THE ANALYSIS OF TWO PRE-READING STRATEGIES: CONTEXTUAL REDEFINITIONAND WORD LIST IN EFL LEARNERS’ READING COMPREHENSION.

NIKA ASRI, 2013

THE ANALYSIS OF TWO PRE-READING STRATESIES: CONTEXTUAL REDEVINITION AND WORD LIST IN THE ANALYSIS OF TWO PRE-READING STRATEGIES:

CONTEXTUAL REDEFINITIONAND WORD LIST IN EFL LEARNERS’ READING COMPREHENSION

A Research Paper

Submitted to Department of English Education of FPBS UPI as a Partial Fulfillment of One Requirements of Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

Nika Asri 0807329

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ART EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

NIKA ASRI, 2013

THE ANALYSIS OF TWO PRE-READING STRATESIES: CONTEXTUAL REDEVINITION AND WORD LIST IN 2013

Abstrak dalam Bahasa Indonesia

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji yang mana strategi pre-reading apakah Contextual Redefinition atau Word List yang lebih efektif untuk pemahaman membaca siswa khususnya untuk siswa EFL (English Foreign Language). Selain itu, studi ini bertujuan pada penginvestigasian bagaimana respon siswa terhadap kedua strategi yang digunakan. Desain penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah desain Counterbalance. Dua kelas di kelas delapan di salah satu sekolah menengah pertama di Bandung di pilih berdasarkan kesetaraan nilai mean pre-test. Selain itu metode kuantitatif dan kualitatif digunakan dalam proses pengumpulan data. Kuantitatif data diperoleh dari post-test. Sedangkan, kualitatif data diperoleh dari respon siswa yang diperoleh dari kuesioner dan interviu. Hasil dari studi ini yaitu contextual redefinition terbukti lebih efektif dari word list sebagai strategi pre-reading. Hal tersebut dilihat berdasarkan nilai mean siswa yang diperoleh dari post-test. Siswa yang memperoleh strategi pre-reading dengan menggunakan contextual redefinition memiliki nilai mean yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan siswa yang memperoleh strategi pre-reading dengan menggunakan word list (72.13 > 61.47 dan 76.47 > 71.23). Terlebih lagi, analisis dari kuesioner dan interviu memperlihatkan bahwa sebagian besar siswa di grup A (56%) dan siswa di grup B (55%) lebih menyukai contextual redefinition. Hal ini berdasarkan beberapa hal diantaranya contextual redefinition dapat memperkaya kosakata bahasa inggris mereka, menstimulasi language schema mereka, menstimulasi siswa agar siswa tertarik terhadap kosakata sulit yang akan dipelajari, dan membantu siswa dalam menemukan arti dari kosakata sulit. Walaupun penemuan dari penelitian ini memperlihatkan bahwa sebagian besar siswa lebih menyukai strategi pre-reading dengan menggunakan contextual redefinition, akan tetapi banyak juga siswa yang lebih memilih word list. Faktanya siswa di grup A (44%) dan di grup B (45%) mengemukakan bahwa penggunan word list sebagai strategi pre-reading lebih mudah

dibandingkan contextual redefinition. Berdasarkan penemuan diatas maka direkomendasikan bahwa guru lebih baik untuk menggunakan contextual redefinition sebagai pre-reading strategi karena memiliki beberapa keuntungan.

Kata kunci: Contextual Redefinion, Word List, siswa EFL, dan pemahaman membaca.

Abstrak dalam Bahasa Inggris

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to examine which of the two pre-reading strategies, Contextual Redefinition or Word List, is more effective for EFL learners’ reading comprehension. In addition, it was aimed at investigating students’ responses to the use of both strategies. The research design used in this study was counterbalanced. Two intact classes at eight-graders in a junior high school in Bandung were chosen based on the similarity of pre-test mean score. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the process of collecting the data. The quantitative data were obtained from the post-tests. Moreover, qualitative data were gained from questionnaire and interview. The result of the study revealed that contextual redefinition was more effective to be used than word list as pre-reading strategy in reading comprehension. It can be seen from the mean score of the first and the second post-test. The mean score of the students who received contextual redefinition strategy outperformed the mean score of the students who experienced word list strategy (72.13>61.47 and 76.53>71.23). Moreover, the analysis showed that more than half students in group A (56%) and group B (55%) liked to use contextual redefinition better. This was due to the consideration that contextual redefinition could enhance new vocabularies, stimulate language schema, stimulate students’ interest to the words that will be studied, and help the students to decode the difficult term. Although the findings indicated that students preferred to use contextual redefinition than word list, it is interesting to note that significant number of students also acknowledge the importance of the use of word list as pre-reading strategy. In fact, the students in group A (44%) and group B (45%) argued that the use of word list as pre-reading strategy was easier than contextual redefinition. On the basis of the findings, it is recommended that teachers should benefit from a variety of pre-reading strategies, and one of the alternative pre-reading strategies in teaching reading comprehension is contextual redefinition.

Keyword: Contextual Redefinition, Word List, EFL Learners, and Reading Comprehension.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... Error! Bookmark not defined. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. PREFACE ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 1

LIST OF FIGURE... 3

LIST OF TABLES ... 4

LIST OF CHARTS ... 5

1.1 Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Research Question ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3 Aims of the study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Scope of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5 Significant of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6 Clarification of Related Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.7 Organization the Paper ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.8 Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER II ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.1 Definitions of Reading ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.2 The Process of Reading ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.3 The Purpose of Reading ... 12

2.2 Reading Comprehension ... 13

2.3 Pre-reading Strategy ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Contextual redefinition in Reading Comprehension ... 19

2.4.1 Definition of Contextual Redefinition ... 19 2.4.2 Contextual Redefinition Procedure in Pre-reading Activity ... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

2.5 Word List in Reading Comprehension ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5.1 Definition of word list ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5.1 Word List Procedure in Pre-reading Activity .. Error! Bookmark not

2.6 Related Previous Studies ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6.1 Related Previous Studies on Contextual RedefinitionError! Bookmark

not defined.

2.6.2 Related Previous Studies on Word ListError! Bookmark not defined. 2.7 Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER III ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.1 Variable ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.2 Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Population and Sample ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.1 Research Instruments ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4 Data Collection Procedure... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.1 Organizing Teaching Procedure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.2 Administering Pilot Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.3 Administering Pre-test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.4 Conducting the Treatments ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.5 Administering Post-test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.6 Distribution the Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5 Data Analysis ... 39 3.5.1 Scoring ... 39 3.5.2 Data Analysis in the Pilot test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.3 Analysis on the Post-test Scores DataError! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.4 Analysis on the Questionnaire Data .. Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.5 Analysis from the Interview Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6 Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IV ... 49 4.1 Findings ... 49 4.1.1 The Analysis of Pilot Tests ... 49 4.1.2 Pre-test Score Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3 The Post-tests Score Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.4 Analysis Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.5 The Analysis of Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Discussions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3 Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER V ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1 Conclusions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2 Suggestions... Error! Bookmark not defined.

