THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ INTELLIGENCE.

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READING
VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ INTELLIGENCE
Yulia Agustina, 2Ngadiso, 3Dewi Rochsantiningsih
(Student of Magister Program of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS)
Email: yulia.agustina24@gmail.com
(Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS)
(Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS)

ABSTRACT – The objectives of this research are finding out whether: (1) semantic mapping is
more effective than lecturing to teach reading at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya
in the Academic Year of 2011/2012; (2) the students who have high intelligence have better
reading ability than those who have low intelligence at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12
Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012; and (3) there is an interaction between
teaching strategies and students’ intelligence in teaching reading at the Eighth Graders of
SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012. This research was an
experimental study conducted at SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012.
The samples were two classes: VIII C and VIII D. The researcher took the sample of this study

by using cluster random sampling. Each class was divided into two groups (the students who
have high and low intelligence). The research instruments consist of the students’ intelligence
document and a reading test. The reading test was tried out to get valid and reliable items.
Then, the data were analyzed by using multifactor analysis of variance 2 x 2 (ANOVA) and
Tukey test. Based on the research results, there are research findings as follows: (1) the
students who are taught using semantic mapping have better reading ability than those who
are taught using lecturing; (2) the students who have high intelligence have better reading
ability than those who have low intelligence; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching
strategies and students’ intelligece because semantic mapping is more effective to teach
reading for the students having high intelligence, and lecturing is more effective to teach
reading for students having low intelligence. Finally, it can be inferred that: (1) semantic
mapping is an effective strategy to teach reading at the eighth graders of SMPN 12
Tasikmalaya in the academic year of 2012/2013; (2) the effectiveness of the strategy is
affected by the level of students’ intelligence.
Keyword - Teaching strategies, reading ability, Intelligence.
motivation, and inappropriate teaching

INTRODUCTION
Reading ability is an important tool for

strategy used when the teachers

academic success because it is an

attempted to explain reading materials

important activity in life which students

(Kamal Muhtar, 2010: 3).

can update their knowledge, enrich

Reading cannot be separated from

vocabulary, add knowledge, ect. But in

comprehension, without comprehending

fact, the students still have low ability in

the text, the readers especially the

reading competence, yet they still lack in

students will not understand and will

understanding reading material. It is

not receive the message or information

caused by many factors such as: they

from reading materials. Essentially,

rarely read, lack of vocabulary, low

reading is a process used by the reader
23

ENGLISH TEACHING

Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
to understand and to get a message that

completed with the new information

is conveyed by the writer through the

(Muhtar, 2010: 61). When using semantic

media of written language.

mapping

The teacher’s strategies in teaching
reading

are

important

factors

as

postreading,

teachers

employ students’ disscussions to help

to

them recall and organize information

improve the students’ ability in reading.

that they have learned from reading text

The

as they make connection to words or

teacher

should

choose

an

appropriate strategy in order to make

concepts related to the topic (Antonnaci,

students achieve adequate competence

et al., 2011:18).

in reading. There are some kinds of

On the contrary, lecturing strategy

strategies that can be applied by the

is used to describe a lesson where the

teacher in teaching reading. Semantic

teacher has control. It is also called as

mapping strategy is supposed to be

the teacher-centered. The teacher’s duty

appropriate strategy to develop her

in this strategy is only telling the

students’ ability in reading. Semantic

material directly by face to face with the

mapping helps the students develop

students. The students usually have no

prior

knowledge

by

seeing

the

curiosity to study about reading, yet

relationship in a given topic. It is a

they only listen to the explanation from

visual representation of a particular

the teacher and often make them feel

concept (Cooper, et al., 2009: 102).

bored.

