THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES WITH GRAMMATICAL AND LEXICAL CHOSION EXERCISES ON READING COMPRENHENSION.
THE EFFECT OF TEACIDNG
TECHNIQlJES \VITH GRAMMATICAL AND LEXIC.At
COHESION EXERCISES ON READING COMP.REHl:NSION
BV:
MARA AM IN HARl\HAP
REG. NO. 025HI0060
THESIS
Submitted to
Graduflte Program of lJNJMED
in Ptrrtitll Fulfillment ofthe Requirementl·for the Degree of
MAGISTER HUl'tiANIORA itl Englis.h Applied Linguistics
MILIK PERPUSTAKAANI'
UNIMED ,
GRADUATE PROGRAM
EN(;LISH APPI.JIEO LINGlJISTICS
STAJ:~
UNIVERSI1'Y OF MEDAN
2004
-·.
··-·
·---- - - - - - -
- --·-···----·-······· ........ ---------··- .... ..
ACKNO\VLEDGMENTS
This study is concerned with the effect of teaching techniques with
grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises on reading comprehension. It is submitted
to Graduate Program of UNIMED as one of the requirements for the degree of
Magister Humaniom ir English Applied Linguistics. The completion of this thesis
would have never been made possible without the help of sewral people.
First of all, I am particularly indebted to my first and second consultants:
D- Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd. , and Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., for their generosity
guidance, patience, encouragement, motivation, and many useful advices they have
shown to me durjng the preparation of the thesis.
I would also like to acknowledge the valuable and helpful constructive
snggestions made by the reviewers: Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, Prof Tina Mariany
Arifin, M.A., Ph.D., and Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D. Thanks are also due to the
Head and the Secretary of English Applied Lir.guistics Program: Prof Dr. Javvasi
Naibaho, and Dra. M•!isuri, M.A., and to all the lectures: Prof. D.P Tampuholon,
Ph.D., Prof M. Butarbutar, Ph.D, Prof. M. Silitonga, Ph.D., Prof. Bahrein Umar,
Ph.D and the staff: Tiolina for their commitment to guide and facilitate the students
of Graduate Pro1:,>Tam in English Applied Linguistics of ON lMED.
Several persons also provided assistance in obtaining information and data
related to the study. They are Gous Salim Pulungan (the principal), Evita Rahayu,
S.Pd., and Muliaman, S.Pd (the teachers of English), and the students of SM.P Negeri
9 Padangsidimpuan. I have to say 'thanks' for the assistance provided by all these
persons.
Finally, sincere th"'nks should always be offered to my beloved parents Hj.
Khadijah and H. Sutan Guru Harahap, my sisters, and brothers who deserved my best
appreciation, respect, and for their encouragement and motivation during the process
ofm~'
study.
Medan, August 2004
M. A. 1-l.
ABSTRACT
Harahap, Mara
Amin.
2004.
The
Effect of Teaching Techniques
with
Grammatical and lexical Cohesion Exercises on Reading Comprehension.
English Applied Linguistics, Graduate Prof,>ram ofUNIMED.
The objectives of this study are to investigate whether teaching techniques
with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises significantly affect reading
comprehension and which of these techniques the most signjficantly e,tTcctive is.
Quantitative approach was carried in experimental design. The second year students
of SMP Negeri 9 Padangsidimpuan of the second semester in the period of2004/2004
were taken as the samples of the study in cluster sampling with I 04 students divided
into three groups. The data were analyzed by means of statistical analysis by appJ:Ying
one-wJy ANOV A. The results of testing the tirst hypothesis shows that the Fo\Jsen ed is greater than the F-table (3.91 > 3 09), while the second hypothesis shows
t!-:at the comparisons between the Scheffe Test value and F-table indicates that
grammatical cohesion exercises versus conventional textbook exercises is 3.5.8 >
3.09, grammatical cohesion exercises versus lex ical cohesion exercises is 0.28 < 3.09,
and the conventional textbook exercises versus lexical cohesion exercises is 1.89 <
3.09. On the basis of testing the hypotheses, the research findings show that ( I)
teaching techniques \>ith grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises signiticantly
affect reading comprehension (2) one of these techniques is more efTective than the
others, i.e., grammatical cohesion exercises is more effective than conventional
textbook exercises, and (3) the effect of grammatical and lexical cohesic\n exercises
do not differ significantly.
