CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL REVIEW A. Reading
1. The Definition of Reading
Mark A. Clark and Sandra Silberstein (1987) in Simanjuntak (1988: 15) revealed that reading is a process of interaction as the following:
Reading is an active cognitive process of interactive with print and monitoring to establish meaning. Reading is the instantaneous association of those symbols with existing knowledge and comprehension of the information of ideas communication. It means that when a reader interacts with the printed materials, his prior knowledge combined with the written information, the result in comprehension about the message. Thus, reading is an active process of getting meaning.
2. The Function of Reading
Harmer (1998: 68) states that reading has many purposes, especially for the students, and they are:
a. Reading provides good models for English writing.
Reading provides opportunities to study language: vocabulary, b. grammar, punctuation, and the way we construct sentences, paragraph, and text.
c. Reading for pleasure
3. The Types of Reading
The Liang Gie in Agustina (2004: 7-8) says in general, reading is divided in three types:
a. Entertainment reading
Entertainment reading is for pleasure. The aim is to enjoy the story and to appreciate it. It is about stories such as in novel or end of the story. It is easy to do because it doesn’t need special knowledge background of the story following time sequence and it doesnot including abstract meaning that technical term.
b. Glancing reading
It is quick reading and sometimes followed by jump reading. It is done from the front to the back or by crisscross. The aim is to get illustration for a second about the content of the text and to find out the information the reading looking in the text.
c. Study reading
It is about lesson book, and the other reading materials in a knowledge field. It is done by careful and if necessary repeat for several time. The aim is to catch, understand, and remember some knowledge in science branch.
4. The Problem in Reading
Problem in reading, Tampubolon (1987: 63):
a. Lack of sense in contextual punctuation
b. Mistake caused by real meaning
c. Lack of sense to find out the real meaning
B. Attitude
1. The Definition of Attitude
An attitude is "a relatively enduring organization of beliefs, feelings, and behavioral tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups events or symbols" (Hogg & Vaughan 2005, p. 150, in Saul McLeod, 2009)
"… A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour" (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1, in Saul McLeod, 2009).
Attitude can be defined as a set of beliefs developed in a due course of time in a given sociocultural setting. Although it necessarily so not determine behaviour but can have some impact on it. It is studied that positive attitude facilitates learning. If the learner is reluctant to learn or he/ she does not have a positive attitude, he/ she does not produce any result. Language learning is affected by the attitude and motivation.
On simply put, it can be defined as a simple expression of how we like or dislike toward some matters.
2. The Component of Attitude
a. Affective component: this involves a person’s feelings/
emotions about the attitude object. For example: “I am scared of spiders”.
b. Behavioral component: the way the attitude we have influences
how we act or behave. For example: “I will avoid spiders and
c. Cognitive component: this involves a person’s belief/
knowledge about an attitude object. For example: “I believe spiders are dangerous”.
This model is known as the ABC model of attitudes. The three components are usually linked. However, there is evidence that the cognitive and affective components of attitude do not always match with behavior. This is shown in a study by La Piere (1934), in (Saul McLeod, 2009).
3. The Feature of Attitude
Aijzen cited that there are three basic features of attitude and they are:
a. Consistency
There are at least three types of consistency here, they are:
1) Stimulus-Response Consistency
A person may give the same response or set responses consistently in the presence of a given stimulus object. This stimulus-response consistency may be taken as reflecting an attitude toward the object (Campbell, 1963 in Ajzen, 1975: 6). A definition of this type, however, fails to distinguish attitude from can smooth this problem in part of requiring that each response express some degree of favourableness or unfavourableness toward the object in question. Another interpretation involves the degree of consistency between different responses with respect to the same object. Instead of the requirement that the same responses be made with respect to an object, the requirement in this case is that, whatever the responses are that are elicited by the object; they should be consistent with one another.