This strategy is most effective when

Besides

the

strategies,

teaching

it is used before, during, and after

learning process is affected by the

reading and when the teachers serve as

students’ intelligence. It influences their

the guide or facilitator to their students

ability in English skills especially in

who construst their own semantis maps.

reading ability. Intelligence is the most

When

important tool for success and failure of

semantic

mapping

is

as

prereading, helps to active students’

students

prior knowledge (schemata). Further, the

personality factor that influence the

teacher may use students’ prereading

result of teaching and learning process.

semantic maps to determine how much

(Helmi, 2011: 34). According to Carol

knowledge building is required before

(2012: 1) intelligence is capacity for

students read the text (Antonnaci 2011:

knowledge and the ability to acquire:

18). Using semantic mapping in whilst-

capacity

reading helps the students to record the

comprehend

information obtained from the text. By

evaluate and judge, and capacity for

making a semantic map during reading

original and productive thought.

a text, the students’ prior knowledge are
24

in

for

learning

and

reason,
relationship,

also

ability
ability

as

to
to

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
An English teacher has an important

3. To

know

weather

there

is

an

role to manage and help students to get

interaction between teaching strategies

success in their learning. One of the

and students’ intellegence in teaching

efforts, an English teacher should assist

reading.

her students in implementing reading

There are some definitions of reading

ability by giving them a suitable strategy

according

how the students learn to receive the

(1997: 6) defines reading as a powerful

message and information in understand-

activity that gives knowledge, insight, and

ing a reading material. Considering that

perspective on readers. It means reading

background, the researcher states the

is powerful activity in getting knowledge,

problems to be researched as follows:

insight, and the reader’s perspective.

1. Is semantic mapping more effective

to

some

experts.

Richard

Nunan (1998: 23) states that reading

than lecturing to teach reading for the

is a process of decoding written symbols,

eighth

working from a smaller unit (individual

graders

of

of

SMPN

12

Tasikmalaya?
2. Do

the

letters) to large ones (words, clauses, and

students

having

high

sentences).

intellegence have better reading ability

Davies (1995: 1) states that reading is

than those having low intellegence for

a mental, or cognitive, process which

the eighth graders of of SMPN 12

involves a reader in trying to follow and

Tasikmalaya?

respond to a message from the writer

3. Is there any interaction between the
teaching

strategies

and

who is distance in space and time.

students’

From the theories above, it could be

intellegence in teaching reading?

inferred that reading is a process to

In accordance with the problems

decode

above, this research is intended:
1. To

know

mapping

weather
is

more

the

graders

semantic

effective

of

written

symbol

which

involves a reader in understanding and
attribute the information from a text to

than

build

lecturing in teaching reading at the
eighth

the

meaning

as

a

piece

communication between the reader and

SMPN

12

writer.

Tasikamalaya in the academic year

There are four basic levels of reading

2011/2012.

comprehension according to Burs, et al,.

2. To know weather the students having

(1996:

177),

namely:

literal,

high intellegence have better reading

interpretative,

ability

reading. Brown (2004: 306) gives the

than

of

those

having

low

critical,

and

creative

intellegence for the eighth graders of

strategies for reading comprehension.

SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the academic

They are:

year 2011/2012.

1. Identifying the purpose in reading
25

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
2. Scan the text for specific information
3. Distinguish

between

literal

Further, semantic maps are graphic

and

displays of word meaning that offers the

implied meaning, ect.

students a visual representation of how

Based on the previous elaboration

words and concept are related through a

above, it can be generated that reading

network

ability is a process to decoding the

(Heimlich and Pittelman in Antonnaci,

written symbol which involves a reader in

2011: 18).

understanding the information from a

In

of

the

organized

researher’s

knowledge

undestanding,

text to find main idea, explicit and

semantic mapping strategy is a graphic

implicit information, word references,

array

and meaning of certain word based on

nodes,

the context. There are several aspects of

triangles

reading skill which lead to the indicators

connected by lines or arrows to show

that students or the readers are able to:

how words and concept are related

(1) find main idea; (2) find explicit

through

information; (3) find implicit information;

comprehending a text.

(4) find word references; and (5) find

of

drawn

formats

context.

narrative

Semantic mapping is derived from
words

semantic

and

as

as
a

which

circle,

key

squares,

word

a network

of

contains
or

which

is

paragraph

in

Sinatra (1986: 5) descibes different

meaning of certain word based on the

the

knowledge

of

semantic

sequential,

information

maps.