Based on the research findings, it is concluded that
teaching techniques wit!·. grammatical and lexical cohesiop facilitate the students
reading comprehension.
I
II
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
2.:1
MILIK PERPUSTA'KA -~'
UN JlVJ E
1.1 Background
Scientific and t~ c hnolgica
infonnation written in Englisfi are-:1
·
in
large number nowadays. To access such information, the students need to be able to
read and understand written sources.
Realizing the fact that to be able to access the world 's scientific and
technological information, the teaching of English in Indonesia has been started. by
giving muc)l more attention to the implementation of developi ng reading
comprehension. However, one of the greatest problems is that reading comprehension
of junior, senior, and university students in Indonesia are still poor (Soejoto, 2002),
this indicates that the improvement of the teaching of reading comprehension is very
essential. Consequently, the.re are several factors affecting reading comprehension.
According to schema theory (Rumelhart, 1980), reading comprehension implies an
interaction between the readers and text itself. Poor readers relate their schemata
knowledge with the new information present in text. Similarly, Carre l (1383)
identifies that the failure of readers to understand a text is affected by the lack of
know1edge of formal schemata (the knowledge about the text such as v o ~ ab
u1ary,
sentence, grammatical, cohesion, coherent organization, etc.) and content schemata
(knowledge about the subject matter of text).
In relation to the knowledge of schemata, cohesjon is one of the important
functicms finding in the ijeld of formal schemata. The tenn ' cohesion' in this sense
2
lies on the text connectives, which refer to cohesive ties, and help readers recognize
how text are organized, and how different parts of text arc connected to each other
functionally or semant;cally, but the students frequently fail to interpret the message
in a text because of their disability to identify the content of cohesive ties.
In line with the above consideration, the improvement of teaching reading
comprehension has long been a challenge to the teachers of English and researchers
as well. I-loey ( I 991) for example, pointed out that lexical repetition especially when
fann ing cohesive ties over large spans of text. Similarly, a research on a short unit on
using repetition with functional connectives in writing was conducted by Ruetten
(1997). The recent researcher Liu (2000) also conducted a research
abou
~ Jexical
ties
in writing.
In addition, Gurning, Ownie, and Purba (I 993) carried out a research dealing
with cohesion. They found that there is a significant correlation between cohesion
ability and reading comprehension. However, in relation to the improvement of
teaching
reading comprehension, many teachers continue to focus most:y on
manipulating
the
teaching
of reading
comprehension
through
vocabulary
development, recognizing grammar, syntax, enrichment the backt,rround knowledge,
etc., but dealing with identifying and classifying the content of either grammatical or
lexical cohesion are unfortunately frequent absent from the teaching and learning
activities. Since the students are expected to be able to comprehend the reading text,
their abili ty to recognize cohesion is very crucial; otherwise, it is difficult for them to
comprehend a text. :rhus, in oraer to achieve such purpose, it is really assumed that it
3
can be started by teaching grammatical and lexical ·cohesion by identifying and
cla$sifying the content of cohesive ties through exercises.
In line with this background, this study will be carried out in two major types
of cohesion. The first
tyn~
is grammatical cohesion (includes reference, ellipsis and
substitution, and conjunction) and the second type is lexical cohesion (includes
repetition, synonymy, ard collocation).
1.2 Research Problems
The research problems of this study are formulated as follows:
Do teaching techaiques with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises
significantly affect reading comprehension?
b. Which of these techniques is the most significantly effective?
1.3 O bjectives of the Study
Related to the research problem specified before, this study attempts to
investigate:
a.