2) Response-Response Consistency
This response-response consistency has also been taken as indicative of an attitude toward object (DeFleur and Westie, 1963 in Ajzen, 1975: 6). It is still not clear yet, what is meant by consistency in this context. Consider, for example, a person who splits his ticket and votes for Democratic governor but a Republican senator. His behaviour appears inconsistent in terms of party preferences, but it would be considered consistent if he voted for the more liberal candidate for each office. Consistency of a person’s behaviours must be judged along some dimension. Two behaviours are considered to be consistent if both are located on the same side of the dimension; they are inconsistent if they are located on opposite sides. Obviously, two behaviours conservative), inconsistent with respect to another (Democrat- Republican). This notion of response-response consistency fails to discriminate attitude, trait, motive, and various other concepts. At this point, let us recall that the proposed definition of attitude refers to behaviours that are consistently favourable or unfavourable. That is, response consistency should be judged with reference to an evaluative or affective dimension. Two or more behaviours are considered consistent in this sense when both are located on either positive or negative side of the evaluative dimension. Observed consistencies of this type are taken as evidence for the existence of favourable or unfavourable attitudes.
3) Evaluative Consistency
This third type of response consistency is related to multiple behaviours at different points in time. On different occasions a person may perform different behaviours with respect to an object. The overall favourability expressed by these behaviours, however, may remain relatively constant, and in this sense they may be defined as consistent. Clearly, overall consistency of this kind could also be defined in terms of dimension other than evaluation or affect, such as aggressiveness, liberalism-conservatism, dominance, by overall evaluative consistency (e.g., Thrustone, 1931; Doob, 1947 in Ajzen, 1975: 7). For example, canvassing a political candidate, contributing money of his campaign fund, attending a rally in support of his candidacy, working in his campaign office, as well as voting for him, are some of the favourable behaviours with respect to the candidate that a person may perform. On a given occasions, and although these behaviours may not be consistent with one another, the degree of favourability toward the candidate expressed by his behaviours may remain constant. Thus, on a given day the person may attend a rally for the candidate and make a contribution to his campaign fund, but he may not canvass or work in the campaign office. On another occasion he may work in the campaign office during the day and canvass his neighborhood in the evening but not contribute money or attend a rally. The overall favourability expressed by these different patterns of behaviour, however,
remains relatively constant. It is assumed that the favourability of the person’s attitude toward the candidate corresponds to the overall favourability expressed by his behavioral pattern.The evaluative or affective consistency is what distinguishes between attitude and other concepts, and it is therefore hardly surprising that the evaluative dimension has attitude (e.g., Thrustone, 1931; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957; Fishbein, 1957c).
Most attitude measurement relies on overall evaluative consistency although some measures are based on stimulus- response consistency. To the best of our knowledge, none of the common attitude-measurement techniques rely on the notion of response-response consistency.
b. Attitudes are Predispositions
The second major feature of the description under consideration is the notion that attitude is a predisposition. Attitude is typically viewed as a latent or underlying variable that is assumed to guide or influence behaviour. One immediate implication of this view is that attitudes are not identical with observed response consistency. Indeed, attitudes cannot observed directly but have to be inferred from observed consistency in behaviour.
It has showed above that “response consistency” can be interpreted in at least three very different ways. Since predisposition must be inferred from such consistency, it follows that their interpretation depends on the definition of consistency. The stimulus- response interpretation of consistency implies that the individual is predisposed to make a particular response or out of responses on the therefore, permits prediction of one or more specific behaviours.
Adopting the response-response interpretation of consistency implies a more general predisposition. In this case, the individual is predisposed toward performing a class of behaviours, all of which are either favourable or unfavourable with respect to the object. Thus a person holding a favourable attitude toward the object would be expected behaviours; whereas the reverse would be true for a person holding an unfavourable attitude.