A

in

map:

(1)

the

format

arranges

several

pararel

hierarchical strands; (2) the thematic or

semantic mapping, as construction, has

descriptive map displays elements and

essentially

details about person, place, or things

two

aspects:

visual

and

conceptual. A visual semantic map is

around a central theme; and (3) the

made up of forms, such as circles,

comparative

or

triangles, etc. Conceptual semantic map

relationship

among

contains verbal information inside and

displaying

between the forms, which represents

attributes are related. The following is

relationship between the words/ideas

the example of semantic mapping by

(Fisher in Raiziene 2003: 193). There are

Judy Casulli in Brisk (2000

some definitions of semantic mapping

racoon

proposed by some experts:

skunk

how

contractive

class,

semantic mapping as a graphic arrange-

concepts

by

examples,

and

: 71):

poecupine

Jungle
Animal

According to Sinatra (1986:4) defines

map,

rabbit

Pains
Animals
Animals in South

ment how the major and minor ideas are

Desert
Animal

related in a written work.
26

Mountain
Animals

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
Iguana

armadillo

jaguar

occurs between the instructor and the

llma

students during a lecturing.

Figure 1. The Example of Semantic
Mapping.
Antonnaci, et al., (2011: 20) explain

Westwood (2008: 18) remarks that
the main objection to lecturing is that

the advantages of using semantic

they imply the possibility of creating

mapping as follows:

knowledge and understanding in

a. Helping to developh word knowledge;

students simply by talking at them. In

b. Helping to activate students’ prior

fact, the formal lecturing is the classic

knowledge;

example of a transmission strategy.

c. Helping to determine how much

In short, lecturing strategy is the

building knowledge is required;

teacher-centered which focuses on

In addition, this strategy has

information transfer. It emphasizes on

disadvantages for its use. The following

the teacher’s role in presenting

are disadvantages of using semantic map

information by talking to students, while

according to Eppler (2006: 201):

students are passive, they only receive

a. It is not easy to apply by beginner

the information from teacher’s

students; it requires extensive

presentation.

training.

The following here are the

b. It is difficult to find out the relation

advantages of lecturing according to

between the ideas.

Cashin (1985: 85):

c. The overall pattern does not

a. Lecturing can help communicate the

necessarily assist memorability.

enthusiasm of teachers for their

On the other hand, a lecturing is

subjects.

probably the oldest teaching strategy and

b. Lecturing can be specifically organized

is still used widely used by many

to meet the needs of particular

teachers in the classroom. A lecturing is

students.

an oral presentation intended to present

c. Lecturing can present large amounts

material or teach people about particular

of information.

subject.

Although the lecturing can be an

Kelly (2012: 1) defines that lecturing

effective and efficient teaching startegy,

is a teaching strategy where an instructor

it has a number of disadvantages,

is the central focus of information

according to Cashin (1985: 87) as follows:

transfer. Sometimes, they will write on a

a. In lecturing students are often passive

board or use an overhead projector to

because there is no mechanism to

provide visuals for students. Students are

ensure that they are intellectually

expected to take notes while listening to

engaged with the material.

the lecture. Usually, very little exchange
27

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
b. Students' attention wanes quickly after

fact, carrying abstract thinking, adapting
and learning from the experience, and

fifteen to twenty-five minutes.

evaluating and judgment.

c. Information tends to be forgotten

The factors that affecting Intelligence,

quickly when students are passive.
Intelligence

is

general

term

according to Cherry (2012: 5) there are

to

describe human mind which covers many

three

interrelated abilities, such as the ability

intelligence:

in

a. Genetics

solving

planning,

the

problem,

thinking

reasoning,

abstractly

to

main

factors

that

influence

b. Biology and Biochemistry, there are a

use

language, conveying idea, understanding

wide range of biological factors that

ideas and learning. According to Carol

can impact intelligence.
c. Environment, there are a number of

(2012: 1) intelligence is capacity for

environmental

knowledge and the ability to acquire:
capacity

for

comprehend

reason,

ability

relationship,

ability

to

child

to

demographics,

factors

that

cognitive

impact

development:

poverty,

evaluate and judge, and capacity for

childhood

trauma,

original and productive thought.

stress, and parenting.

bird

order,

environmental

Based on the previous quotations

Meanwhile, Gardner (1999: 6) states
that human intelligence involves skills of

above, it can be concluded that indicators

the problem solving which enable the

of intelligence are the general mental of

individual to solve the problems, to

individual to learn a new knowledge,

create an effective product, and to have

solve the problem, make good responses

awork

from

for

the

acquisition

of

new

truth

thinking,

knowledge.

or

adapt

fact,
and

carry
learn

abstract
from

the

environment, and evaluate and judge.

