tool for teachers to guide students to comprehend reading texts. Miciano (2002) states that teaching learning process invariably uses questions and answer format because the questions focus on reader’s attention and increase the potential of learning. However, Miciano (2002) also states “this format place the initiative and option of defining the parameters of learning on the teacher, relegating students to a passive, reactive role, fostering dependency and removing a sense of responsibility, initiative and a kind of energy.” In the typical reading

classroom, the teachers directly present the students with texts which they have to read. After reading the texts, the teachers ask questions and the students answer. Such a conventional classroom provides one-way interaction in which the students will not be critical and not be involved with the reading text. Frase (1967) as cited in Miciano explains (2002)“where teachers ask pre-posed questions and the students read to answer them, comprehension tends to narrow because students are likely to focus only on the passages related to the pre-posed questions”.

Considering the situation, the researcher found that self-questioning strategy might become a good strategy to help students to gain comprehension in reading process. Besides, there are many researches have proved that self-questioning is able to improve reading comprehension. However, this strategy has not been implemented widely by many teachers in Indonesia (Muljani, 2005). Therefore, in order to find out whether this strategy really brings positive impacts on Indonesian students, an investigation is apparently needed by applying self-questioning as the treatment for the students.

C. Problem Formulation

Implementing self-questioning strategy for grade 7 of SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta leads the researcher to some questions which are formulated below:

1. How is the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom of the seventh grade students at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta?

6

2. Does the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom improve the seventh grade students’ reading comprehension?

D. Problem Limitation

This research is limited on two important factors. The first factor is that the subjects of this study are the seventh grade students of SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. Based on the interview with the English teacher before the study, it turned out that this junior high school has realized the importance of increasing students’ reading ability, since the students in the future will face UAN (Ujian Akhir Nasional / National Examination) of which the most questions are about reading.Due to the difficulties in getting permission and administrative requirement, this research is only conducted in one class, which was randomly chosen, for the experiment.

Second, this research focuses on the implementation of self-questioning strategy in reading lesson. It is taken into consideration because it might help both the teacher and the students in reading lesson especially in English reading comprehension. The English reading texts or the materials used in this research are based on the syllabus of Junior High School.

E. Research Objectives

This research shares some objectives of self-questioning strategy in English reading comprehension. They are:

1. To discover how the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the classroom.

2. To investigate whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy can improve the seventh grade learners’ English reading comprehension or not.

F. Research Benefits

The result of this study hopefully will give good contributions to people listed below:

1. Other researchers

This research is expected to be helpful for other researchers who need it for further studies on similar topic.

2. Teachers

This research is expected to give more insights to English teachers to develop students’ ability to carry out effective reading in the context of EFL classroom.

3. Students

This research is expected to make the students more critical and active in the teaching learning process, especially in reading.

8

G. Definition of Terms

1. Self-questioning

Muljani (2003:106) argues that self-questioning refers to a reader’s activities in generating questions directed to oneself before, during and after the process of reading. King (1992) considers self-questioning to be a metacognitive strategy because it provides learners with a way to test themselves in comprehending texts. However, In this study, self-questioning refers to the ongoing process of asking questions before and during reading used to understand texts. The questions generated by the students could be correct or incorrect grammatically and could be in English or in Indonesian since the focus is not the language used, yet the function of the questions. In addition, in this study, the students were introduced and encouraged to apply self-questioning as the strategy in reading activities.

2. Reading Comprehension

According to Smith and Robinson (1980), reading comprehension refers to the understanding, evaluating, and utilizing of information and ideas gained through an interaction between the reader and the author. In this study, reading comprehension means the three kinds of comprehension suggested by Nuttall (1982), which are literal comprehension, inferential comprehension, and critical comprehension. In addition, in this study, reading comprehension refers to comprehension of English texts in reading lesson.

3. Seventh Grade Students

Seventh grade students are those who are in the first year of junior high school. In this research, they are the seventh grade students of SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta.

10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the detailed theories which underlie the study of the implementation of self-questioning strategy to improve students’ reading comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata. This chapter is divided into three sections, i.e. theoretical description, theoretical framework, and the hypotheses. The theoretical description will deal with the theories of reading and self-questioning and the theoretical framework will present the most relevant and closely related theories employed in this study.

A. Theoretical Description 1. Reading

Reading is the skill that becomes the main object of this study. Therefore, it is important to know what reading is and what aspects related to this skill are.

a. The Nature of Reading

Reading is one of four basic skills in language learning. According to Barnitz (1985) reading is a complex communication process in which the mind of reader interacts with a text in particular setting or context. During the reading process, readers construct a meaningful representation of a text through an interaction in their conceptual and linguistic knowledge with the cues that are in the text.

Grobe and Stoller (2002:9) propose that reading is “the ability to draw meaning from the printed page and interpret this information appropriately”. However, they also state that the definition itself is insufficient as a way to understand the true nature of reading abilities, because first, the definition does not convey that there are a number of ways to engage in reading; second, the definition does not emphasize the many criteria that define the nature of fluent reading abilities; third, the definition does not explain how reading is carried out as a cognitive process; and fourth, the definition does not highlight how the ability to draw meaning from a text and interpret the meaning.

Another view on reading comes from Nunan (2003:68). He states that reading is “a fluent process of readers combining information from a text and their own background knowledge to build meaning. According to him, “the reader’s background knowledge integrates with the text to create the meaning”. It means that the background knowledge of the reader does influence the reader’s interpretation of the textual meaning. In other words, background knowledge takes an important role in the process of reading and will influence the success of reading comprehension.