REFERENCES APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1 Rose (2006 as cited in Snowling, 2009) the simple view of reading…..15

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Counterbalance design ... 31

Table 3.2 Schedule of study in the first condition ... 36

Table 3.3 Schedule of study in the second condition ... 36

Table 3.4 r. coefficient correlation (validity) ... 40

Table 3.5 The criteria of difficulty index ... 42

Table 3.6 The criteria of reliability ... 42

Table 3.7 The interpretation of percentage ... 47

Table 4.1 The validity, level of difficulty, reliability of first pilot test ... 48

Table 4.2 The validity, level of difficulty, reliability of second pilot test ... 50

Table 4.3 The mean score of first and second post-tests... 52

Table 4.4 The Normality score of the first and second post-tests ... 53

Table 4.5 The Homogeneity of variance test of first and second post-tests ... 56

Table 4.6 The independent t-test of first and second post-tests ... 57

Table 4.7 The Analysis of gain score of group A ... 59

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1 Students’ responses toward in terms of like and dislike English text ... 60

Chart 4.2 Students’ responses toward the Information of English text ... 61

Chart 4.3 Students’ responses toward information from English text ... 61

Chart 4.4 Students’ confidence about their reading skill ... 62

Chart 4.5 Students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy in reading comprehension ... 64

Chart 4.6 Students’ obstacle in following contextual redefinition and word list when pre-reading activity ... 65

Chart 4.7 The Advantages of Using Contextual Redefinition and Word List as Pre-reading Strategy ... 66

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The chapter presents background of the research, research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of related terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1Background

Reading is an ability to draw meaning from printed page and to construe information appropriately which entails a great deal of practice and skill (Grabe and Stoller, 2002; Mereilon, 2007 as cited in Alemi and Ebadi, 2010). Hence, the main purpose of reading is to comprehend what text is about (Grabe and Stoller, 2002). In comprehending the text, students should have vocabulary knowledge as background knowledge (Biemiller, 2003 as cited in Hackman, 2008; Sedita, 2005). In addition, it is stated that vocabulary knowledge strongly leads to educational success, particularly for secondary levels because students who have large vocabularies can develop new ideas and concepts more quickly than those with limited vocabularies (Sedita, 2005). Therefore, vocabulary knowledge is important because it encompasses all the words we must know to access our background knowledge and it is one of prominent indicators of how well students are able to comprehend the text in the junior and high school levels (Sedita, 2005). In line with Sedita (2005), Hackman (2008) also argues that students who do not have strong vocabularies knowledge will struggle to comprehend the text in reading and have difficulty to understand new concepts

presented in oral discussion. Related to this idea, therefore, teaching vocabulary is important for the improvement of reading comprehension (Blachowicz, Fisher, and Taffe, 2006 as cited in Hackman, 2008).

Furthermore, there are several studies that have shown the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Thongyon and Chiramonee, 2011; Chou, 2011). One study comes from Chou (2011) who investigated the effect of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge on reading comprehension. The results revealed that vocabulary knowledge has strong predictor and correlation in decoding, comprehension especially in reading comprehension because it has similar function with prior knowledge.

With regard to the strong correlation between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension, preliminary observation was conducted to 77 students. This preliminary observation aimed to confirm that there is correlation between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension and to seek kinds of problems in reading comprehension that were experienced by them (Fox, 2008). According to the questionnaire distributed, it was found that 55% of students do not like reading English text. Most of the students stated that it was difficult and they used to get confused when they were reading English text. In addition, it is revealed that 69% of students responded that they experience difficulties in gathering or comprehending information from the text. Furthermore, they affirmed that it was difficult because they do not have enough sufficient vocabulary. This finding of preliminary observation was also in line with Biemiller (1999 as cited in Curtis and Longo, 1997)

who states that poor vocabulary is common problem for the students when they are reading a text and they need a long time to learn new vocabulary. As a result, there is a need to find a way to solve this problem.

In ELT reading classroom, for instance, one of the most common vocabulary learning strategies used in EFL countries is word list (Baleghizadeh and Ashoori, 2010). However, this strategy should be studied further because it is regarded as a boring and stressful way of enhancing vocabulary (Wahyunengsih, 2010 as cited in Roselina, 2011).

Moreover, there is another strategy in learning vocabulary, namely contextual redefinition. Literature on vocabulary and learning strategies has revealed that this

strategy is selected as an alternative vocabulary strategy in promoting students’

vocabulary development in reading comprehension (Tierney et al., 1985; Baleghizadeh and Ashoori, 2010; Rogers, 2010; Soureshjani, 2011). Contextual redefinition provides a set of activities to derive unknown words’ meaning which focus on the use of context clue and actions to give students strategy that can be used in their independent reading (Tierney et al., 1985). This strategy is also believed to have some advantages such as it is easy to be employed, it entails relatively preparation to use, and it has potential transfer to be used by students’ in other reading situations (Tierney et al., 1985 Moreover, words and phrases are easier to be learned and remembered if they are meaningful and contextual (Broughton et al., 1987 as cited in Chou, 2011).

Numerous studies have been conducted in relation to use of contextual redefinition in deriving meaning (Jenkin, Matlock, and Slocum, 1989 as cited in Kuhn and Stahl, 1998; Rogers, 2010; Soureshjani, 2011). The result displayed that

contextual redefinition is effective in enhancing students’ vocabulary development (Jenkin et al., 1989 as cited in Kuhn and Stahl, 1992; Rogers, 2010; Soureshjani, 2011). On the other hand, there are some studies which revealed that word list slightly outperformed contextual redefinition (Amirian and Momeni, 2011; Takashi, 2011). The findings discovered that the use of word list help students memorize vocabulary for test.

Unlike those previous studies which were only concerned about students’ vocabulary enhancement, this study aimed to compare the contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy in helping students’ reading comprehension and to

examine students’ responses toward the use of those strategies.

1.2Research Question

In conducting this study, there are three research questions as follow:

a. Which pre-reading strategy is more effective in reading comprehension: contextual redefinition or word list?

b. What are the students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition as pre-reading strategy in reading activity?

c. What are the students’ responses toward the use of word list as pre-reading strategy in reading activity?

1.3Aims of the study

The research has some aims as follow:

a. to investigate which strategy is more effective between the use of contextual redefinition and word list in helping students’ reading comprehension;

b. to find out the students’ responses on the use contextual redefinition as pre- reading strategy in reading activity, and

c. to find out the students’ responses on the use of word list as pre-reading strategy in reading activity.