Later on, Thordike in Djaali (2007:

The

64) defines intelligence as demonstrable

researcher

presents

some

in ability of individual to make good

hypotheses. Those hypotheses are as

responses from the stand point of truth

follows:

or fact. According Terman in Djaali

1. Semantic mapping is more effective

(2007: 64) intelligence is the ability to

than lecturing to teach reading for the

carry on abstract thinking.

eighth

graders

of

SMPN

Tasikmalaya.

From the theories above, it can be

2. The students having high intelligence

summarized that intelligence is human’s
ability to use his knowledge in learning a

bave better reading skill than those

new knowledge, solving the problem,

having low intelligence of the eighth

making good responses from truth or

graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya.
28

12

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
3. There is an iteraction between
teaching strategies and students’
intelligence in teaching reading.

graders D and C. The number of students
of each class is 40 students.
The researcher took the sample of
this research by using cluster random

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted at SMPN 12

sampling technique. This technique is

Tasikmalaya at the eighth graders in

used because the population of this

academic year of 2011/2012 which is

research consists of some classes and

located on Jl. Sutisna Senjaya Kawalu,

each class is relatively homogeneous.

Tasikmalaya and was conducted from

The researcher used a test to collect

July to January 2013.
In

this

the data. There are reading test and

research,

the

researcher

students’ intelligence document. Reading

applied an experimental study with a
quantitative
Wallen

approach.

(1993:

test is used to know students’ ability in

Fraenkel

and

reading

state

that

document is used to collect the data of

240)

while

students’

intelligence

experimental study is one of the most

students’ intelligence. The form of test is

powerful

objective test.

research

methodologies,

because it is the best way to establish

For the IQ test, the students were

cause and effect relationship between

already tested by their own school,

variables.

therefore the researcher will use those

Meanwhile, a quantitative approach is

score as the data. The IQ test in this

a kind of research that gives a pressure

research has been conducted by Lembaga

in the systematic analysis, using statistic

Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia

analysis toward quantitative data that

(LPSDM) Pelita Harapan Bangsa which is

includes correlational study, experiment,

located at Perum Green Java No. 1

and

ex-post

facto.

This

research

is

Cawang, Magelang.

designed to describe and to prove the

Meanwhile, reading test is in multiple

influence of using semantic mapping to

choice forms. According to Heaton (175:

teach reading viewed from students’

14) multiple choice item is now widely

intelligence.

regarded as being one of the most useful

The population of this research is all
the

eighth

graders

Tasikmalaya

in

2011/2012.

The

population

are

of

SMPN

12

year

of

In techniques of analyzing the data,

numbers

of

the researcher used descriptive analysis

academic
total
about

of all objective item types. The test must

380

be valid and reliable.

students

and

inferential

analysis.

Descriptive

divided into 9 classes. The sample of this

analysis is used to know the mean,

research are two classes, the eighth

median, mode, and standard deviation of
students’
29

scores

in

reading

test.

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
842

No. Sample
1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

2

2

(df)
log si2

Df

1/(df)

19

0.052

24.568 1.390377

26.41717

19

0.052

39.713 1.598934

30.37975

si

i

log s

19

0.052

47.186 1.673821

31.8026

19

0.052

55.7342 1.746122

33.17632

466.8

Inferential

analysis is

hypothesis.