Nunan (2003:68) also adds that strategic and fluent readings also play an important role in reading process. He defines strategic reading as the ability of readers to use different kinds of reading strategies to achieve the purpose of reading, which is comprehension, and defines fluent reading as the ability for readers to read at an appropriate rate with adequate comprehension. Therefore, the text, the reader,

12

The text

Fluency Strategies

The Reader

the fluency and the strategies combined together define the act of reading. Figure 2.1 is the representation of the definition of reading.

Reading

Figure 2.1 The Definition of Reading (Nunan, 2003 : 68)

b. The Purpose of Reading

There are several purposes of reading as proposed by Grabe and Stoller (2002:13). They are as follows:

1) Reading to search for simple information and reading to skim

Reading to search for simple information is a common reading method. In getting this purpose, a reader usually employs the scanning and skimming ability. The scanning ability is the ability to read the text for a specific piece of information or a specific word. On the other hand, skimming deals with guessing where important information might be in the text, and in doing so, the readers use reading comprehension skills on those segments of the text to form a general idea.

2) Reading to learn from texts.

It typically occurs in academic and professional contexts in which a person needs to learn a considerable amount of information from text. Reading to learn is usually carried out at a reading rate slower than general reading comprehension (due to rereading and reflection to help remember the information for the reader).

3) Reading to integrate information, write, and critique texts

This purpose requires critical evaluation of the information being read so that the reader can decide what information to integrate and how to integrate it for the reader’s goal. In this respect, both reading to write and reading to critique texts may be the task variants of reading to integrate information. Both require abilities to compose, select, and critique information from a text.

4) Reading for general comprehension

Reading for general comprehension requires very rapid and automatic processing of words, strong skills in forming the general meaning representation of main ideas, and efficient coordination of many processes under very limited time constraints.

c. The Models of Reading

The models of reading can be divided into three categories: bottom-up model, top-down model, and interactive model (Nunan : 2003).

14

1) Bottom-up Model

The bottom up model usually consists of lower level reading processes. The reader will start with the sound recognition and fundamental basics of letter. Then continuously the reader will start to recognize the morpheme and followed by the recognition of words. These recognitions will build up to the identification of grammatical structures, sentences, longer text. In short, it can be concluded that the readers of bottom up model process letters, letter clusters, words, phrases, sentences, longer text, and finally meaning in order to achieve comprehension.

To be successful readers, students must be able to break a word down into its smallest parts, the individual sounds. Nunan (2003) states that all reading materials are carefully reviewed so that the students are not exposed to the difficult vocabulary which contains of sounds that the students have not been introduced yet. The typical classroom focus based on the bottom-up model is what we call intensive reading which involves a short reading passage followed by textbook activities to build up comprehension skill.

Figure 2.2 is the representation of this model (Nunan, 2003). Readers begin with the smallest elements to build up text comprehension.

Comprehension

2) Top-down Model

Grabe and Stoller (2002) characterize the reader of top-down model as someone who has a set of expectations about text information and samples enough information from text to confirm or reject these expectations. The reader of this model uses his or her background knowledge and makes prediction based on that. Then, the reader searches the text to confirm or to reject the prediction which has been made. A passage can be understood although all of individual words are not understood.

To teach reading based on the top-down model of reading, Nunan (2003) argued that there are four key features:

1. It is a literature based approach; readers are exposed to a wide range of vocabulary. 2. The whole language is student-centered; the reader may choose what he or she wants to read.

3. Reading is integrated with writing; reading activity will be followed simultaneously by writing activity.

4. The emphasis is on constructing meaning; the focus is on meaning and keeping language whole, not to breaking down into smaller units.

Extensive reading which means reading many books or longer texts becomes the suitable classroom focus of the top-down model of reading. Figure 2.3 is a graphic representation of a top-down model. Readers begin with the largest elements to build up text comprehension.

16

Reading begins with reader’s background knowledge

Figure 2.3 Top-down model (Nunan, 2003: 71)

3) Interactive Model

Interactive model combines the elements of bottom-up model and the elements of top-down model. Nunan (2003) argues that the third model or the interactive model is the most comprehensive description of the reading process. Nunan (2003) also stresses that the best second language readers are those who can “efficiency integrate” both bottom-up and top-down processes.

Teachers do not only provide students with shorter passage to teach specific reading skills, but also encourage student to read longer texts without an emphasis on testing their skills. Figure 2.4 is a graphic representation of an interactive model. Readers combine elements of bottom-up and top-down models to build up text comprehension.

Reader background knowledge

comprehension

Individual letters and sounds

d. Reading Comprehension

International Reading Association defines comprehension as “(1) an active, constructive process; (2) a thinking process before, during, and after reading; (3) an interaction of the reader, the text, and the context” (Muljani, 2005). According to Smith and Robinson (1980), reading comprehension is the understanding, evaluating, and utilizing information and ideas through an interaction between the reader and the author.

Reading comprehension does not merely involve students’ vocabulary mastery, but it also involves students’ active thinking process, especially in activating their background or prior knowledge. Armbruster and Osborn (2002) state that reading is a process in which readers actively search for and construct meaning or comprehend by relating what they are reading to their background knowledge. Therefore, problems with background knowledge cause comprehension difficulties.

According to Nuttal (1982) combined with the opinion Rouch and Birr (1984), there are four types of comprehension, namely: literal comprehension, interpretation, critical, and creative comprehension.

1). Literal Comprehension

Literal comprehension is the basic foundation in comprehending a text. Rouch and Birr (1984) state that “literal meaning pertains to an understanding of those things directly stated in the text read”. They also add that the basis to comprehending the literal comprehension is an understanding of the vocabulary used.

18

Questions words usually used in getting literal comprehension are who, what, when, and where (Rouch and Birr, 1984). Those kinds of questions are the most frequently asked by teachers. However, they only develop a superficial understanding on written material.