Defining consistency in terms of overall implies a predisposition of an even more general nature. Here a person is seen as predisposed to a certain degree of favourability in his behaviour toward the object, which may be expressed in different behavioural ways. Thus the predisposition refers neither to a particular behaviour nor to aclass of behaviours, nut rather to the overall favourability of a behavioural pattern. Knowledge of a person‘s attitude in this case does not permit prediction of any specific behaviour on his part.
It is of interest to note that the early conceptions of attitude were largely restricted to predispositions or mental sets; the concept of attitude gained popularity only after it was a more general behavioral disposition (cf. Fleming, 1967). Of greater importance, the notion of predispositional specificity points to some additional ambiguities with respect to the attitude concept. In the first two interpretation discussed linked to one or more specific responses. Once a person’s predisposition (i.e., attitude) has been established, it is expected that the person will (or will not) perform the behaviour in question. The stimulus-response interpretation of consistency implies that a given attitude always elicits a given response or set responses (in terms of which the attitude was defined). Response-response consistency implies that a positive attitude will lead to the performance of positive behaviours and a negative attitude to the performance of negative behaviours. In contrast, the third view of predisposition (i.e., overall evaluative consistency) makes no such assumption. Even though an individual may have a favourable attitude, there is no expectation that he will perform any particular behaviour with respect to the object, favourable or unfavourable.
These problems are compound when the level of dispositional specificity fails to correspond to the interpretation of response consistency. In a typical example, an investigator may infer attitude by observing overall evaluative consistency but assume a predisposition to perform a specific behaviour. Many of the agreements concerning the definition of attitude can be traced to the investigator’s description of the nature of the predisposition. For example, Sarnoff (1960) defined attitude as “a disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects. Thurstone (931) and predisposition. Although not discussing its nature per se, Chave (1928) provided a detailed description of the factors that influence a person’s predisposition: “An attitude is a complex of feelings, desires, fears, convictions, prejudices, or other tendencies that have given a set or readiness to act to a person because of varied experiences. “a direct description of the nature of predisposition has been offered by Krech and Crutchfield (1948), who defined attitude as “ an enduring organizational, emotional, perceptional, and cognitive processes with respect of the individual’s world.”
c. Attitudes are Learned
The disagreements concerning the nature of the disposition lead to the final feature of attitude to be considered, namely, the notion that attitudes are learned. Although virtually every attitude theorist would agree with this assumption, its importance is frequently not recognized. The social scientist confronts the formidable task of trying to explain the behaviour of organisms with complex and unique past experiences. It is widely accepted that residues of this experience influence or modify behaviour or the organism. Since a person’s complete history is not available to investigator, he often turns to variables that reflect of past experience. Attitudes are generally assumed to constitute such residues (Campbell, 1963), and hence
In other words, predispositions to respond in consistently favourable or unfavourable ways are assumed to be the result of past experience. Clearly, the level of predispositional specificity at which an investigator is working will tend to determine the kinds of past experiences that he considers relevant for attitude formation. For example, concern with predispositions to perform a particular response is likely to leas to considerations of past experience directly related to performance and non-performance of the behavioural response in the presence of the stimulus object. Thus investigation may focus consequences of the behaviour, such as monetary rewards, punishments, social approval or disapproval, and on the effort involved in performing the behaviour, as well as on social pressures to perform or abstain from performing it.
In contrast, concern with general predispositions to behave in a favourable or unfavourable manner with respect to some object may direct attention to any kind or prior experience with the object. In a study of a person’s predisposition toward Catholics, for example, it would be possible to consider consequences of different behaviours with respect to Catholics, social pressures concerning such behaviours, factual knowledge about Catholics, general feelings one had previously experienced in the presence of Catholics, etc. indeed, almost any experience might be deemed relevant for the formation of
In conclusion, most investigators would probably agree with a description (or definition) of attitude as a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to respect to a given object. In the discussion above we have attempted to reveal some of the disagreements concealed by the apparent consensus. Agreement with this description of attitude leaves five basic problems unanswered. First, different interpretations may be given to the phrase “respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner”. Second, the predisposition may be viewed as specific or general, and it may or may not be linked to particular behaviour. Third, response consistency and level of predispositional specificity may or may not be coordinated. Fourth, disagreement exists concerning the nature of the predisposition. Finally, different, different kinds of past experiences may be considered relevant for the formation of the disposition.