Before

conducting

7.8
15

Based upon the calculation above, it
shows that the χo2 (3.30) is lower than χt2 at
the level of significance α = 5% (7.815) or

test

used to

χo2 χt2
1.4
3.3
34
0
1

123.2
099

121.7758

Ʃ

316
684
421
754.5 896.5 1058. 3176.
5
5
95
85
41.80
066
1.621
183

χo2 < χt2 (3.30 < 7.815). Therefore, it can be

the

concluded that the data obtained are

hypothesis, it is necessary to know the

homogenous.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Data
A1
A2
B1
B1
A1B1
A2B1
A1B2
A2B2

40
40
40
40
20
20
20
20

No of
Sample
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.06

(Lt)

(Lo)

0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

(α)

Status

Table 3.The Summary
Multifactor of Variance

Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal

Source of
Variance

SS

Between
columns (The 221.
Teaching
11
Strategies)
Between rows
(Self–
1374.
11
Actualization)
Columns by
rows
11419
.61
(Interaction)

normality and homogeneity. Then, the
researcher tested the hyphotesis using
Multifactor Analysis of Variance or

Between
groups

2014
.84
3176
Within groups
.85
5191
Total
.69

ANOVA 2X2. It is used to find out the
difference between columns and rows.
Besides ANOVA, the researcher used

of

a

2x2

Df

MS

Fo

Ft(.05)

1

221.
11

5.29
0

3.97

374.
11

8.95
0

1419
.61

33.9
61

3
76

671.
612
41.8
01

79

Based on the above table, it can be
concluded that:
1. Fo between columns (5.290) is higher

Tukey Test to identify the significant
difference between groups or cells.

than Ft

(0.05)

(3.97). H0 is rejected and it

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 1. Summary of Normality Test

means the difference between columns

Based upon the above data showing
that Lo of A1 (0.0738) < Lt (0.141), Lo 0f A2
(0.0804) < Lt (0.141), Lo 0f B1 (0.0689) < Lt
(0.141), Lo of B2 (0.0717) < Lt (0.141), Lo of
A1B1 (0.0897) < Lt (0.190), Lo of
A2B1(0.1017) < Lt (0.190), Lo of A1B2
(0.1026) < Lt (0.190), and Lo of A2B2
(0.0694) < Lt (0.190), it can be inferred
that the data obtained are in normal
distribution.
Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test

(72) is higher than the students’ mean

si2

X1

X2

X3

X4

1173
51.2

8410
45

8153
6.45

9508
2.05

466.8

754.5
5
39.71

896.5
5
47.18

1058.
95
55.73

24.56

is significant. The students’ mean of A1

of A2 (67), thus it can be stated that
semantic mapping is more effective
than lecturing to teach reading.
2. Fo between rows (9.393) is higher
than Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and
it means difference between rows is
significant. It can be stated that the
difference between the achievement of
the students having high intelligence
and those having low intelligence is
30

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
significant. The students’ mean of B1

Hence, B1 (71) is higher than B2 (66), it

(71) is higher than the students’ mean

can be stated that the students having

of B2 (66). Hence, the students who

high intelligence have better reading

have high level of intelligence have

ability

better

reading

ability

than

the

and

those

having

low

intelligence.

students who have low intelligence.

3) Because qo between cells (A1B1 and

3. Fo interaction (1419.61) is higher than

A1B2) (6.80) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),

Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and it can

the

be stated that there is interaction

intelligence who are taught by using

effect between the two variables, the

semantic mapping are significantly

teaching strategies and the degree of

different in reading ability from the

intelligence on the reading ability. It

students who have low intelligence

means that the effect of the teaching

who are taught by using lecturing. The

strategies used on the reading ability

mean score of students having high

depends on the sudents’ degree or

intelligence A1B1 (77) is higher than

level of intelligence.

that of those who have low intelligence

Table 4. The Summary of Tukey Test
Between
Group
A1 – A 2
B1 – B2
A1B1 – A2B1
A1B2 – A2B2

qo

qt

Status

Meaning

3.25
4.23
6.80
3.52

2.86
2.86
2.95
2.95

Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant

A1 ≠ A 2
B1 ≠ B2
A1B1 ≠ A1B1
A1B2 ≠ A2B2

students

who

have

high

A1B2 (65), so semantic mapping is more
effective

than

lecturing

to

teach

reading for the students having high
intelligence.
4) Because qo between two cells (A1B2 and

1) Because qo between columns A1A2
(0.05)

A2B2) (3.52) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),

(3.25) is higher than qt (2.86), the

lecturing differs significantly from

difference between columns is

semantic mapping to teach reading for

significant. The students’ mean of A1

students who have low intelligence.