2). Interpretation or Inferential Comprehension

Inferential comprehension refers to the ability to gain insights into things not directly stated yet implied. According to Rouch and Birr (1984), this ability is referred to as “reading between the lines”. In line, Smith and Robinson (1980) also state that interpretation, students “read between the lines” make the connection among individual stated ideas, make inferences, draw conclusion, or experience emotion reaction.

Having inferential comprehension means that students are able to answer questions whose answers are not directly stated in the text. In addition, according to Rouch and Birr (1984), students are able to predict outcomes of the texts, to draw conclusion, and to discuss cause and effect relationship, another skill of interpretive reading that goes beyond simply picking out stated facts.

3). Critical Reading

To be critical in reading means being able to judge the worth of and evaluate what is being read. In other words, understanding what is being stated should be gained first before having critical reading. According to Smith and Robinson (1980), critical reading demands the readers to evaluate and pass personal judgment on the quality, value, accuracy, and the truthfulness of what is read. Obviously, it involves

higher-level processes of thinking. Thus, teachers must assist the students to become involved with the thinking processes through recognizing misleading statements, detecting bias, and separating facts from opinion (Rouch and Birr, 1984).

4). Creative Reading

Creative reading is not achieved unless the foundation of literal and inferential comprehension has been laid. Creative reading includes the ability to visualize, solve problems, generate new ideas, and elaborate on or change.

e. The Steps of Teaching Reading

According to and Ambruster and Osborn (2002:78), there are 3 steps for teaching reading which are divided into:

1) Pre-reading activities

This activity is carried out as the introduction of the reading activity or as the phase of before reading. This step is important because the learners should be prepared to what they are going to read. In this stage, the learners will set their prior knowledge, appropriate reading purpose, predict what the text will be about, select reading method which appropriate with their reading purpose, and also expand the learners’ background knowledge through the discussion activity. The techniques used in this stage are:

a) to evoke the learners’ thoughts, the learners preview the content of the text by looking at the title, the pictures, and the print,

20

b) activating the learners’ appropriate prior knowledge through questioning about what they already know about the topic and the vocabulary of the reading passage, c) setting the purposes for reading by asking questions about what they want to learn during the reading activity process.

2) While-reading activities

The important thing emphasized in this stage is to understand the text. The first thing that can be done is by doing the scanning or skimming task so that the learners are helped to understand the text before doing the next task which will demand for a more complex comprehension. To monitor the learners’ comprehension is the key point of the activities that are carried out in this stage, which can be done through a variety of strategies and experience. The techniques used in this stage are: a) checking understanding of the text by paraphrasing the author’s words,

b) monitoring comprehension and use fix-up strategies,

c) integrating new concepts with existing knowledge; continually revising purposes for reading.

3) Post-reading activities

The activities in this stage should provoke the learners to review their understanding of the text, relate new ideas to their background knowledge, revisit the text to clarify and extend meaning, apply the information to other texts and discipline, and remember crucial learning for future application.

3. Self-Questioning

One activity to “train” a reader to become aware is through self-questioning (Cheung, 1995). According to Helfeldt and Henk (1990) and Gillespie (1990) as cited in Muljani (2005:106), self-questioning is a term used to refer to sub cognitive strategy employed by a reader in his quest for following reasons: 1) to make sense of written texts by asking him or herself what questions about the texts that he or she might encounter.

2) to satisfy his or her purposes in reading in addition to answering questions generated by his or her teacher or the author.

Self-questioning may be considered a natural of comprehension process where the reader tries to generate questions directed to him or herself in his or her attempts to conduct effective reading. Therefore, in some studies, self questioning is employed as a reading strategy which can be taught and trained to readers and of course to students (Muljani, 2003 : 106 ).

Costa (2000) as cited in Muljani (2003), states that generating questions may not be an easy task since this activity has to proceed through stages, e.g. problem identification, question articulation or formulation, and social editing. He also suggested that the act of generating question can be affected by some variables. They are:

1) Cognitive variables

According to Wong (1985) as cited in Muljani (2003), the example of cognitive variable is limited knowledge of the readers. This is a condition where a

22

reader does not have background knowledge of what he or she just read. In consequence, it will be hard for the reader to generate questions, since the reader is not equipped with any single information about the text they read.

2). Personal variables

This variable deals with achievement, attention, motivation, and self-esteem, which can influence the question generation. Readers who have high motivation tend to generate more questions than readers who are not so motivated (Costa, 2000 in Muljani (2003).

3). Contextual variables

Contextual variable deals with the source of reading materials, subject matter, difficulty level, text type, and task type, which can also influence the questions generation. Costa et al. described that

“ students are likely to ask more questions when they are exposed to certain subject matter such as science; books or articles published by authorized publisher are likely to encourage their readers to generate questions concerning their contents. In exam-driven task, students are likely to generate more questions than when they are given daily or weekly assignments.” (Costa, 2000 as cited in Muljani, 2003:109)

Barns, Roe, and Ross (1984:203) state that students should perceive some type of questions in generating questions of different comprehension skills. The types of questions are:

1) main idea question,

2) detail question,

type of question which asks for small pieces of information conveyed by the text or the material

3) vocabulary question,

type of question which asks for the meaning of words used in the material or the text 4) sequence question,

type of question which requires knowledge of even in the order of sequence 5) inference question,

type of question which asks for detailed information that is implied but not directly stated in the text

6) evaluation question,

type of question that requires students to make judgments about the material that they have read

7) creative response question,

type of question which asks the student to create new ideas on the ideas that they have made.