1.4Scope of the Study

This study focuses on investigating and comparing contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy in reading comprehension for eight grade students in one of junior high schools in Bandung. It describes the implementation of contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy in helping students’ reading comprehension.

1.5Significant of the Study

This study is expected to be significant theoretically and practically. It is hoped to be one of the references for ELT teachers when teaching reading in the classroom especially in EFL context. So, the teacher can gain knowledge that the use of pre-reading activity by using contextual redefinition and word list strategy can

promote students’ vocabulary development in reading comprehension. Theoretically, the result of this research is expected to be one of the alternative choices to enrich the literature on teaching reading. Practically, the research is expected to give an

alternative pre-reading strategy for teacher in helping EFL learners’ reading comprehension.

1.6Clarification of Related Terms

To avoid misconception, it is required to explain some terms as follows: 1. Pre-reading strategy is an activity which enables students to be supplied by

necessary background to comprehend a material given (Tudor, 1989 as cited in Alemi & Ebadi, 2010)

2. Contextual redefinition is a strategy that introduces new terms which involves context that can help to derive the meaning of the unfamiliar words and facilitate memory by giving the words meaningful associations (Bean, Baldwin, and Readence, 2012). In this study, the students were given some technical term which surrounded by context sentence. Some technical terms are taken from the text that will be read by the students. Then, the words are guessed by the students and verified by the dictionary use or asked to the teacher (Tierney et al., 1985).

3. Word list is an old-fashioned vocabulary learning strategies that makes written or printed notes which includes new, unfamiliar, or noticeable words which are followed by direct meanings (Roselina, 2011; Balegizadeh and Ashoori, 2010).

4. Reading Comprehension is an active and intentional thinking which involves cognitive process which entails deeper thoughtful to comprehend information in the text (Durkin, 1973; Snowling, 2009).

1.7 Organization the Paper

This paper consists of five chapters: Chapter I

The chapter presents background of the research, research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of related terms, and organization of the paper.

Chapter II

This chapter presents several theories that are related to this study. In detail, this chapter explains about the definition of reading, the process of reading, the purpose of reading, reading comprehension, pre-reading strategy, the definition of contextual redefinition, contextual redefinition procedure in pre-reading activity, the definition of word list strategy, and word list procedure in pre-reading activity. Also, this chapter discusses related previous studies about contextual redefinition and word list as the basis of investigating this study

Chapter III

This chapter presents how the research was conducted. Moreover, it tries to examine which strategy between contextual redefinition and word list that gives

significant impact in helping EFL learners’ reading comprehension and how the

students’ responses toward both strategies were. This chapter consists of research

design, population and sample, data collection which includes research instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis.

This chapter is divided into two main parts, which are findings and discussions. The findings and discussions in this study aim to answer the research questions that investigate which pre-reading strategy is better in helping students’ reading

comprehension and examine students’ responses toward those strategies used. The

findings consist of five parts; namely, pilot test scores analysis, pre-test score analysis, post-test score analysis, the research findings from questionnaire and interview. Then all findings are discussed and interpreted in the discussion part. Chapter V

This chapter contains the conclusions and suggestions from this research. The conclusions are drawn from the findings and discussions of the research. Furthermore, the suggestions are formulated for the English teacher and further researchers.

1.8 Concluding Remark

This chapter has been reviewing background of the research, research questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, scope of the research, clarification of related terms, and organization of the paper. Furthermore, theoretical foundation of the study is going to be discussed in the next chapter.

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents how the research was conducted. Moreover, it tries to examine which strategy between contextual redefinition and word list that gives significant impact in helping EFL learners’ reading comprehension and how the students’ responses toward both strategies were. This chapter consists of research design, population and sample, data collection which includes research instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This study employed mix method which involved both quantitative and qualitative method. The quantitative method was used to examine which strategy that is considered to be more effective. Meanwhile qualitative method was used to find out how students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list in helping their reading comprehension. The research method used in this study was experimental research in form of counterbalanced or rotation design. Counterbalance design which is called repeated measured design is a kind of experimental research design where the subjects in the study are exposed to all treatments

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

The reason for using counterbalanced design in this study because it is designed to get more accurate data and is often used to reduce chances of the order of treatments or other factors negatively influencing the result of the study

(www.explorable.com/counterbalanced-measures-design). Moreover, this kind of

experimental design is more sensitive in detecting the effect of independent variable (www.psychmet.com/id16.html). As a result, the researcher applied both strategies (contextual redefinition and word list) to both groups (group A and B). Hence, both groups belong to experimental group in this study and there is no term of control group because both groups gained equal treatments (Arikunto, 2010).

The research design used in this study can be formulated as follow: Table 3.1

Counterbalance design

Where:

XaT1 = Contextual redefinition treatment XbT2 = Word list treatment

Group Pre-test Treatment Posttest Treatment Posttest

Group A O XaT1 O XbT2 O

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.1.1 Variable

Hatch and Farhady (1982) state that variable is attributed to a person or an object which varies from person to person or object to object. There are two kinds of variable that can be classified; they are independent variable and dependent variable. Independent variable is the treatment or manipulated variables, while dependent one is the criterion or outcome variable which depend on what the independent variable affects it (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993). There were two independent variables which were used in this study; they were contextual redefinition and word list strategy.

Meanwhile, the dependent variable used was students’ reading comprehension.

3.1.2 Hypothesis

In addition to determining the variable, stating one or more hypothesis is also required in any experimental study. Hypothesis is a prediction of several kinds of possible result of the research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). The hypothesis that scientist wants to support or to prove is known as research hypothesis which is symbolized as H1, while the “everything else” hypothesis is called null hypothesis

which is symbolized as Ho (Kranzler & Moursund, 1999). The primary use of inferential statistic is that of attempting to reject Ho.

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

H0: there is no difference of post-test scores in reading text by using contextual

redefinition and using word list as strategy in helping students’ reading comprehension.

3.2 Population and Sample

Population is a group which is intended to apply in a research, while sample is a group in a study which aimed to collect information (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993). The sample in this study consisted of 77 second-grade students of one junior high school in Bandung who were divided into two groups, they are group A and B. The basis for choosing the sample is the students’ mean score in pre-test.

3.3 Data Collection

In gathering the data, several instruments were employed in this study, namely pre-test, post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews. Administered to both groups, the two tests diverged in their administering time as pre-test was given prior to the treatment and post-test after the treatment. On the other hand, questionnaires and interviews were administered to some students from both groups.

3.3.1 Research Instruments

In this study, four kinds of research instruments were used, namely pre-test posttest, questionnaire, and interview. The pre-test was conducted to three classes

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

that randomly chosen and it was aimed at deciding the classroom that would be used in the study. The post-test was conducted to know how far the treatments worked. The questionnaire was distributed twice. First, it was distributed before doing treatment and it aimed to know how the students’ responses to their reading skill. Second, the questionnaire was distributed after post-test to both groups (group A and B). It aimed to know how the students’ responses to the use of contextual redefinition and word list in their reading comprehension.