(72) is higher than the students’ mean

The mean score of students having

of A2 (67). It can be inferred that

low intelligence who are taught by

teaching reading using semantic

lecturing (69) is higher than those who

mapping at the eighth graders of

are taught by using semantic mapping

SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya is more effective

(64), thus lecturing is more effective

than teaching reading using lecturing.

than semantic mapping for teaching

2) Because qo between rows B1B2 (4.230) is
(0.05)

reading for students having low

higher than qt (2.86), it can be

intelligence.

concluded that the students who have

Reffering to the result of tuckey test

high intellligence and those who have

at point 3 and 4 above, it can be inffered

low intelligence are signicantly

that semantic mapping is more

different in their reading ability.

appropriate strategy for the students
31

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
with high intelligence, while conventional

Maggard (2012: 1) states promote a

strategy,

lecturing,

appropriate

combination of semantic mapping and

strategy

for

with

reading activities to enable the readers to

is

students

low

intelligence in teaching reading. Hence, it

make use of schema in achieveng a fuller

can be summarized that there is an

understanding of a text.

interaction between teaching strategies

On the contrary, lecturing is used to

and the students’ intelligence in teaching

describe a lesson where the teacher has a

reading.

control. It is also called as the teacher

Discussion
Based on the computation result of data

centered because the teacher’s duty in
this strategy is only telling the material

analysis, it can be presented as follows:

directly by face to face with the students.

1. Semantic mapping is more effective

Westwood (2008: 18) remarks that

than lecturing to teach reading.

the main objective to lecturing is creating

Semantic mapping is a strategy in
which

information

is

knowledge

categorically

by

utilizing

the

understanding

in

students simply by talking at them.

structured. It helps students arrange
information

and

Moreover, in this stratregy the students
most

have no

chance to be active, creative,

important aspect and concept which is

and interactive because only the teacher

related with a text. All activities in this

becomes

strategy are students-centered because it

consequence,

makes

passive and feel bored in following

the

use

of

students’

prior

knowledge and control the input at each

the

decision
it

maker,

makes

the

students

only listen to the teacher’s explanation.

According to Zaid (2005: 7) semantic

That is why semantic mapping is more

mapping is as comunicative language

effective than lecturing to teach reading.

teaching because it incorporates many

2. The students’ having high intelligence

aspects of CLT such as active, interactive,

have better reading ability than those

students centered, and as an integrative

having low intelligence.

activity. Using semantic mapping in pre-

Intelligence is the most important

reading phase stimulate the students

tool for success and failure of the

prior knowledge, the whilst-reading helps

students in learning. Carol (2012: 1)

the students to record the information

states that intelligence is capacity for

obtained from the text, and when using

knowledge and the ability to acquire:

semantic mapping as post reading phase

capacity

helps the students recall and organize

comprehend

for

reason,
relationship,

ability
ability

information from what they have learned

evaluate and judge, and capacity for

from

original and productive thought. The

a

text.

Widomski

a

teaching learning process because they

paragraph of the map’s bulding.

reading

as

in
32

to
to

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
students who have high
intelligence
quickly

will

and

level

acquire

apply

the

of

have

high

an

interaction

between

knowledge

teaching strategies and the students’

knowledge

intelligence.

effectively. The students having high
intelligence

is

3. There

Students’ participation in learning

ability

in

activities is strongly affected by teaching

comprehending a text (Debour, 1960:

strategies. Semantic mapping strategy is

132). By high intelligence the students

a students-centered because it makes the

have hard effort optimally to achieve the

students more active, interactive, and

success, have much bravery to answer

creative. When they try to create a map,

teacher’s question, have strong intention

the students work with each other before

in learning that makes them understand

and after reading a text. The students

the lesson more easily as stated by

who are taught using semantic will find

Gardner (1999: 6) human intelligence

the main concept of a text then try to

involves skills of the problem solving

represent a text by making the schemata

which enable the individual to solve the

which are related to paragraphs of a text.