Meanwhile, according to Muljani (2005), there are two types of effective self-questions. They are cognitive and metacognitive types. The cognitive questions may help a reader comprehend the text (Helfedt and Henk, 1990, in Muljani, 2005), and the metacognitive type may help a reader monitor a reader’s thinking to read effectively and efficiently (Muljani, 2005). Nuttal (1982) divided the cognitive questions into several types, which are:

24

1) literal questions,

type of questions which concerns on the information explicitly stated the a text, 2) inferential questions,

type of questions which concern on the information implicitly stated in a text, 3) evaluative question,

type of questions which can be answered by providing judgment, evaluation, solution, based on what the text writer says and what the reader thinks,

4) reorganization questions,

type of questions which can be answered by reorganizing information from different part of a text,

5) personal questions,

type of questions which cannot be put into any categories. The answers to these questions depend mostly on the reader instead of the writer.

Dealing with direct instruction to teach students self-questioning strategy, Pearson and Gallagher (1983) in Armbruster and Osborn (2002 : 77) state that there are many instructional studies designed to teach students to generate questions which have resulted in improving comprehension. The direct instruction that most of these studies used are teaching the students the key question-starting words (who, what, where, why, when, how), teaching generic questions or questions stems, teaching students to compose questions based on the main ideas, and teaching students to use story grammar categories to generate questions. Meanwhile, an article entitled Teaching During Reading Self-Questioning Strategy (2005) cited in

http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/index.php, mentions 7 steps in applying self-questioning strategy.

Step 1: Tell yourself, "I need to question the author and predict where the author is going."

Step 2: Read the passage and identify clues that make you question the author.

To identify question clues, look for words, phrases, sentences, or pictures that make you curious.

Step 3: Ask yourself good questions.

Ask yourself, "I wonder..."questions."

The "I wonder" questions use "wh' and "h" words. These words are include: who, what, when, where, why, which, how, how many, and how much.

When you ask yourself a question, think of a way to remember the question, so you don't forget it as you read. For example, in the margin in light pencil (or a separate piece of paper), draw a picture of a face to help you remember a "who" question.

Step 4: Create predictions. For each question you ask, create a prediction based on what you are thinking and what you know.

Step 5: Keep questions and predictions in mind as you read.

As you read, keep checking to see if your questions are answered and your predictions are confirmed.

Step 6: Evaluate the answers.

If your questions are answered, remember the answer. If not, keep them in mind as you continue to read. If your prediction is correct, remember the answer. If your prediction is not correct, restate what the correct answer is and adjust your thinking.

Step 7: Review what you know and read on.

Restate what you know from your questions. Focus on what you learned from the information that the author actually gave you. Summarize the main ideas and details that are critical to understanding the author's message.

In applying self-questioning, teachers need to guide students especially in giving instruction and providing practice that help students learn to continuously question, predict, confirm, correct, and reconcile information when they read. Meanwhile, if teachers only ask students to self question and read without describing and routinely modeling how to use an appropriate self-questioning strategy, the students’ ability of self-question will not improve.

26

4. Instructional Material Design

There were many instructional material designs proposed by some experts. However, in this study, the researcher used instructional material design model proposed by Kemp (1977) to develop reading material based on self-questioning strategy as the material used in the treatment. The designed reading material applied Kemp’s model because of its flexibility and simplicity.

There are eight steps in Kemp’s instructional material design (1977). The steps are described as follows:

Step 1: Considering the goal and then list the topics, stating the general purposes in teaching each topic. It is done to know or to figure out what the students are expected to learn.

Step 2: Stating the learners’ characteristic. By knowing the students’ characteristic, it will be easier to conduct the teaching learning process, especially in managing the class and in choosing the material for the students.

Step 3: Specifying the learning objectives. It deals with what is/are hoped from the students to be able to do after the teaching learning process.

Step 4: Listing the subject content, which has the close relationship with the objectives and the students’ need.

Step 5: Developing pre-assessment to determine the students’ background and present level of knowledge about the topic.

Step 6: Selecting teaching learning activities and instructional resources that will treat the subject content so that the students will be able to accomplish the objectives. Step 7: Coordinating support services, such as budget, personnel, facilities, equipment, and schedule to carry out instructional plan.

Step 8: Evaluating students’ learning in terms of their accomplishment of objectives, with a view of revising and re-evaluating any phase of the plan that need improvement. The eight steps proposed by Kemp are figured as follows:

Figure 2.5 Kemp’s Instructional Design Model (Kemp, 1997: 9)

Evaluation

Revision Support

services

Teaching resources, activities

Pre-assessment

Subject Content

Learning objectives Learners’ characteristic Goals,topics,

general purposes

28

B. Theoretical Framework

As stated in Chapter 1, there were two objectives to be achieved in this study. The first objective was to discover how the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the classroom and the second objective was to investigate whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy can improve the seventh grade learners’ reading comprehension of English texts or not. In order to address the research problems, this study implemented three major theories, namely self-questioning strategy, the steps of teaching reading, and reading comprehension theory

Firstly, the researcher implemented self-questioning theory and the steps of teaching reading in order to address the first research problem. Ambruster and Osborn (2002) state that there are three steps of teaching reading, namely pre-reading activities, while reading activities, and post-reading activities. In this study, the researcher applied these steps by using self-questioning strategy. Muljani (2005) states that self-questioning refers to a reader’s activities in generating questions directed to oneself before, during and after the process of reading. The act of generating questions itself was done in the steps of teaching reading, especially in pre-reading and while reading activities. For example, as the introduction of the reading activity, the students generated the question by looking at the title of the reading text in order to evoke the students’ thought and to activate the students’ appropriate prior knowledge

Secondly, the researcher implemented reading comprehension theory proposed by Rouch and Birr (1984) and Nuttal (1982) in order to address the second

research problem. Comprehension is an essential thing to be achieved in reading process. Comprehending a text does not merely mean knowing the information directly stated in the text, which means in the level of literal comprehension. Rouch and Birr (1984) state that if a reader only recognizes who, what, when, and where questions (literal-meaning questions), he or she will only develop a superficial understanding of written material. Muljani (2005) also states that “when a reader is successful in making sense of the text he is likely to reach literal, inferential, and critical or evaluative comprehension”. Therefore in this study, to improving students’ reading comprehension means to guide students to reach literal, inferential or interpretive comprehension, and critical or evaluative comprehension.