Whether teaching techniques with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises
significantly affect reading comprehension?
b. Which of these techniques the most significantly effective is.
1.4 Hypothesis
1n this stuoy, the hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Ho1: Teach ing_techniques wi'th grammatical anCl lexical cohesion ex
significantly affect reading comprehension.
~ c ise
do not
4
Ho 2 : None of these techniqu~s
is more significantly effective than the others.
Ha 1: Teaching techniques with grammatical and lexica] cohesion exerctses
significantly affect reading comprehension.
Ha 2 : One of these techniques is more significantly effective than the others.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study are expected to be useful fo r teachers of English
in overcoming the students' problem when reading the English text. Thjs study is also
expected to be useful as a tr1gger and as the grounds for further researcj1 in
conducting a research related to the improvement of the students' reading
com prehension.
1.6 Scope of the Study
Beside the knowledge of schemata as it has been mentioned in the previous
background, there are other factors that enable the readers to comprehend a reading
text. Word recognition, syntactic processing, and semantic processing are considered
as the potential sources of difficulties in comprehending reading text (Adams, 1974 :90). Attitudes and assymption toward reading are also enable to perfonn readers'
competence toward reading (Davine, 1988:1 t 5). Similarly, Sibarani (2002) also
identifies background
~nowledg,
language abilities, thinking abilities, purpose for
reading and affection can be cited the factors that affect reading
c o mpreh~s
ion.
However, Liu (2000) also indicates that lack of ability related to cohesion can also be
considered as one of the sources o(difficulties in comprehending reading text.
5
Considering the fact that reading comprehension is affected by many factors,
the researcher should limit the scope of the study. Hence, and in line with the
background, this study is focused only the cohesion.
CHAPTERV
CONCLUSIONS ANO SUGGESTIONS
5. I Conclusions
Teaching techniques described by research findings shows that t:,'Tammatical
and lexical cohesion exercises significantly affect reading comprehension. Teaching
technique with grammatical cohesion exercises is more signiticantlr effective than
conventional textbook exercises. Grammatical cohesion exercises does not differ
significantly from lexical cohesion exercises, and lexical cohesion exercises does not
di ffer significantly from conventional textbook exercises. In other words, cohesion
ability facilitates
rc;,~ding
comprehension.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions, it is suggested that (I) educators should consider
either grammatical or lexical cohesion be included in teaching reading through
exercises, (2) identifications of various activities related to cohesion is neeaed
because the students' ability to identifY the content of cohesive ties enable the
students to understand the meaning relation of that can lead them to comprehend the
text, (3) this study was conducted by applying quantitative approach, therefore it is
valuable to conduct other ditTercnt approach, design, etc. for the purpose of further
research.
63
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. 1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in Rt:ading. In
Spiro, R. J. , Bertram and William, F. B. 1980. (Eds.) 1J1eoretical.Issues in
reading Comprehension: PerJ.pective from Cognitive P"sychology,
linguistics, Artificial Intelligent, and Education. Hilsdile, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carrel , P. 1983. Background Knowledge in Second Language Comprehension. In
Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading Test, Forum, 33 (1): 49-53.
.
Connor, {). 1996. Contrastive rhethoric: Cross cultural a.vpects
writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, F. 1995. Introducing
(~ f
second language
In Nunan, D. 1999. Second /,anguage
Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
R e adin
g~
De ine, J. 1988. The relationship between general language competence and second
ing~
In N una n~ D. 1999..
language reading proficiency: Implication in Teach
Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. sydney:
Gerd Stabler.· ·
Goldman, S.R. , & Rakerstraw, J. A. 2000. Structural Aspects of Constructing
Meaning from Text. In Kamil, M. L., Mosental, P. B., Pearson, P. D., and
Barr, R. (Eds.) Interactive Approaches to ,)'ecund Language Reading, J. (1):
3 I 1--335.
Goodman, K. 1965. The Reading Process: In Carrell, P. L., Joanne, D. and David, E.