Questionnaire is a number of written questions used to gain information from the respondents in the form of statements from themselves or things that they know (Arikunto, 2010). In addition, the use of questionnaire has advantages and disadvantages (Creswell, 2008). The advantage is that they can be mailed or given to a large numbers of people at the same time. Meanwhile the disadvantages are that the unclear or seemingly ambiguous question cannot be clarified and respondent has no chance to expand on, or react verbally to a question of particular interest or importance. The questionnaire in this study included ten closed question to avoid students’ inappropriate answer.

After distributing the questionnaire, interview was administered to give further information about how they gave their responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list in reading activity.

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.4.1 Organizing Teaching Procedure

In organizing teaching procedure, the researcher became a teacher and also a facilitator for group A and B. The teaching procedure was organized through two steps. The first step was preparing suitable material for teaching and learning process during the treatment and the second step was organizing teaching procedure in both groups. The teaching procedure in group A used word list and in group B used contextual redefinition.

3.4.2 Administering Pilot Test

Before giving the treatments, the researcher administered pilot test. Pilot-test aims to measure the validity and reliability of the instrument. The pilot test was administered in another class which was not involved in the study as experimental group. The pilot test was administered on Friday, January 11th 2013 in class VIII F.

3.4.3 Administering Pre-test

Pre-test in this study was administered to decide what classroom would be used as the participants of the study (Mustafa, personal communication, March 1st, 2013). It was also conducted to determine whether or not the classrooms that had been chosen have comparable ability in reading comprehension. Three classrooms had been chosen in the pre-test. Afterward, their mean score of the pre-test were

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

calculated to know which classrooms that had similar score. Then, it was selected to be the participants in this study.

3.4.4 Conducting the Treatments

In this study, two treatments were conducted to both groups (group A and B). There were two conditions in this study. In the first condition, group A received word list and group B received contextual redefinition strategy. Later, after 4 sessions, it was rotated so that group A received contextual redefinition and group B received word list. Although the methods were different, the learning materials were approximately similar as can be seen in the following teaching schedule:

Table 3.2

Schedule of Study in the First Condition No.

Date Learning Material in Group A Learning Material in Group B

1

January 16th, 2013

Introducing the descriptive text, the generic feature: simple present, the generic structure, and introduction word list strategy.

Introducing the descriptive text, the generic feature: simple present, the generic structure, and introduction contextual redefinition strategy.

2

January 18th, 2013

Descriptive text: San Francisco using word list strategy and explaining the purpose of the text.

Descriptive text: San Francisco using contextual redefinition strategy and explaining the purpose of the text.

3 3 January 23th, 2013

Descriptive text about fish using word list strategy and explaining about the purpose of the text.

Descriptive text about fish using contextual redefinition strategy and explaining about the purpose of the text.

4

January 25th, 2013

Descriptive text about Bali using word list strategy and explaining about the purpose of the text.

Descriptive text about Bali using contextual redefinition strategy and explaining about the purpose of the text.

5

January 30th, 2013

Posttest Posttest

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

Schedule of Study in the Second Condition

No. Date Learning Material in Group A Learning Material in Group B 1

February 1st, 2013 Descriptive text about Borobudur temple using contextual redefinition strategy.

Descriptive text about Borobudur temple using word list.

2.

February 6th, 2013 Descriptive text about summer in Madrid using contextual redefinition strategy.

Descriptive text about summer in Madrid temple using word list strategy.

3.

February 8th_{, 2013 Descriptive text about France temple}

using contextual redefinition strategy.

Descriptive text about France temple using word list strategy.

4

February 13th, 2013 Descriptive text about Ottawa using contextual redefinition strategy.

Descriptive text about Ottawa using word list strategy.

5

February 15th, 2013 Posttest Posttest

3.4.5 Administering Post-test

In this study the post-test was administered twice and it aimed to get the valid data of the use contextual redefinition and word list in teaching reading. Post-test was administered after the samples received the treatments in each condition. The first post-test was administered to both groups after receiving word list and contextual redefinition. Next, the second post-test was given after the treatments were rotated to both groups, so group A received word list strategy while group B received contextual redefinition.

3.5.6 Distribution the Questionnaire

In this study, questionnaires were distributed twice. The first questionnaire (preliminary observation) was distributed before the treatment and the second was distributed after whole treatments and post-tests. The first questionnaire (preliminary observation) was aimed at finding out what kinds of problem about reading comprehension (Fox, 2008). Meanwhile, the second questionnaire (post-treatment)

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

was aimed at finding out how students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list in teaching reading activity.

The students in both groups were given five closed questions in the preliminary observation questionnaire and ten closed questions in post-treatment questionnaire. It aimed to avoid inappropriate reasons that are usually found in the open-ended questionnaire (Arikunto, 2010). The questionnaire is aimed at supporting the data to gather more information about the students’ responses to the use of contextual redefinition and word list based on students’ point of view (Arikunto, 2010). The preliminary observation and post-treatment questionnaires in this study can be seen in appendix B.

3.4.7 Conducting Interview

Cohen et al. (2007) proposes that interview is a tool for collecting data which is very flexible; interviewer’s control over the order of the interview can be maintained while spontaneity is still given the space, and the interviewers can persuade their interviewees to give response to complex and deep issues beside the complete answers. Interview was conducted to 12 representative students after filling the questionnaires. In the preliminary observation interview, the six representative students from both groups who had positive responses toward English text were selected to be interviewees. Meanwhile six others were the representative students who had negative response toward English text.

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

After having treatment in two different conditions, the students in the preliminary observation interview were assigned into three categories. First, three participants from group A and B who liked more contextual redefinition and three participants who liked more word list respectively. Second, the three participants from group A and B who had obstacle in contextual redefinition and three participants who had obstacle in word list. The last, three participants from group A and B who saw the advantages of using contextual redefinition and three participants who saw the advantages of using word list.

The interview employed open-ended question which required students’ explanation about their ideas related to their own ability in reading text after having treatment (contextual redefinition and word list). Furthermore, the students’ answer in the interview will become a basis in determining students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list in reading activity.

3.5 Data Analysis 3.5.1 Scoring

The instrument used in this study was in the form of multiple-choice questions. After the data were collected, then the data would be analyzed by using scoring technique formula. The formula proposed in the study by Arikunto (2002) is as follows:

S = R

where,

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.5.2 Data Analysis in the Pilot test

The data that were obtained from the pilot test were analyzed to measure the validity, the level of difficulty, and the reliability (Anwar, 2004).

3.4.2.1 Validity test

Validity as stated by Coolidge (2000) is the extent of which the result of procedure serves the uses for which they intended. It also was administered to prevent the researcher makes inaccurate conclusion or inference about the object of the study.