As what many researchers state that the theory of self-questioning is related to reading comprehension, this research would implement the three major theories discussed above to find out whether or not the implementation self-questioning strategy improves students’ reading comprehension of English texts through experimental research. Having discovered how the implementation of self-questioning strategy, the researcher would find out whether the null hypothesis of this study was rejected or not by administering pretest and posttest.

30

C. Hypotheses

The hypotheses are: 1. The Conceptual hypotheses

Ho: Implementing self-questioning strategy is not effective to improve reading comprehension of seventh grade learners at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. H1: Implementing self-questioning strategy is effective to improve reading comprehension of seventh grade learners at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. 2. The operational hypotheses

Ho: There is no significant difference between the means for the pretest and the posttest

H1: The mean for the posttest is higher than the mean for the pretest. 3. Statistical hypotheses

Ho: μpretest = μposttest OR μ pretest - μ posttest = 0 H1: μ pretest ≠ μ posttest OR

μ pretest - μ posttest ≠ 0

31 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher will discuss the methodology which was used to answer the two questions stated in Chapter 1. This chapter presents (1) the research method, (2) the research setting and participant, (3) the research instruments, (4) the data gathering technique, and (5) the data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In this study, the researcher employed experimental research as the research method. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993: 241), experimental research is the only type of research that attempts to influence a particular variable. They also claim that experimental research is the best way to establish the cause and effect relationships between variables. Thus, the researcher used an experimental research in order to notice what is going to happen to the subject of the study after implementing the self-questioning strategy as the treatment. In addition, the researcher also conducted library research to get information related to self-questioning as a strategy in reading activity which becomes the main aspect in this study.

Fox (1969:459) states that the key element in planning the experimental research is the identification of independent variable and the dependent variable. In this study, the independent variable was the implementation of self-questioning

32

strategy in the reading lesson, and the dependent variable was the reading comprehension of the seventh grade learners. The researcher investigated whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the classroom, especially in the reading lesson, brings some effects on the seventh grade learners’ reading comprehension.

The experiment method employed in this study was One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design (Ary Donald., Lucy Cheser Jacob, and Asghar Razavieh, 2002). This method was used to investigate the improvement of reading comprehension after the treatment. The difference of pretest and the posttest results in the single group of sample became the main data for the researcher to conclude whether self-questioning improved students’ reading comprehension or not. Ary et al, (2002) concludes that there are three steps involved in one-group pretest-posttest design. They are as follows:

1. administering a pretest measuring the dependent variable, 2. applying the experimental treatment X to the subjects,

3. administering a posttest, again measuring the dependent variable.

As mentioned in step 1, in this study the researcher administered the pretest to measure students’ reading comprehension prior to the treatment. Before conducting the test, the researcher consulted the form of the test to the English teacher. Next, the researcher conducted self-questioning strategy in the reading lesson as the treatment as mentioned in step 2. Having conducted the treatment, the researcher administered the posttest to measure students’ ability in comprehending texts as the last step in

one-group pretest-posttest design. The students’ scores obtained from the pretest and the posttest were then compared to see whether there was a significant change or not. According to Ary et al (2002), the major limitation of One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design is that because no control group is used. Thus, this design lacks of internal validity. Therefore, to eliminate the situation, he also suggests ways to control potentially contaminating situational variables which are holding the variables constant and manipulating the variables systematically from the main independent variable. Holding the variables constant means having the same conditions under which this study occur, for example having the same teacher, the same day, the same time, and the same room. In other words, in this study, the teacher who gave the treatment was only the researcher herself. It was conducted every Thursday at 09.45 a.m. up to 10.30 a.m. in the same class. Meanwhile, manipulating the variables systematically means by controlling the order in which experimental conditions are presented.

B. Research Setting and Participants

This study was conducted in SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta located at Jl. Brigjen Katamso no.4 Yogyakarta. As mentioned before, the subjects in this study were the seventh grade students. Since there were 6 classes, it was not feasible to conduct the experimental research to all classes. Therefore, the researcher used the cluster sampling to select the samples. “Cluster sampling is a kind of probability sampling where the unit chosen is not individual but a group of individuals who are

34

naturally together” (Ary et al. 1990:175). According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993), the cluster sampling can be used when it is difficult to select a random sample of individuals. They also add that this kind of sample is often far easier to implement in school and frequently less time-consuming. Thus, through cluster sampling, the writer chose class A as the sample in this study.

There were 30 students in class A. The students were between 12-13 years old. All of them had already learnt English since in the first grade of elementary school. The characteristic of the students were various; some of them were very active in the teaching learning process but there were also students who were passive or even ignorant.

C. Research Instruments

The research instruments aimed to collect data to answer the problems stated in the Chapter 1, namely: 1) How is the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom, and 2) Does the implementation of self-questioning strategy improve the seventh grade learners’ reading comprehension? Therefore, the researcher will mention some instruments used to gather those data.

1. Interview Guidelines

Interviews were used to get the data of subjects’ opinion, belief, feelings, about a situation in their own words. The researcher interviewed the English teacher to discover the general description of the teaching learning activities and the students’ ability. The researcher chose interview as the instrument because it gave freedom for

the interviewee in answering questions and because the researcher wanted to know the depth of the interviewee’s point of view. The interview dealt with the interviewee’s needs, problems and comments about teaching reading in the classroom. Therefore, the data obtained from this instrument were used to collect the additional information about the students and the teaching learning process, especially in teaching reading before conducting the treatment.

The type of the interview was general interview guide approach. The researcher chose this type of interview because it provides more focused questions than the informal approach, in which no predetermined questions were asked, but it still allows a degree of freedom and adaptability in getting information from the interviewee.