E. I 988. (Eds.) lnteraclive Approaches to Second l.an
~uage
Reading
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, K. 1,267. Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. Journal ({Reading
Specialist, §.(l): 126--1 35.
Guming, B., Ownie, S. J., and Purba, H. 1993. Hubungan Penguasaan Kohesi
Dengan Pemahaman Membacafl(J Wacana Bahasa lnggeris. Medan : IKJP
Medan.
64
65
Guyotte, C. 1997. The Process of Javanise Students Reading a Medical Text in
English: What makes it Difficult; In Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language
Teaching & /,earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Alnord.
Halliday, M. A K., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in Fnglish. London: Longman.
Hocy, M. l991. Patterns of lexis in text; In Nunan, D.1999. Second Language
Teaching & /,earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Klausmeier, H. J. 1985. Educational Psycho!op;y (5th ed.) New :York: Harper and
Row. Publishers.
Liu, D. 2000. Writing Cohesion: Using Content Lexical Ties in ESOL. Forum, 38
(1 ):
28~-35
Long. M.H., & Crookes, G. 1992. Three approaches to task based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27--56
Lucas, S. B., and Waesenforth, D. 2001. E.Mail and Word Processing in the ESL
Classroom: How the Medium Affects the Message. hm[!.uage Leamiffg &
l'ecluwlo!fY, ~ (I): 135--65.
Lun~ford,
A. A. 200 I. The Eve1yday Writer (2nd ed.) Boston: Stanford University.
Martin, J. R. 1992. Fnglish Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John
Publishing Company.
McNeil, J.D. 1992. Reading Comprehension: New Direclonj(~
(3rd ed.) New York: Harper Callins Publishers.
B~njami
Classroom Practice
Mei-yun, Y. 1993. Cohesion and the Teaching of EFL Reading. Forum, Jl (2): 12-21.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Heading Skills in a Foreiy,n /,anguage. Londo : Longman.
Richard,_JC., & Rodgers. T. 1982. Met
f E':-J'Oh Quarterly. lQ, 153--1 68.
~ o d:
Approach, Design and Procedure.
66
Rivers, W., and Temperly, M. 1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English as
a Second Language or Foreign Language; In Nunan, D. 1999. Second
/,anf!.uage Teaching & !.earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rumelhart, D. 1980. Schemata. [n Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading
Test. Forum, 33 (I): 49--53.
Saeed, J. l. 1997. Semantics. Beijing: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Scott, M. 1984. Using Standard Exercices in Teaching Reading Comprehension. H/,7'
Journal. 38, 114-20.
Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading Test. Forum, 33 (1 ): 49--53.
Sheng, H. J. 2000. A Cognitive Model for Teaching Reading Comprehension. Forum.
38. (4) 12--16.
Sibarani, B. 2002. Description of Clasroom Interaction and the Development of
Classroom Interaction Model in the Teaching of Reading Coruprehension .
.Jurnal Penelitian Ridang Pendidikan,
~
(2): 99 ~-1
07.
Soejoto, !. S. 2002. J>etwyuk J>efaksanaan J>royek Rinti.wm (J>ilot Projecf)
Peningkatan Penf!pJaran Haha.w1 lnggris Sf_ J'l> J'ahun 2002. Jakarta:
Depdiknas.
Spencer, C., and Arbon, B. 1996. Foundations of Writ inf!.: Developing Research a td
Academic Writing Skills. Lincoln Wood, JL: National Textbook Company.
1
Steffensen,
M.
1981.
Register. Cohesion. and Cross Culture Reading
Comprehension: Technical Report No. 220. Center of the Study of ReadingUniversity of Illonis, Champaign. Hlonis.
Tan. A. 2003. Effective A1odel of Teaching reading Strategies j_or Accelerant
Students. Unpublished M.Hum Thesis. Medan: Post Graduatl Program in
English Applied Linguistics UNIMED.