One of the ways in analyzing validity of the instrument is by looking at discrimination of each item. Discrimination of each item (item discrimination) is a method which is more effective to be applied in every kind of tests (Anwar, 2004). In this study, Coefficient Correlation Biserial Point was used to see discrimination of each item in the test by seeing item-total correlation. The item-total correlation is consistency between score item which can be seen from the highest correlation coefficient between each item with a whole score in the test. Coefficient Correlation Biserial Point can also be used to the dichotomous test instrument (correct/incorrect

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

or true/false) and the data which belongs to nominal data (Guilford, 1979 & Friedenberg, 1995). Nominal data is the data that has no numerical meaning and has characteristic such as there is no level in the options of instruments. It means that the number that given in the option of the instrument just becomes the label (Suharto, 2008).

In measuring the validity of the instruments which are consisted of nominal data, Coefficient Correlation Biserial Point was used in this study. The data was calculated by using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 for Windows. The formula of the coefficient biserial point is as follows:

Where:



X An average score to whole students



i

X An average score only to students who has right answer to the i item p = Quantity/proportion to the students who has right answer to the i-item 1- p = Quantity/proportion from the students who has false answer to the i-item



X

SD Standard deviation of a whole student

Table 3.4

r Coefficient Correlation (Validity)

Raw score Interpretation

0.00 - 0.299 0.300 - 1.000

Invalid Valid Friedenberg (1995)

p

p

SD

X

X

r

X i PB















1

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.5.2.2 The Level of Difficulty

The study adopted the formula of Heaton who states that the index of difficulty or facility value of an item shows how easy or difficult the certain item established in the test is. In test construction, it is mentioned that the level of difficulty of question is very important because it can influence the characteristic of score distribution and it is related to reliability. According to Coefficient Alfa Clan KR-20, the more correlation between the questions, so the more level of reliability will be (Nunnally, 1981: 270-271)

The following formula was used by the researcher to calculate the index of difficulty of an item. The formula used is as follows:

Where,

FV = Facility or index difficulty R = Number of correct answer

N = Number of the students taking the test

Table 3.5

Criteria of difficulty index

Index of difficulty Difficulty degree 0.00-0.30

0.30-0.70 0.7-1.00

Difficulty item Moderate item Easy item FV = R/N

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.5.2.3 Reliability

In the study, the reliable instrument is used to get the valid data. Therefore, reliability of the instrument used has to be held. It is supported by Sugiyono (2003) who argued if the researcher uses the valid and reliable instrument in collecting data, so it is expected that the result of the study will be valid and reliable too. Besides, he argued that reliability of the instrument is a requirement to do a validity test of the instrument.

In this study the researcher tried to measure the reliability by using Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) formula in Microsoft Office Excel for Windows. This method can draw the variation of items for the right or false answer which is given the range score that started from 0 until 1 (Guilford and Benjamin, 1978).

The formula of Kuder Richardson (KR-20) is:

Where:

n = number of item S2 = total of Variance

p = the number or students who has right answer in I item 1- p = the number of students who has false answer in q item

Table 3.6             





2

2 1 20 t t S pq S n n KR

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

The Criteria of Reliability

Raw score Interpretation

< 0.20 The relationship is very low and can be ignored

0.20 - < 0.40 The relationship is low

0.40 - < 0.70 The relationship is quite reliable 0.70 – < 0.90 The relationship is reliable 0.90 - < 1.00 The relationship is very reliable

1.00 The relationship is perfect

Guilford (1956 as cited in Guilford 1979)

3.5.3 Analysis on the Post-test Scores Data

In this study, post-test was conducted twice. Because this study belongs to separated groups, each group has equal level in gaining treatments, so the t-test for a difference between two independent means can be calculated after doing treatment. It also was given to prove Ha and reject Ho. Beforehand, hypothesis was stated with the alpha level at 0.05.

The t-test can be calculated if the data is normally distributed and the variances are equal (Ibrahim, 2012). The normality test was analyzed by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, while the homogeneity of variances was analyzed by using Levene test formula in SPSS 19.0. Independent sample t-test was also used to analyze post-test scores of students in both groups to compare mean of both groups. The calculation of effect size was conducted by using tobt from the independent sample t-test posttest.

3.5.3.1 The Normal Distribution test

In this study, the normal distribution test was analyzed by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. This test compares the scores in the sample to normally distributed set

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

of scores with the same mean and standard deviation (Field, 2005 as cited in Ibrahim, 2012). Moreover, Kolomogorov Smirnov test can be used to analyze the data in small or large samples. Since the study used a small number of samples, this test was used to analyze whether the data in this study was normally distributed or not. In addition, the test was calculated by using SPSS 19.0 for Windows.

There are three steps in conducting the normality distribution test, they are: stating hypothesis and setting alpha level, analyzing the groups of scores using Kolmogorov-Smirnov formula, and interpreting the output data. For the first step, the alpha level set is at 0.05 (two tailed test) and the hypothesis is as follows:

Ho = the scores of both groups (group A and B) are normally distributed. Ha = the scores of both groups (group A and B) are not normally distributed. The output of the data is interpreted by this way: if the result is not significant (p < 0.05) it tells us that the distribution of the sample is significantly different from normal distribution. On the other hand, if the result is significant (p > 0.05) then the distribution is not significantly different from normal distribution (Field, 2005 as cited in Ibrahim, 2012).

3.5.3.2 The Homogeneity of Variance test

In order to analyze the homogeneity of variance of the scores, the researcher employed Levene test in this study. The Levene test’s hypothesis is that the variance of groups are equal; the difference of variances is zero (Field, 2005 as cited in Ibrahim, 2012). The test was employed through SPSS 19.0 for Windows.

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

There are three steps in conducting Levene’s test. First step is stating the hypothesis and setting the alpha level. The null hypothesis is that variances of both groups are homogenous and for alternative hypothesis the variance both groups are not homogenous. The alpha level set is at 0.05 as this is maximum point that can be tolerated. Second step is analyzing the test by using SPSS 19.0 for Windows. Third step is interpreting the output data. If the result of the test is interpreted to be significant at p ≤ .05, it is concluded that the null hypothesis is incorrect and the variances are significantly difference. On the other hand, the result is interpreted to be not significant if p > .05 and it means that the null hypothesis is accepted and the variances are approximately equal (Field, 2005 as cited in Ibrahim, 2012).