2. Observation Sheet

The second instrument used to collect the data was observation sheet. Observation sheet helped the observer to study phenomena such as patterns of learning when they occur in real life situation (Nachmias, 1997). Therefore, observation sheet was used in order to record data during teaching learning activities.

The observation sheet used was field notes. Field notes contain what the observer saw and heard. Field notes have two components. They are the descriptive part, which includes a complete descriptive of a setting, people, or sequence of events, and the reflective part or observer comment, which includes the observer’s personal feelings or impressions about the events. The observer focused not only on

36

the students, but also on the process of how the implementation of self-questioning strategy, and on what the teacher or the instructor did.

3. Tests

The third instruments used in this study were tests. The tests were used to measure the students’ reading comprehension before and after the treatment. The tests administered in this study were categorized as achievement tests, since in this study the researcher measured students’ improvement in comprehending texts. As what Hughes (1989:10) states, achievement tests are directly related to language courses, their purpose being to establish how successful individual students, group of students, or the courses themselves have been achieving objectives. In this study, the objective was to improve the students’ reading comprehension. The tests were needed very much in obtaining the score in order to know the effect of self-questioning strategy as the treatment to teach reading skill. The scores were obtained through pre-test and posttest.

The pre-test was conducted at the beginning of the experiment. It was used to discover the students’ reading comprehension before the treatment. The content of the pre-test was the materials that the students had at beginning of the semester. The posttest was conducted at the end of the experiment or after the treatment. It was used to discover whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy as the treatment of the study would bring some beneficial effects to the students’ reading comprehension or not.

According to Ary et al. (2002), a research always depends on the measurement. The measurement of the instrument included the test validity and reliability. “A test is said to be valid if measures accurately what it is intended to measure” (Hughes, 1989 : 22). According to Hughes (1989), there are several types of validity. In this study, the writer applied content validity, construct validity, and face validity.

a. Content validity

Hughes (2003) in Brown (1991), states that a test is said to have content validity if the test samples the subject matter about which conclusions are to be drawn, and if it requires the test taker to perform the behavior that is being measured. This study focused on students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, in this study, the test items that the researcher composed required the students to comprehend the texts given only because the aim of the test was to measure the students’ reading comprehension. b. Construct validity

As stated by Hughes (1989 : 26), a test is said to have construct validity if it can measure just the ability which it is supposed to measure. Since in this study the researcher wanted to measure students reading comprehension, then the test items that the researcher composed did not merely test the students’ literal comprehension, but also the students’ inferential and evaluative comprehension.

c. Face validity

“A test is said to have face validity if it looks as if it measures what it is supposed to measure” (Hughes, 1989 : 27). In obtaining the face validity, the

38

researcher consulted the tests to the English teacher. It was done in order to know whether the students were familiar with the tests or not. The sample of the test used in this study is as follows:

Reading 1

Mr. Handoko’s Family

Mr. and Mrs. Handoko have two children, Hanano and Laila. Hanano married to Endah, and Laila is married to Hary………..

Answer the following questions based on the above text!

1. How many children do Mr. and Mrs. Handoko have? Who are they? 2. Who is Hary?

3. How many grandchildren do Mr. and Mrs. Handoko have? Who are they? 4. Where do Mr. and Mrs. Hanano work?

5. Is it right for Andy and Benny to call Mrs. Handoko “aunt”?why?

The pretest and the posttest used in this study consist of 20 items of question; which consist of 10 open-ended reading comprehension items and 10 multiple-choice items. The researcher designed this form of test because she adjusted the test that the English teacher usually gives to the students. There were 3 topics of reading material used in the tests, family, jobs, and things in the house. The researcher chose those topics because the students had learned the topics before. The distribution of the test items is listed below.

Table 3.1. Distribution of the Test Items

No Topics Numbers of items in the test

1 Family 5 (open-ended items), no.1-5

No Topics Numbers of items in the test

3 Things in the house 5 (open-ended items),no. 16-20

d. Reliability

According to Best (1986 : 154), a test is said reliable if it measures accurately and consistently, from one time to another. Since the researcher employed split half technique which was calculated using the Pearson Product Moment, then the estimation was continued by using Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. The formula of Pearson Product Moment (Pearson r correlation) and Spearman-Brown prophecy are described as follows:

1. The Pearson Product Moment (Pearson r correlation)

r

=

Where:

r : Pearson r

∑N : the sum of scores in X distribution ∑J : the sum of scores in Y distribution ∑N2

: the sum of the squared score in X distribution ∑J2

40

2. The Spearman-Brown prophecy

Where:

r : the estimated reliability of the entire test

r : the Pearson r correlation between the two halves

The perfect reliability would equal 1 (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). However, Hatch and Farhady (1982) also states that the reliability coefficient is almost always less than 1, because the denominator is usually greater than the numerator. Therefore, the coefficient reliability is considered high if it is approaching +1. The coefficient reliability of the pretest and the posttest is shown in the table below.

Table 3.2 The Coefficient Reliability of The Pretest and The Posttest

Pretest 0.84

Posttest 0.82

The table shows that the coefficient reliability of pretest was 0.84 and the coefficient of the posttest was 0.82, which means that the coefficient reliability of each test was highly significant because it is approaching +1 (Best, 1970). In other words, both the pretest and the posttest were able to measure accurately and consistently, from one time to another. The computation of the coefficient reliability of the pretest and the posttest can be seen in appendix H (p.128).