Woods, A.. and Foil, D. 1986. Advanced Reading Skills. London: Penguin Books.
TECHNIQlJES \VITH GRAMMATICAL AND LEXIC.At
COHESION EXERCISES ON READING COMP.REHl:NSION
BV:
MARA AM IN HARl\HAP
REG. NO. 025HI0060
THESIS
Submitted to
Graduflte Program of lJNJMED
in Ptrrtitll Fulfillment ofthe Requirementl·for the Degree of
MAGISTER HUl'tiANIORA itl Englis.h Applied Linguistics
MILIK PERPUSTAKAANI'
UNIMED ,
GRADUATE PROGRAM
EN(;LISH APPI.JIEO LINGlJISTICS
STAJ:~
UNIVERSI1'Y OF MEDAN
2004
-·.
··-·
·---- - - - - - -
- --·-···----·-······· ........ ---------··- .... ..
ACKNO\VLEDGMENTS
This study is concerned with the effect of teaching techniques with
grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises on reading comprehension. It is submitted
to Graduate Program of UNIMED as one of the requirements for the degree of
Magister Humaniom ir English Applied Linguistics. The completion of this thesis
would have never been made possible without the help of sewral people.
First of all, I am particularly indebted to my first and second consultants:
D- Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd. , and Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., for their generosity
guidance, patience, encouragement, motivation, and many useful advices they have
shown to me durjng the preparation of the thesis.
I would also like to acknowledge the valuable and helpful constructive
snggestions made by the reviewers: Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, Prof Tina Mariany
Arifin, M.A., Ph.D., and Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D. Thanks are also due to the
Head and the Secretary of English Applied Lir.guistics Program: Prof Dr. Javvasi
Naibaho, and Dra. M•!isuri, M.A., and to all the lectures: Prof. D.P Tampuholon,
Ph.D., Prof M. Butarbutar, Ph.D, Prof. M. Silitonga, Ph.D., Prof. Bahrein Umar,
Ph.D and the staff: Tiolina for their commitment to guide and facilitate the students
of Graduate Pro1:,>Tam in English Applied Linguistics of ON lMED.
Several persons also provided assistance in obtaining information and data
related to the study. They are Gous Salim Pulungan (the principal), Evita Rahayu,
S.Pd., and Muliaman, S.Pd (the teachers of English), and the students of SM.P Negeri
9 Padangsidimpuan. I have to say 'thanks' for the assistance provided by all these
persons.
Finally, sincere th"'nks should always be offered to my beloved parents Hj.
Khadijah and H. Sutan Guru Harahap, my sisters, and brothers who deserved my best
appreciation, respect, and for their encouragement and motivation during the process
ofm~'
study.
Medan, August 2004
M. A. 1-l.
ABSTRACT
Harahap, Mara
Amin.
2004.
The
Effect of Teaching Techniques
with
Grammatical and lexical Cohesion Exercises on Reading Comprehension.
English Applied Linguistics, Graduate Prof,>ram ofUNIMED.
The objectives of this study are to investigate whether teaching techniques
with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises significantly affect reading
comprehension and which of these techniques the most signjficantly e,tTcctive is.
Quantitative approach was carried in experimental design. The second year students
of SMP Negeri 9 Padangsidimpuan of the second semester in the period of2004/2004
were taken as the samples of the study in cluster sampling with I 04 students divided
into three groups. The data were analyzed by means of statistical analysis by appJ:Ying
one-wJy ANOV A. The results of testing the tirst hypothesis shows that the Fo\Jsen ed is greater than the F-table (3.91 > 3 09), while the second hypothesis shows
t!-:at the comparisons between the Scheffe Test value and F-table indicates that
grammatical cohesion exercises versus conventional textbook exercises is 3.5.8 >
3.09, grammatical cohesion exercises versus lex ical cohesion exercises is 0.28 < 3.09,
and the conventional textbook exercises versus lexical cohesion exercises is 1.89 <
3.09. On the basis of testing the hypotheses, the research findings show that ( I)
teaching techniques \>ith grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises signiticantly
affect reading comprehension (2) one of these techniques is more efTective than the
others, i.e., grammatical cohesion exercises is more effective than conventional
textbook exercises, and (3) the effect of grammatical and lexical cohesic\n exercises
do not differ significantly.