3.5.3.3 The Independent t-test

The independent group t-test is used to analyze a causative relationship between the independent variable or treatment and the dependent variable or response variable that is measured on both groups and calculated statistically in the experimental design (Coolidge, 2000: 141). Coolidge also stated that if there is a large difference between mean of the two groups, it means that the independent variable really works well. Conducting the independent t-test also includes three steps, they are: stating the

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

hypothesis and setting the alpha level, analyzing the group scores using the independent group t-test in SPSS 19.0 for Windows which results in the t value or tobt

and comparing the tobt with the level of significance for testing the hypothesis. And

the hypothesis set is as follow:

Ho = the two samples are from the same population; there is no significant differences between both samples.

Ha = the two samples are from the same population; there is significant differences between both samples.

For the third step, if the tobt is equal to or greater the level of significance (tcrit), the

null hypothesis is rejected; two groups are significantly different.

3.5.3.4 Index Gain

Index gain was calculated to know how effective the uses of contextual redefinition or word list in improving students’ reading comprehension were. Normalized gain scores were obtained from the calculation by using the formula:

Normalized gain = Posttest score – pre-test score Max score – pre-test score

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

3.5.4 Analysis on the Questionnaire Data

According to the previous explanation, questionnaire is a number of written questions to obtain information from respondents in the form of statement about themselves or things that they know (Arikunto, 2010). In this study the researcher used multiple choices questionnaire so the result is in presentation form. The formula used in analyzing the questionnaire is described as follows:

Where:

% = Percentage Ƒ = Frequency

N = Number of respondent

Table 3.7

The Interpretation of Percentage

Percentage Interpretation

0 % None

1% - 25 % Small number of

26% - 49 % Nearly half of

50 % Half of

51 % - 75% More than half of

76% - 100% Almost all of

100% All of

(Kunjaraningrat cited in Mega, 2011 and Ibrahim, 2012) The interpretation of percentage is used to analyze the result of questionnaire. It is aimed at finding out the percentage of students’ responses toward the use of

%

100

x

n

Fo

Nika Asri, 2013

The Analysis Of Two Pre-Reading Stratesies: Contextual Redevinition And Word List In Efl Laearnes Reading Conprehension

contextual redefinition and word list strategy in EFL learners’ reading comprehension.

3.5.5 Analysis from the Interview Data

The interviews which were administered to the students of both groups are all recorded. The recording is then transcribed, labeled, and coded based on the students’ answer. After that, the answers are classified into several categories and also analyzed until the trends are recognized. Finally, it becomes the basis for explanation in answering the second and third research questions. The data transcription can be seen in appendix D.

3.6 Concluding Remark

This chapter has reviewed the research design, data collection, research procedure, and data analysis technique. Further, the findings and discussion of the study is going to be explained in the next chapter.

Nika Asri, 2013

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter contains conclusions and suggestions from this research. The conclusions are drawn from the findings and discussions of the research. Furthermore, the suggestions are formulated for English teachers and further researchers.

5.1 Conclusions

As explained earlier, the main purpose of this study was to examine which strategy was more effective between contextual redefinition and word list in helping EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Moreover, this study also aimed to elicit students’ responses toward the use of contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy during reading activity.

After analyzing the whole data, it can be concluded that contextual redefinition is more effective in helping the students’ reading comprehension. Furthermore, the findings from questionnaire and interview revealed that the students gave positive responses toward the implementation of contextual redefinition as pre-reading strategy in their reading activity.

From the analysis of interview data, there are some advantages which related to the use of both strategies. In terms of contextual redefinition, the advantages are enriching students’ new vocabularies, introducing words that are essential to understanding the reading, and assisting students to become independent readers. The strategy also helps the readers in stimulating their language schema to help them comprehend what the text is about. After that, the most important thing of

Nika Asri, 2013

the use contextual redefinition is in creating students’ interest in the words to be studied. Therefore, they are interested in following reading activity.

In addition, using contextual redefinition in deriving new words is regarded as more enjoyable and challenging strategy by the students. They feel it is challenging because it is like a guessing game. Another important thing in using contextual redefinition is making student retain the vocabulary longer. Then, the vocabulary will be kept in working memory as background knowledge that are

essential for building reader’s interpretation of the text. The last, contextual

redefinition helps students to decode the difficult term that are encountered in the text.

Despite the advantages of using contextual redefinition, the disadvantage of this strategy was also found. The students tend to make a haphazard guessing from the word that is covered by context clue. Hence, the words selected that used in a sentence should be noticed; 95% of words provided should be familiar to the students because the students willfeel difficult to guess the unknown word if they think the sentence provided are also difficult.

With regard to the use of word list as pre-reading strategy, the advantages are also found. The advantages are the activity in word list as pre-reading strategy is easier to be followed, so it makes the students easier to gain the vocabularies that will be encountered in the text. In addition, word list strategy makes the students feel easier to retain the learned words because similar to the use of contextual redefinition, the word will be kept in the working memory to help the students connect to the background knowledge.

Nika Asri, 2013

Meanwhile, the disadvantage of this strategy was believed to be boring and stressful way of enhancing new vocabularies. It is believed that looking up a word which has multiple meaning in the dictionary can make the learners become frustrated.

To sum up, the major pedagogical implication to be drawn from this study is that the students need to activate their background knowledge about the topic before they begin to read. The background knowledge can help students to interpret what the text is about, so the students can comprehend the text easily (Tierney et al., 1985). Moreover, on the basis of the findings, it is recommended that teachers should benefit from a variety of pre-reading strategies, and one of the alternative pre-reading strategies to activate the background knowledge in reading comprehension is contextual redefinition.

5.2 Suggestions

On the basis of inference from the findings and discussions that have been drawn earlier, the suggestions which are addressed to the teacher and further researcher need to be made. In pre-reading activity by using contextual redefinition, teacher should notice and pay attention to the word selected in the context clue, so that the students will be easier to guess what the meaning of unfamiliar word is. It is much better to provide synonyms, comparison/contrast, and definition when writing a sentence to help the students infer the meaning of unknown words. Meanwhile in pre-reading activity by using word list, the teacher

Nika Asri, 2013

should guide the students in using dictionary, so that the students do not confuse to find suitable meaning from the L2.

Furthermore, there are suggestions to further researcher when conducting the research by using contextual redefinition and word list in helping students’ reading comprehension. First, the future researcher should explore all aspect of reading and use different text to know which text is better forthe use of contextual redefinition and word list as pre-reading strategy. Second, in the next study should conduct in a larger sample or to other level of sample. Hence, it can be proved that the effectiveness of the use contextual redefinition as pre-reading strategy is valid and reliable to be used in any students’ level.

References

Ajideh, P. Schema Theory-Based Pre-reading Task: A neglected essential in the ESL reading class. The Reading Matrix, Vol.3. No.1, April 2003.

Alemi, M. and Ebadi, S. (2010). The Effects of Pre-reading Activities on ESP Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 5, September 2010, pp. 569-577.

Alyousef, H. S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/EFL learner. The Reading Matrix, Vol. 5, No. 2, September 2005.