D. Data Gathering Technique

The data were gathered through the interview guidelines, the observation sheet, and the tests as the instruments of this study. The first instrument used to get the data was the interview guidelines. The interview guideline was used in conducting the interview which was done before the experiment. To be able to conduct the interview, the researcher lobbied the English teacher to arrange the interview time. There were five questions that should be answered by the English teacher. The questions were about the students’ description, the class activities that were usually done in the English lesson, especially in reading lesson, the classroom atmosphere, and the obstacle in teaching reading. The questions were intended to discover the teaching learning process that the students usually have.

The second step was administering the pre-test. The pre-test was done to get the information about students’ reading comprehension before the treatment. In the pre-test, the students had to read some reading passages and then had to answer the comprehension questions given. The score obtained from the pre-test would be compared to the score obtained from the posttest, which was done after the treatment.

After administering the pre-test, the researcher started to conduct the experiment, which was lasted for 4 meetings. The researcher was the one who implemented the treatment. Before giving self-questioning strategy to the students, the researcher and the English teacher had a little discussion about the materials used in the treatment. Since the researcher acted as the teacher, it was difficult for her to directly jot down the situation of the teaching learning process while she was

42

teaching. Therefore, the researcher jotted down the situation of the teaching learning process including the students’ behavior and responses, and also what and how the researcher gave instruction to the students in conducting self-questioning strategy right after she finished teaching. In this step, the researcher used field notes as the instrument to gain the data.

The next step was administering the posttest. It was done after conducting the treatment. The form of the questions of the posttest was the same as that of the pre-test; they were comprehension questions. The scores of the posttest were compared to the scores of the pre-test. The scores of the pre-test and the posttest were served as the main data in answering the second problem of this study.

E. Data Analysis Technique

There were two steps in analyzing the data. The steps were the analysis of the implementation of self-questioning strategy and the analysis of the pre-test and the posttest to answer the second problem of this study.

First, in analyzing the implementation of self-questioning strategy as the first problem in this study, the researcher analyzed the observation result which was recorded by means of field notes. The researcher presented the observation result in the form of narrative description. In other words, the researcher described the sequence of the teaching learning process in the form of paragraph.

After analyzing the implementation of self-questioning strategy, the researcher started to measure the findings of a set of data. In this part, the researcher

looked at the two aspects, which were the central tendency and the dispersion. According to Hatch and Farhady (1982), central tendency is used to talk about the central point in the distribution of the scores in the data. There are three indicators to look at the central tendency. They are the mode which means the most frequently obtained score in the data, the median which means the score at the center of the distribution, and the mean which means the average or the arithmetic average. Hatch and Farhady (1982) claims that the mean is the most commonly used measure of central tendency because it takes all scores into account. The formula is as follows:

Where:

μ : the mean of the scores ∑N : the total sum of the scores N : the total number of cases

To be able to get the data more accurately, the researcher measured the degree of variability of the data from central tendency. The common way in measuring the variability is the standard deviation. As Hatch and Farhady (1982) state, the most frequently used measure of variability is the standard deviation. “It is “standard” in the sense that it looks at the average variability of all the scores around the mean; all scores are taken into account” (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:57). The formula is as follows:

44

Where:

σ : the standard deviation of a set of scores ∑N2

: the sum of the squares of each score (∑N)2 : the sum of the scores squares N : the total number of cases

In order to gain the detailed statistic description of the data results, the researcher presents the descriptive statistic table.

Table 3.3 The Descriptive Statistic Table

No Variable Sources Pretest Posttest

1 Mean 2 Mode 3 Median

4 Standard Deviation 5 Maximum

6 Minimum

The researcher classified the pretest and the posttest scores into five categories (Masidjo, 1995). The classifications are listed below.

Table 3.4 The Classification of The Scores.

Category Scores 1

Category Scores 2

Good

8 – 8.9 3

Sufficient

6.5 – 7.9 4

Bad

5.5 – 6.4 5

Very bad

…. < 5.5

The next step was the hypothesis testing. To do this, the researcher used t-test for non independent sample formula. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993), t-test for non independent samples is used to compare the mean scores of the same group. The formula is as follows:

Table 3.5The table of the raw data of the scores Subject

Number X Y D D

2

1. 2.

N= ∑X= ∑Y= ∑ D= ∑ D2=

Where:

∑N : the number of cases

∑X : the total scores of the pretest ∑Y : the total scores of the posttest

D : the score difference between the pretest and the posttest D2 : the squared score difference

∑D : the total of the score difference

46

t

=

Where:

t : the t-value for non independent sample D : the difference between paired scores D : the mean of the difference

∑ D2 : the sum of the squared difference scores N : the number of pairs

Related to the statistical hypothesis as described in Chapter II, H0 was rejected if the t-value was greater than the t-table in the .05 level of significance.

F. Research Procedures

There were several steps carried out in this study. Firstly, the researcher decided the subject of the study and made the problems of the study. There were two problems which became the focus of the study. The first research problem was to discover the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom of the seventh grade students. The second problem was to find out whether or not self-questioning strategy improves students’ reading comprehension.

Then, the researcher gathered some information needed to answer the two problems of this study. Afterwards, the researcher designed the study including what method had to use, what and how the data had to obtain, how the data had to analyze, and how the data had to report.

This study was experimental research with one group pretest-posttest design as the method of this study. The subjects of this study were the seventh grade students of SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. After that, the researcher chose the instruments used to obtain the data. There were three instruments used in this study, i.e. field notes, interviews, and tests, namely pretest and posttest. The interview was conducted before implementing self-questioning strategy in the English classroom as the treatment to discover the general description of the teaching learning activities and the students’ ability. Before conducting the experiment, the researcher designed the materials and the tests. Both of them were consulted to the English teacher to have revision before being used in the experiment. Having designed the materials and the tests, the researcher conducted the experiment .It was lasted for 6 meeting including two meetings for the pretest and the posttest. The pretest and the posttest were administered before and after the treatment. During the treatment, the researcher used field notes.