Based on the research findings, it is concluded that
teaching techniques wit!·. grammatical and lexical cohesiop facilitate the students
reading comprehension.
I
II
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
2.:1
MILIK PERPUSTA'KA -~'
UN JlVJ E
1.1 Background
Scientific and t~ c hnolgica
infonnation written in Englisfi are-:1
·
in
large number nowadays. To access such information, the students need to be able to
read and understand written sources.
Realizing the fact that to be able to access the world 's scientific and
technological information, the teaching of English in Indonesia has been started. by
giving muc)l more attention to the implementation of developi ng reading
comprehension. However, one of the greatest problems is that reading comprehension
of junior, senior, and university students in Indonesia are still poor (Soejoto, 2002),
this indicates that the improvement of the teaching of reading comprehension is very
essential. Consequently, the.re are several factors affecting reading comprehension.
According to schema theory (Rumelhart, 1980), reading comprehension implies an
interaction between the readers and text itself. Poor readers relate their schemata
knowledge with the new information present in text. Similarly, Carre l (1383)
identifies that the failure of readers to understand a text is affected by the lack of
know1edge of formal schemata (the knowledge about the text such as v o ~ ab
u1ary,
sentence, grammatical, cohesion, coherent organization, etc.) and content schemata
(knowledge about the subject matter of text).
In relation to the knowledge of schemata, cohesjon is one of the important
functicms finding in the ijeld of formal schemata. The tenn ' cohesion' in this sense
2
lies on the text connectives, which refer to cohesive ties, and help readers recognize
how text are organized, and how different parts of text arc connected to each other
functionally or semant;cally, but the students frequently fail to interpret the message
in a text because of their disability to identify the content of cohesive ties.
In line with the above consideration, the improvement of teaching reading
comprehension has long been a challenge to the teachers of English and researchers
as well. I-loey ( I 991) for example, pointed out that lexical repetition especially when
fann ing cohesive ties over large spans of text. Similarly, a research on a short unit on
using repetition with functional connectives in writing was conducted by Ruetten
(1997). The recent researcher Liu (2000) also conducted a research
abou
~ Jexical
ties
in writing.
In addition, Gurning, Ownie, and Purba (I 993) carried out a research dealing
with cohesion. They found that there is a significant correlation between cohesion
ability and reading comprehension. However, in relation to the improvement of
teaching
reading comprehension, many teachers continue to focus most:y on
manipulating
the
teaching
of reading
comprehension
through
vocabulary
development, recognizing grammar, syntax, enrichment the backt,rround knowledge,
etc., but dealing with identifying and classifying the content of either grammatical or
lexical cohesion are unfortunately frequent absent from the teaching and learning
activities. Since the students are expected to be able to comprehend the reading text,
their abili ty to recognize cohesion is very crucial; otherwise, it is difficult for them to
comprehend a text. :rhus, in oraer to achieve such purpose, it is really assumed that it
3
can be started by teaching grammatical and lexical ·cohesion by identifying and
cla$sifying the content of cohesive ties through exercises.
In line with this background, this study will be carried out in two major types
of cohesion. The first
tyn~
is grammatical cohesion (includes reference, ellipsis and
substitution, and conjunction) and the second type is lexical cohesion (includes
repetition, synonymy, ard collocation).
1.2 Research Problems
The research problems of this study are formulated as follows:
Do teaching techaiques with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises
significantly affect reading comprehension?
b. Which of these techniques is the most significantly effective?
1.3 O bjectives of the Study
Related to the research problem specified before, this study attempts to
investigate:
a.
Whether teaching techniques with grammatical and lexical cohesion exercises
significantly affect reading comprehension?
b. Which of these techniques the most significantly effective is.