Amirian, S. M. R. and Momeni, S. Definition Based versus Contextualized Vocabulary Learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 2 No. 11, 2012, pp 2302-2307.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading. Boston: Heinle&Heinle Anwar. (2004). Teori Validitas dan Reliabitas Data Nominal. [Online] Available at:

www.olahdata.com Current as of December 10, 2012.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Manajemen Penelitian. _{Jakarta: PT.Rineka Cipta}

Baleghizadeh, S. and Ashoori, A. The Effect of Keyword and Word List Methods on Immediate Vocabulary Retention of EFL Learners. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS,), Vol. 30, No. 2, 2010.

Bean, T., Baldwin, S., and Readance, J. (2012). Content-Area Literacy: Reaching and Teaching. Huntington Beach: Shell Education.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples. New York: Guilford Press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. NY: Longman.

Cahyono, B. Y. and Utami, W. (2011) The Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.

Carrell, R.. Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications.Modern Language Journal, Vol. 68 (4), 1984, pp 332-343. Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language.

Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle publishers

Chou, P. T. The Effects of Vocabulary Knowledge and Background Knowledge on Reading Comprehension of Taiwanese EFL Students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2011, pp. 108–115.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (Sixth ed.). New York: Routledge

Colorado, C. (2008). Pre-reading activities for ELLs. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/24995/ Current as of March 20, 2013.

Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistic A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publication Creswell, John W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Third Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education International.

Curtis, M.E., & Longo, A.M. (1997). FAME: The Boys Town reading curriculum.

Boys Town, NE: Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home.

Dole, J. A, Duffy, G. G, Pearson, D. Moving From the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction. Review of Educational Research Summer, 1991, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1991, pp. 239-264.

Durkin, D. (1978). What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading Comprehension Instruction. Cambrige: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Fox, Edward. (2008). Qualitative Research. [Online]. Available at:

www.efox.cox.smu.edu/lec4-quarles.ppt.html Current as of June 11, 2013.

Fraenkel, J.R., and Wallen N.E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (Sixth edition). New York: McGraw-Hill

Friedenberg, L. (1995). Psychological Testing, Design, Analysis and Use. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Grabe, William and Fredricka L. Stoller. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. England: Pearson Education Limited

Guilford, J.P. (1979). Psychometric Methods. Bombay: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Ibrahim, N. N. (2012). The Use of K-W-L Technique in Teaching Reading Descriptive Text. FPBS UPI Sarjana Degree: Unpublished paper

Hackman, S. (2008). Teaching Effective Vocabulary. UK: Departement for children, schools and family.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistic. London: Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Hawthrone. (2012). Academic Vocabulary: Developing Vocabulary for Learning in Content Areas. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/34121_section.pdf Current as of April 4th, 2013.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2000). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, P. Effects on reading Comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a test. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1981 pp 169-181.

Ketabi, S. and Shahraki, S. H. Vocabulary in the Approaches to Language Teaching: From the Twentieth Century to the Twenty-first. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2011, pp. 726-731.

Kesler, T. Shared Reading to Build Vocabulary and Comprehension. The reading teacher, Vol. 64 No. 4, 2010.

Kirby, E. G. (2008). The effect of responsiveness to intervention Tier 2 on underachieving students in vocabulary development at the secondary level. US: ProQuest LLC.

Kranzler, G., and Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the Terrified (Second Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Kuhn, M. R. and Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. [Online]. Available at:

Lee, J. F. Background knowledge and L2 reading. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 70, 350–354, 1986.

Mihara, K. Effects of Pre-Reading Strategies on EFL/ESL Reading Comprehension. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada 55, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2011. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the

National Reading Panel: Report of Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Clearinghouse.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nuttal, C. (1996). Teaching reading skill in a Foreign Language. Second Edition. Oxford: Heninemann.

Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. Vocabulary Learning: A Critical Analysis of Techniques. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL DU Canada, VOL 7, No 2, 1990.

Richeck, M. A. (2005). Words are wonderful: Interactive, time-efficient strategies to teach meaning vocabulary. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_ &ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ684413&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_

0=no&accno=EJ684413. Current as of March 11, 2013.

Rogers, D. H. (2005). Teaching Vocabulary Through Literature: Effects of Context-Clue Instruction on Tenth-Grade Students. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Ffs.libarts.psu.ac.th%2Fresearch%2Fconference%2FProcee

dings3%2Farticle%2F3pdf%2F003.pdf&ei=UefBUbu4GJCsrAe96YCgCQ&u

sg=AFQjCNHr3N2sehvA8w0Kw06okNGhWBlOlA Current as of April 3rd,

2013.

Roselina, Ria. (2011) Practical Techniques for English Language Teaching. Malang: State University of Malang Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.keystoliteracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/effective-vocabulary-instruction.pdf. Current as of March 11, 2013.

Sharzad, A. and Derakhshan, A. The Effect of Instruction in Deriving Word Meaning on Incidental Vocabulary Learning in EFL Context. World Journal of English Language, Vol . 1, No. 1; April 2011.

Snowling, M. (2009). Reading Comprehension: Nature, Assessment, and Teaching.

[Online].Available at:

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/50134/1/ESRCcomprehensionbooklet.pdf. Current as of April 11th, 2013.

Soureshjani, K. H. The Effect of Contextualizing and Decontextualizing Techniques on Lexical-oriented Knowledge of Persian EFL Language Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2011, pp. 547-552,

Stahl, S. A. (1992). The state of the art of reading instruction in the USA. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (established by UNESCO).

Sugiyono, D. R. (2003). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Penerbit CV Alfabeta Suharto. (2008). Pengertian dan Jenis Data Nominal, Ordinal, Interval dan Data

Rasio. [Online]. Available at: http://www.suhartoumm.wordpress.com

Current as of December 10th, 2012.

Takaj, P. V. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. England: Multilingual Matters LTD

Takashi, N. (2011). The Effect of 10-minute Vocabulary Instruction: using Word List in the EFL Classroom. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/center/library/image/37-50(Naoko%20Takahashi).pdf current as of March 1st, 2013

Thongyon, p. and Chiramanee, T. The Effect of Pre-reading Activities on Reading Comprehension Ability. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Ffs.libarts.psu.ac.th%2Fresearch%2Fconference%2FProcee dings3%2Farticle%2F3pdf%2F003.pdf&ei=UefBUbu4GJCsrAe96YCgCQ&u

sg=AFQjCNHr3N2sehvA8w0Kw06okNGhWBlOlA Current as of March

11th, 2013.

Tierney, R. J., John. E. R., Ernest K. D. (1985). Reading Strategies and Practice. Fourth Edition. MA: Allyn and Backon

Waring R (2002). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary size of some second language learners. Appeared in immaculate; the occasional paper at Notre Dame Seishin University. [Online]. Available at:

http//www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/vocsize.html. Current as of March 28, 2013.