problem, to create an effective product,

It

and have to a work for the acquisition of

understand reading a text easily. All

new knowledge.

activities in this strategy such as pre-

On the other hand, students with low

new

knowledge.

helps

the

students

to

reading, whilst reading, and post reading

intelligence will find the diffulty in
acquiring

certainly

are communicative. According to Zaid

They

are

(2005:

7)

semantic

mapping

is

as

passive because they prefer becoming

communicative

listeners and following participants in

because it incorporates many aspects of

learning process. They always depend on

(CLT)

someone else, don’t try hard, give up

students-centered,

easily in the face of challange. It proves

activity.

they are slower in doing reading tasks

such

language

as

teaching

active,

interactive,

and

integrative

The fact shows that the students

which are given to them as stated by

having

Debour (1960: 132) the students who

curiosity

have low intelligence will have low ability

material and like to read anything that

in understanding a text. It happens

teacher gives them. They also peform

because they have less capacity to learn

very well in the class, try to be active, and

and to solve the problem, and to carry on

do the task better. Gardner (1999: 6)

the abstract thinking. That’s the reason

states that human intelligence involves

why

skills of the problem solving which

the

students’

having

high

high
in

intelligence

have

comprehending

high

reading

intelligence have better reading ability

enable

than those having low intelligence.

problems, to create an effective product,
33

the

individual

to

solve

the

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
and to have a work for the acquisition of

between teaching strategies and students’

new

intelligence for teaching reading.

knowledge.

mapping

is

Therefore,

more

semantic

effective

to

teach

reading for the students having high
intelligence.

Conclusion, Implication, and Suggestion

Meanwhile, lecturing strategy is the
teacher-centred
information

which

transfer.

focuses
This

As the research result and the discussion

on

elaborated

in

preceding

page,

the

findings are as follows:

strategy

doesn’t give any chances to the students

1. Semantic mapping is more effective

to be active in learning process. The

than lecturing to teach reading for the

students are passive and mostly they

eighth

prefer talking with their friends than

Tasikmalayain

listening to the teacher. It is stated by

2011/2012.

Kelly (2012: 1), lecturing is a teaching

graders

better

focus of information transfer.

having low IQ.

The fact shows that the students
low

intelligence

have

the

SMP

12

academic

year

2. The students having high IQ have

strategy where an instructor is the cenral

having

of

reading

ability

than

those

3. There is an interaction between the
less

teaching strategies and the students’

attention, motivation, and interest in

intelligence in teaching reading at the

joinning learning process, tend to wait to

eighth

the teacher’s explanation to know the

Tasikmalaya in the academic year

message of a text or need their friends’

2011/2012.

help in understanding a text. It is stated

graders

of

of

SMP

12

The findings indicate that semantic

by Charles Spearman in Cherry (2012: 5),

mapping is more effective than lecturing

people

to teach reading. Semantic mapping is a

who

have

high

intelligence

perform well on a work tend to perform

useful strategy which helps the students

well on other works, while those who

to

have low intelligence perfom badly on a

knowledge by seeing the connections

work, tend to perform badly on others.

through paragraphs in a given topic by

Hence,

the

students’

having

low

increase

the

teacher.

and

develop

Semantic

their

mapping

prior

uses

intelligece will have less capacity to learn

before, during, and after reading a text.

and perform well. Therefore, lecturing is

Prior

more effective for the students having

distributes the text to be read and

low intelligence.

carefully selects the key words to be

Based on explanation above, it can be

to

read

a

text,

the

teacher

learned for understanding the text and

concluded that there is an interaction

the lesson. First, the teacher asks the
34

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
students to think of ideas which related

b. The teachers can apply semantic

to the topic. This brainstorming phase

mapping

to

allow the students to stimulate their

improve

the

prior knowledge or experience. Thus

ability.