1.4 Hypothesis
1n this stuoy, the hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Ho1: Teach ing_techniques wi'th grammatical anCl lexical cohesion ex
significantly affect reading comprehension.
~ c ise
do not
4
Ho 2 : None of these techniqu~s
is more significantly effective than the others.
Ha 1: Teaching techniques with grammatical and lexica] cohesion exerctses
significantly affect reading comprehension.
Ha 2 : One of these techniques is more significantly effective than the others.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study are expected to be useful fo r teachers of English
in overcoming the students' problem when reading the English text. Thjs study is also
expected to be useful as a tr1gger and as the grounds for further researcj1 in
conducting a research related to the improvement of the students' reading
com prehension.
1.6 Scope of the Study
Beside the knowledge of schemata as it has been mentioned in the previous
background, there are other factors that enable the readers to comprehend a reading
text. Word recognition, syntactic processing, and semantic processing are considered
as the potential sources of difficulties in comprehending reading text (Adams, 1974 :90). Attitudes and assymption toward reading are also enable to perfonn readers'
competence toward reading (Davine, 1988:1 t 5). Similarly, Sibarani (2002) also
identifies background
~nowledg,
language abilities, thinking abilities, purpose for
reading and affection can be cited the factors that affect reading
c o mpreh~s
ion.
However, Liu (2000) also indicates that lack of ability related to cohesion can also be
considered as one of the sources o(difficulties in comprehending reading text.
5
Considering the fact that reading comprehension is affected by many factors,
the researcher should limit the scope of the study. Hence, and in line with the
background, this study is focused only the cohesion.
CHAPTERV
CONCLUSIONS ANO SUGGESTIONS
5. I Conclusions
Teaching techniques described by research findings shows that t:,'Tammatical
and lexical cohesion exercises significantly affect reading comprehension. Teaching
technique with grammatical cohesion exercises is more signiticantlr effective than
conventional textbook exercises. Grammatical cohesion exercises does not differ
significantly from lexical cohesion exercises, and lexical cohesion exercises does not
di ffer significantly from conventional textbook exercises. In other words, cohesion
ability facilitates
rc;,~ding
comprehension.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions, it is suggested that (I) educators should consider
either grammatical or lexical cohesion be included in teaching reading through
exercises, (2) identifications of various activities related to cohesion is neeaed
because the students' ability to identifY the content of cohesive ties enable the
students to understand the meaning relation of that can lead them to comprehend the
text, (3) this study was conducted by applying quantitative approach, therefore it is
valuable to conduct other ditTercnt approach, design, etc. for the purpose of further
research.
63
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. 1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in Rt:ading. In
Spiro, R. J. , Bertram and William, F. B. 1980. (Eds.) 1J1eoretical.Issues in
reading Comprehension: PerJ.pective from Cognitive P"sychology,
linguistics, Artificial Intelligent, and Education. Hilsdile, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carrel , P. 1983. Background Knowledge in Second Language Comprehension. In
Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading Test, Forum, 33 (1): 49-53.
.
Connor, {). 1996. Contrastive rhethoric: Cross cultural a.vpects
writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, F. 1995. Introducing
(~ f
second language
In Nunan, D. 1999. Second /,anguage
Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
R e adin
g~
De ine, J. 1988. The relationship between general language competence and second
ing~
In N una n~ D. 1999..
language reading proficiency: Implication in Teach
Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. sydney:
Gerd Stabler.· ·
Goldman, S.R. , & Rakerstraw, J. A. 2000. Structural Aspects of Constructing
Meaning from Text. In Kamil, M. L., Mosental, P. B., Pearson, P. D., and
Barr, R. (Eds.) Interactive Approaches to ,)'ecund Language Reading, J. (1):
3 I 1--335.
Goodman, K. 1965. The Reading Process: In Carrell, P. L., Joanne, D. and David, E.