Clearly, there exists a great diversity of viewpoints concerning the attitude concept, and this state of affairs is reflected in a multitude of definitions of attitude. Many of the disagreement among investigators are questions of theory rather than definition. For example, we saw above that many definitions of attitude make explicit reference to the nature of the disposition or to factors that influence it. theoretical description of attitude are essential defining of the concept and which are speculative arguments that require empirical verification. It follows that these definitions of attitude have no clear implications as to how attitudes are to be measured, and the result is the arbitrary selection of measurement procedures noted earlier. What is needed at present time, therefore, is a conceptual definition of attitude which specifies only the essential characteristics of the attitude concept which must be assessed on order to obtain a valid measure of attitude.
4. The Function of Attitude
Attitudes can serve functions for the individual. Daniel Katz (1960), in (Saul McLeod, 2009) outlines four functional areas:
a. Knowledge
Attitudes provide meaning (knowledge) for life. The knowledge relatively stable. This allows us to predict what is likely to happen, and so gives us a sense of control. Attitudes can help us organize and structure our experience. Knowing a person’s attitude helps us predict their behavior. For example, knowing that a person is religious we can predict they will go to Church.
b. Self/ Ego-expressive
The attitudes we express (1) help communicate who we are and (2) may make us feel good because we have asserted our identity.
Self-expression of attitudes can be non-verbal too: think bumper sticker, cap, or T-shirt slogan. Therefore, our attitudes are part of our identity, and help us to be aware through expression of our feelings, beliefs and values.
c. Adaptive
If a person holds and/ or expresses socially acceptable attitudes, other people will reward them with approval and social acceptance.
For example, when people flatter their bosses or instructors (and believe it) or keep silent if they think an attitude is unpopular. Again, expression can be nonverbal [think politician kissing baby]. Attitudes functions helps us fit in with a social group. People seek out others who share their attitudes, and develop similar attitudes to those they like.
d. The Ego-Defensive
The function refers to holding attitudes that protect our self- esteem or that justify actions that make us feel guilty. For example, one way children might defend themselves against the feelings of humiliation they have experienced in P.E. lessons is to adopt a strongly negative attitude to all sport. People whose pride has suffered following a defeat in sport might similarly adopt a defensive attitude: “I’m not bothered, I’m sick of rugby anyway…”. This function has psychiatric overtones. Positive attitudes towards ourselves, for example, have a protective function (i.e. an ego-defensive role) in helping us reserve our self-image.
The basic idea behind the functional approach is that attitudes help a person to mediate between their own inner needs (expression, defense) and the outside world (adaptive and knowledge).
5. Factor Influencing Attitude
Purwanto (1998: 142), there are some factors in developing students’
a. Maturation
Maturation is a process of becoming made mature. When someone gets experiences, it makes him or her knows about something and based on it he or she decides to do it.
b. Family education
Parents are the figure of their children their interaction is the main determination the children’s attitude, because the children imitate their parents in their life activities.
Social environment c. Social environment is a condition concerning with the relations between people or communities affecting people’s life.
It has a role in developing attitude because we realize that our children cannot live without it.
d. School
It can develop students’ attitude because it puts the moral understanding and the concept in their students. The concept is something, which is used to determine something good or bad, legal or illegal.
e. Mass media
which contains suggestions. The suggestion will influence our opinion. New information makes new understanding and will make a new attitude.
6. Characters of Attitude
Suryadi in Darsono (1989: 21):
1. It is always involves a correlation between subject and object.
2. It is learned and formed through some experiences.
3. It is changeable depending on the individual environment on the different time.
4. It is always involves motivation and feeling.
5. It tends to change to be prejudice.