Waring, R. (1995). Second language vocabulary acquisition: Linguistic context and vocabulary task design. [Online]. Available at:

www.harenet.ne.ip/~warign/papers/BC.html Current as of April 1, 2013.

Wiese, Lee A. (2012). Analysis of Two Vocabulary Strategies: A study to indicate which strategy, Verbal and Visual Word Association or Contextual Redefinition, is best suited for transferring new words into students’ long term memory. [Online]. Available at:

www.minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/63775/Thesis%20Combine d.pdf?sequence=1 Current as of April 1, 2013.

Curtis, M.E., & Longo, A.M. (1997). FAME: The Boys Town reading curriculum. Boys Town, NE: Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home.

Dole, J. A, Duffy, G. G, Pearson, D. Moving From the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction. Review of Educational Research

Summer, 1991, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1991, pp. 239-264.

Durkin, D. (1978). What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading

Comprehension Instruction. Cambrige: University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

Fox, Edward. (2008). Qualitative Research. [Online]. Available at: www.efox.cox.smu.edu/lec4-quarles.ppt.html Current as of June 11, 2013. Fraenkel, J.R., and Wallen N.E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education (Sixth edition). New York: McGraw-Hill

Friedenberg, L. (1995). Psychological Testing, Design, Analysis and Use. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Grabe, William and Fredricka L. Stoller. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. England: Pearson Education Limited

Guilford, J.P. (1979). Psychometric Methods. Bombay: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Ibrahim, N. N. (2012). The Use of K-W-L Technique in Teaching Reading Descriptive

Text. FPBS UPI Sarjana Degree: Unpublished paper

Hackman, S. (2008). Teaching Effective Vocabulary. UK: Departement for children, schools and family.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistic. London: Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Hawthrone. (2012). Academic Vocabulary: Developing Vocabulary for Learning in Content Areas. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/34121_section.pdf Current as of April 4th, 2013.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2000). Current research and practice in teaching

vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, P. Effects on reading Comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a test. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1981 pp 169-181.

Ketabi, S. and Shahraki, S. H. Vocabulary in the Approaches to Language Teaching: From the Twentieth Century to the Twenty-first. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2011, pp. 726-731.

Kesler, T. Shared Reading to Build Vocabulary and Comprehension. The reading

teacher, Vol. 64 No. 4, 2010.

Kirby, E. G. (2008). The effect of responsiveness to intervention Tier 2 on

underachieving students in vocabulary development at the secondary level.

US: ProQuest LLC.

Kranzler, G., and Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the Terrified (Second Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Kuhn, M. R. and Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word meanings from context: A synthesis and some questions. [Online]. Available at: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/30/1/119 Current as of January 13th, 2013.

Lee, J. F. Background knowledge and L2 reading. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 70, 350–354, 1986.

Mihara, K. Effects of Pre-Reading Strategies on EFL/ESL Reading Comprehension.

TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada 55, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2011.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the

National Reading Panel: Report of Subgroups. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development Clearinghouse.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nuttal, C. (1996). Teaching reading skill in a Foreign Language. Second Edition. Oxford: Heninemann.

Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. Vocabulary Learning: A Critical Analysis of Techniques.

TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL DU Canada, VOL 7, No 2, 1990.

Richeck, M. A. (2005). Words are wonderful: Interactive, time-efficient strategies to

teach meaning vocabulary. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_ &ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ684413&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_ 0=no&accno=EJ684413. Current as of March 11, 2013.

Rogers, D. H. (2005). Teaching Vocabulary Through Literature: Effects of Context-Clue Instruction on Tenth-Grade Students. [Online]. Available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Ffs.libarts.psu.ac.th%2Fresearch%2Fconference%2FProcee

dings3%2Farticle%2F3pdf%2F003.pdf&ei=UefBUbu4GJCsrAe96YCgCQ&u sg=AFQjCNHr3N2sehvA8w0Kw06okNGhWBlOlA Current as of April 3rd, 2013.

Roselina, Ria. (2011) Practical Techniques for English Language Teaching. Malang: State University of Malang Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction. [Online]. Available at: http://www.keystoliteracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/effective-vocabulary-instruction.pdf. Current as of March 11, 2013.

Sharzad, A. and Derakhshan, A. The Effect of Instruction in Deriving Word Meaning on Incidental Vocabulary Learning in EFL Context. World Journal of English

Language, Vol . 1, No. 1; April 2011.

Snowling, M. (2009). Reading Comprehension: Nature, Assessment, and Teaching.

[Online].Available at:

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/50134/1/ESRCcomprehensionbooklet.pdf. Current as of April 11th, 2013.

Soureshjani, K. H. The Effect of Contextualizing and Decontextualizing Techniques on Lexical-oriented Knowledge of Persian EFL Language Learners. Theory

and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 5, 2011, pp. 547-552,

Stahl, S. A. (1992). The state of the art of reading instruction in the USA. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (established by UNESCO).

Sugiyono, D. R. (2003). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Penerbit CV Alfabeta Suharto. (2008). Pengertian dan Jenis Data Nominal, Ordinal, Interval dan Data

Rasio. [Online]. Available at: http://www.suhartoumm.wordpress.com Current as of December 10th, 2012.

Takaj, P. V. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language

Acquisition. England: Multilingual Matters LTD

Takashi, N. (2011). The Effect of 10-minute Vocabulary Instruction: using Word List in the EFL Classroom. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/center/library/image/37-50(Naoko%20Takahashi).pdf current as of March 1st, 2013

Thongyon, p. and Chiramanee, T. The Effect of Pre-reading Activities on Reading Comprehension Ability. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Ffs.libarts.psu.ac.th%2Fresearch%2Fconference%2FProcee dings3%2Farticle%2F3pdf%2F003.pdf&ei=UefBUbu4GJCsrAe96YCgCQ&u sg=AFQjCNHr3N2sehvA8w0Kw06okNGhWBlOlA Current as of March 11th, 2013.

Tierney, R. J., John. E. R., Ernest K. D. (1985). Reading Strategies and Practice. Fourth Edition. MA: Allyn and Backon

Waring R (2002). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary size of

some second language learners. Appeared in immaculate; the occasional

http//www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/vocsize.html. Current as of March 28, 2013.

Waring, R. (1995). Second language vocabulary acquisition: Linguistic context and

vocabulary task design. [Online]. Available at:

www.harenet.ne.ip/~warign/papers/BC.html Current as of April 1, 2013. Wiese, Lee A. (2012). Analysis of Two Vocabulary Strategies: A study to indicate

which strategy, Verbal and Visual Word Association or Contextual

Redefinition, is best suited for transferring new words into students’ long term

memory. [Online]. Available at:

www.minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/63775/Thesis%20Combine d.pdf?sequence=1 Current as of April 1, 2013.