E. I 988. (Eds.) lnteraclive Approaches to Second l.an
~uage
Reading
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, K. 1,267. Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. Journal ({Reading
Specialist, §.(l): 126--1 35.
Guming, B., Ownie, S. J., and Purba, H. 1993. Hubungan Penguasaan Kohesi
Dengan Pemahaman Membacafl(J Wacana Bahasa lnggeris. Medan : IKJP
Medan.
64
65
Guyotte, C. 1997. The Process of Javanise Students Reading a Medical Text in
English: What makes it Difficult; In Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language
Teaching & /,earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Alnord.
Halliday, M. A K., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in Fnglish. London: Longman.
Hocy, M. l991. Patterns of lexis in text; In Nunan, D.1999. Second Language
Teaching & /,earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Klausmeier, H. J. 1985. Educational Psycho!op;y (5th ed.) New :York: Harper and
Row. Publishers.
Liu, D. 2000. Writing Cohesion: Using Content Lexical Ties in ESOL. Forum, 38
(1 ):
28~-35
Long. M.H., & Crookes, G. 1992. Three approaches to task based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27--56
Lucas, S. B., and Waesenforth, D. 2001. E.Mail and Word Processing in the ESL
Classroom: How the Medium Affects the Message. hm[!.uage Leamiffg &
l'ecluwlo!fY, ~ (I): 135--65.
Lun~ford,
A. A. 200 I. The Eve1yday Writer (2nd ed.) Boston: Stanford University.
Martin, J. R. 1992. Fnglish Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John
Publishing Company.
McNeil, J.D. 1992. Reading Comprehension: New Direclonj(~
(3rd ed.) New York: Harper Callins Publishers.
B~njami
Classroom Practice
Mei-yun, Y. 1993. Cohesion and the Teaching of EFL Reading. Forum, Jl (2): 12-21.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Heading Skills in a Foreiy,n /,anguage. Londo : Longman.
Richard,_JC., & Rodgers. T. 1982. Met
f E':-J'Oh Quarterly. lQ, 153--1 68.
~ o d:
Approach, Design and Procedure.
66
Rivers, W., and Temperly, M. 1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English as
a Second Language or Foreign Language; In Nunan, D. 1999. Second
/,anf!.uage Teaching & !.earning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rumelhart, D. 1980. Schemata. [n Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading
Test. Forum, 33 (I): 49--53.
Saeed, J. l. 1997. Semantics. Beijing: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Scott, M. 1984. Using Standard Exercices in Teaching Reading Comprehension. H/,7'
Journal. 38, 114-20.
Sequera, W. 1995. Construct Validity in Reading Test. Forum, 33 (1 ): 49--53.
Sheng, H. J. 2000. A Cognitive Model for Teaching Reading Comprehension. Forum.
38. (4) 12--16.
Sibarani, B. 2002. Description of Clasroom Interaction and the Development of
Classroom Interaction Model in the Teaching of Reading Coruprehension .
.Jurnal Penelitian Ridang Pendidikan,
~
(2): 99 ~-1
07.
Soejoto, !. S. 2002. J>etwyuk J>efaksanaan J>royek Rinti.wm (J>ilot Projecf)
Peningkatan Penf!pJaran Haha.w1 lnggris Sf_ J'l> J'ahun 2002. Jakarta:
Depdiknas.
Spencer, C., and Arbon, B. 1996. Foundations of Writ inf!.: Developing Research a td
Academic Writing Skills. Lincoln Wood, JL: National Textbook Company.
1
Steffensen,
M.
1981.
Register. Cohesion. and Cross Culture Reading
Comprehension: Technical Report No. 220. Center of the Study of ReadingUniversity of Illonis, Champaign. Hlonis.
Tan. A. 2003. Effective A1odel of Teaching reading Strategies j_or Accelerant
Students. Unpublished M.Hum Thesis. Medan: Post Graduatl Program in
English Applied Linguistics UNIMED.
Woods, A.. and Foil, D. 1986. Advanced Reading Skills. London: Penguin Books.