The next step was analyzing the data. The researcher took two steps in analyzing the data, i.e. (1) the analysis of the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom and (2) the analysis of the scores obtained from the pretest and the posttest. The first analysis was presented in the form of descriptive

48

writing. Meanwhile, the second analysis was presented in the form of inferential statistics. The last step was reporting the conclusion of the study. It dealt with the results or the answers of the two major problems of this study.

49 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the research results and its discussion. The presentation is divided into two parts. The first section deals with the discussion of the treatment to address the first research problem, which was how self-questioning strategy is implemented in the classroom. The second section deals with the discussion of the pre-test and the post-test to address the second research problem, which was to find out whether the implementation of self-questioning strategy in reading lesson is able to improve students’ reading comprehension.

A. The Implementation of Self-questioning Strategy

This section describes the procedure on how the self-questioning strategy is implemented in English reading lesson, or in other words, the treatment of the study. The researcher divided this section into two main topics. They were: 1) The Implementation of Self-Questioning Strategy as The Treatment, and 2) Other Findings of The Implementation of Self-Questioning Strategy

.

1. The Implementation of Self-Questioning Strategy as the Treatment

It took one and a half month to finish the treatment. The treatment began on the 14th of October and ended on the 18th of November 2009. The researcher conducted 4 meetings for the treatment and 2 meetings taken from the regular class

50

were used to conduct the pretest and the posttest. The researcher conducted the treatment for 4 meetings because the English teacher only offered 4 meetings at most. Besides, in each meeting, the researcher was given 45 minutes to implement the treatment.

The materials used in the treatment were based on the syllabus of Junior High School. Before conducting the treatment, the researcher consulted the materials to the English Teacher to confirm whether the materials were suitable for the students or not. Otherwise, the materials might be too difficult or might be too easy for the students. There were 4 topics used in the treatment, in other words, the students were given different topics in each meeting. The topics were Introduction, Things Around Us, Announcement, and Things at School.

As stated in Chapter II, the materials were designed based on the steps proposed by Armbruster and Osborn (2002) who propose steps of teaching reading and the steps cited in Special Connection which states the steps in teaching reading with self-questioning strategy entitled “Teaching During Reading with Self-Questioning Strategy”. Based on the sources, the researcher divided the teaching learning process into three main steps, namely pre-reading activity, while reading activity, and post-reading activity.

The first step was pre-reading activity. In this step, the researcher as the one who implemented the self-questioning strategy had a short question and answer activity to dig out how far they knew about a certain topic. It also aimed to evoke the students’ background knowledge. This activity was done before the researcher

distributed the reading materials. Having asked them some questions to recall their background knowledge, the researcher distributed the reading materials. Before the students read the reading passages, they were asked to read only the title of the reading passage. Then, the researcher asked them to make up questions in the provided space based on what they wanted to know from the reading passage and create predictions based on what they knew. To do this step, the researcher explained by giving them examples how to do the task. The task that students had to do in the pre-reading activity is presented below.

Look at the title above and make up questions based on what you want to know from the passage, and then create a prediction based on what you are thinking and what you know….

♦ ______________________________________________________

♦ ______________________________________________________

♦ ______________________________________________________

The second step was while reading activity. Before the students continued to read the reading passage, the researcher told the students that while they were reading the passage, they had to find out whether their prediction was correct or not and to jot down the questions which came to their mind in the provided space. Having read one paragraph, the students had to stop reading in order to evaluate whether the questions that they had made previously were answered or not. Each time the students wanted to read the next paragraph, they had to make up questions to guess what would be expressed in the next paragraph in the provided space, and again create prediction based on what they knew. The task that students had to do in the while-reading activity is presented below.

52

Read the passage to find out whether your prediction is correct or not.. While you are reading, write down the questions that come up in your mind..

The Rama bookshop is popular among the backpack tourists in Yogyakarta. It is located in a narrow alley in Sosrowijayan. The alley is so narrow that people can only go there by bicycle or motorcycle.

Stop Reading!

Were your questions answered? (Yes/No) (If your questions are answered, remember the answer. If not, keep them in mind as you continue to read. If your prediction is correct, remember the answer. If your prediction is not correct, restate what the correct answer is and change your thinking).

Provide more questions to guess what will be expressed in the next paragraph, and then create a prediction based on what you are thinking and what you know….

♦ ______________________________________________________ ♦ _______________________________________________________ ♦ _______________________________________________________

The third step was the post-reading activity. Having read the passage, the students were asked to restate the new vocabulary that they learned from the passage and to restate or to summarize the main ideas and details from the passage. It was done to provoke the learners to review their understanding of the text and to review what they had learned from the text. The task that students had to do in the post-reading activity is presented below.

After I read the passage.. Now I know that:

1. Vocabulary

______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX L

The t-observed Computation

Subject

Number X Y D D2

1 10 27 17 289 2 47 37 -10 100 3 47 62 15 225 4 55 67 12 144 5 67 67 0 0 6 67 85 18 324 7 52 60 8 64 8 50 47 -3 9 9 42 52 10 100 10 67 50 -17 289 11 75 77 2 4 12 75 67 -8 64 13 50 50 0 0 14 67 95 28 784 15 72 90 18 324 16 85 95 10 100 17 57 47 -10 100 18 55 67 12 144 19 75 80 5 25 20 80 82 2 4 21 62 50 -12 144 22 90 100 10 100 23 72 80 8 64 24 80 85 5 25 25 77 60 -17 289 26 35 50 15 225 27 55 60 5 25 28 82 80 -2 4 N=28 1748 1869 121 3969

∑N : the number of cases

∑X : the total scores of the pretest

∑Y : the total scores of the posttest

D : the score difference between the pretest and the posttest

∑D : the total of the score difference

∑ D2 : the total of the squared score difference

t

=

=

=

=

APPENDIX L

The T-table