prior

knowledge

can

be

used

as a

teach

reading

students

to

reading

c. The teachers have to consider that

stepping a block get new knowledge.

intelligence is one factor that may

Second, the teacher writes down the topic

influence the students’ reading

or main concept in the center of the map.

ability in the teaching and learning

Then, engage to build the semantic maps

process.

and begin the pre-reading discussion. As

2.

students read, they use their semantic

For the Students
a. The students are expected to be

maps to add to the meaning of the

more active, creative, and having

words. The teacher instructs the students

good

to

process especially in reading class,

add

the

information

from

their

participant

in

learning

readings to clarify the meaning of key

in order that the students can

words. Then, the teachers encourages the

improve their reading ability and

students to note additional words that

get good achievement in reading.

further explain the ideas from their

b. For the students who have low

reading. As the students read, the teacher

intelligence,

reminds

down

encourage themselves to study

need

hard

students

to

about

words

questions

write
that

clarification.

and

jonning

The teacher directs the students to

they

be

the

more

should

active

teaching

in

learning

process especially in reading class.

use their semantic maps during the
discussion of their reading. The teacher

3.

directs them to clarify the information

For Other Researcher
a. The researchers can use this result

that they get from their readings.

of the study as the starting point

For the last, related to this research,

to continue the next study.

the researcher wants to gives some

b. The

researchers

can

use

suggestions as follows:

research

as

1.

For the Teachers

reference

for

a. The teachers should focus their

research certainly with different

attention to select the strategies

an
further

this

additional
relevant

variables and condition.

based on some consideration: like
level of difficulty and

students’

REFERENCES
Antonnaci, et al. (2011). 40 Strategies for
Middle and Secondary Classrooms

intelligence.
35

ENGLISH TEACHING
Vol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36
http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id
Developing Conten Area Literac.
Sandiego: Sage.
Balajthy. (2003). Struggling Readers:
Assessment and Instruction in
Grades. Boston: Guilford Press.
Brown, H Douglas. (2004). Language
Assessment
Principles
and
Classroom Practices.
Mexico:
Longman.
Brisk. (2000). Literacyand Bilingualism A
Handbook for All Theachers.
Houston: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Burns, et al. (1984). Teaching Reading in
Today’s Elementary Schools. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Carol. (2012). Intelligence. Retrieved from
http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glo
ssary/g/intelligence
.
Carol. (2012). Factors Ffecting Intelligence.
Rerrieved from http://www.
agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic
&superid=7&topicid=636
.
Cashin (1985). Improving
Lectures.
Manhattan: Kansas State University.
Cooper, et al. (2009). Literacy: Helping
Student Construct Meaning. Boston:
Cengage Learning, Inc.
Davies. (1995).
Introducing Reading.
London: ClaysLtd, StIves plc.
Debour. (1960. The Reaching Reading.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Inc.
Djaali. (2007). Psikologi
Pendidikan.
Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Eppler. (2006). A Comparison between
Mapping Methods.
Journal
Imformation Visualization, 5, 202210.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.
95000131.
Fraenkel and Wallen. (2000). How to
Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. Boston: McGraw Hill
Companies.
Gardner. (1999).
Intelligence Reframe.
New York: Basic Books a member of
the Preseus Books Group.
Helmi. (2011). The Effectiveness of Group
Investigation Model to Teach
Reading Viewed from Students’
Intelligence. Unpublished Thesis.
Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Muhtar, Kamal. (2010).
Improving

Through Semantic Mapping
Strategy. Unpublished Thesis.
Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Nunan (1998). Desingning Task for the
Communicative
Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kelly. (2012).
Lecture Pros and Cons.
Retrieved
from 712 educators
database.
Raizienie, Saule and Bronislava Grigaite.
(2005). Developing Child’s thinking
skill by Semantic Mapping
Strategies. 9(2), 192-206. Retrieved
from EBSCO online database.
Zaid. (2005). Semantic Mapping in
Communicative Language Teaching.
30(3), 11. Retrieved from English
Teaching Forum database.

Students’ Reading Comprehension
36