WELCOME TO IJEErudihartonoinggris.blog.unnes.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/...Besides, the reviewers have...

WELCOME TO IJEE

International Journal of English and Education(IJEE) is a scholarly open access, refereed

quarterly journal. The journal aims at providing a platform and encourages emerging scholars

and academicians globally to share their professional and academic knowledge in the fields

of English language, literature, linguistics and education. IJEE also aims to reach a large

number of audiences worldwide with original and current research work completed on the

vital issues of the above important disciplines. Other original work like, book reviews, Ph.D.

and Masters’ dissertations are also welcome.

IMPACT FACTOR

1. 269 (2015)

International Citation Report (ICR)

http://isindexing.com/isi/journaldetails.php?id=54

Editorial Board

Mohd. Mahib ur Rahman, Ph.D. Editor in Chief, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.

[email protected],[email protected]

1. Maya David Nee Khemlani, Ph.D. Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala

Lumpur, MALAYSIA.

2. Mohammed Abdullah Alharbi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Email:

[email protected]

3. Mojtaba Maghsudi, Ph.D. Vice Chancellor, Payam-Noor University, Shazand, Faculty Member of Farhangian University, Shahid

Bahonar, Arak, Iran.

4. V.V.B. Rama Rao, Ph.D. Teacher Trainer, EarlierAssociated with Andhra University, IGNOU Delhi, CIEFL Lucknow, BR Ambedkar

Open University. India.

5. T. F. "Tim" McLaughlin, Ph. D. Professor, Department of Special Education, School of Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA,

USA.

6. Mahboobeh Khaleghi, Ph.D. Department of English Language and Literature, University of Mysore, India.

7. Thomas G. Ryan, D. Ed. Professor, School of Education, Nipissing University, Canada.

8. Jacinta A. Opara, Ph.D. Visiting Associate Professor, Universidad Azteca, Chalco-Mexico.

9. Abdurrazzag Alghammas, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Translation, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.

10. Raashid Nehal, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of English, A.M.U. Aligarh, India.

11. Haoves Ahmed Sid, Ph.D. Associtae Professor, Department of English, College of Arts and Languages, Mentouri University,

Constantine, Algeria.

12.Abdul Hafeed Ali Fakih, Ph.D. Associtae Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Ibb University, Yemen.

13. Norhasni Zainal Abiddin, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra, Malaysia.

14. Fauzia Khurshid, Ph.D. Associate Professor, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad, Pakistan.

15. K. Balamurugan, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Science and Humanities, Bharathiyar College of Engineering & Technology, Karaikal,

India.

16. Sir Nkasiobi Silas Oguzor,JP,CT,KSC,PhD. Provost, Federal College of Education(Technical), Omoku-Nigeria

17. Haisen Zhang, Ph.D. Associate Professor, School of International Studies, University of Int. Business and Economics, Beijing, China.

18. Hussein Ali Habtoor, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of English at Ataq, Shabwah, Aden University, Yemen.

19. Asif Jamil, Ph.D. Associtae Professor, Institute of Education and Research, Gomal University DIKhan, Pakistan

20. Smita Jha, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India.

21. Shakuntala Mahanta, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati,

India.

22. Mustafa ŞEVİK, Ph.D. Associtae Professor, Department of English, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey

23. R.P. Singh, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of English, Lucknow University, India.

24. Yazid Basthomi, Ph.D. English Department, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia.

25. Zuliati Rohmah, Ph.D. English Department, Faculty of Letters, IAIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Indonesia

26. Thirunavukkarasu Karunakaran, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, English Language Teaching center, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

27. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Ph.D. Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

28. Ali Murtaza, Ph.D. Faculty of Education, Preston University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

29. Maniruz Zaman, Ph.D. Department of English, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

30. Daniel Kasule, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Botswana, Botswana.

31. Mohammad Zohrabi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Dept. of English, The University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

32. Yusuf Abdul Raheem, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Arts and Social Sciences Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

33. Waqar-Un-Nisa Faizi, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Education, Jinnah University for Women, Karachi, Pakistan.

34. Olele Nnoduka Clara, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education (CSET), University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

35. Aejaz Mohammed Sheikh, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India.

36. Khaled Al Asbahi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Languages, Sana'a University, Sana'a , Yemen.

37. Khursheed Ahmad Qazi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, North Campus, University of Kashmir, Kashmir, India.

38. Naveen K. Mehta, Ph.d. Associate Professor & Head, Communication Skills Department, MIT, Ujjain (MP), India.

39. Tauseef Mohsin, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Koshi Campus, T.M. Bhagalpur University, India.

40. Mohammad Owais Khan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of English, Rahil Khand University, U.P. India.

41. Mohd. Nazim, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Najran University, Saudi Arabia.

42. Haris Qadeer, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, India.

43. Violet Bridget Lunga, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Languages, University of Botswana, Botswana.

44. Alireza Karbalaei, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of English, Qeshm International Branch, Hormozhan Research and Science

University, Iran.

45. S.J. Abdolmanafi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Golestan University, Iran.

46. Aysha Munira, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, A.M.U. , Aligarh, India.

47.Seyed Hossein Fazeli, Ph.D. Department of English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University, Iran.

48. Hassan Saleh Mahdi , Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, College of Arts and Science, Najran University, KSA.

49. P.PADMINI, Ph.D. Asistant Professor, Department of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Chennai, India.

50. M. Musleh ul Islam, Assistant Professor, Dept. of English, Dhing Campus, Gauhati University, Assam, India.

51. Kapil Chaudaha, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India.

52. Abdul Aziz Khan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, A.M.U. Aligarh, India.

53. Kais A. Kadhim, Ph.D. Dept. of English Language and Linguistics, University of Malaya, KL, Malaysia.

53.Sufiana Khatoon Malik, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Education, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad,

Pakistan.

54.Santosh Kumari, Ph.D. Professor, Department of English & Foreign Languages,Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, India.

55. Anjali Hans, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia

mailto:[email protected],[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Author's Guidelines

Basic Requirements

To be acceptable for publication in the IJEE,

1. A manuscript must be original and plagiarism free.

2. Manuscript must be written in English (American or British usage is accepted, but not a

mixture of these).

3. The paper sent for publication has not been published elsewhere or under review for any

other journal.

4. IJEE is restricted to the disciplines of English language, Literature, Linguistics and Education

only. Therefore, paper written in other areas will not be accepted.

5. Submit your manuscript as e-mail attachment to the Editor-in-Chief at: [email protected]

or [email protected] with a cover letter (sample), which should declare that the manuscript

is original and all the references and citations are clearly mentioned. A reference number will

be mailed to the corresponding author within 7 days.

6. If and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the author(s) agrees to the automatic

transfer of the copyright to the publisher.

Manuscript Format

1. Please submit the manuscript in Microsoft Word format only.

2. The text is written only in Times New Roman in 12 point font and single-spaced.

3. The manuscript should normally range between 3000-5000 words (including the abstract,

footnotes and references).

4. The manuscript should include the author (s) name, qualification and affiliation after the title.

5. The manuscript should include an abstract not exceeding 200 words followed by 3-5 key

words.

6. All figures, images, tables of the manuscript should be embedded into the original text only.

7. References of the manuscript should be made in American Psychological Association (APA)

style. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list

(and vice versa). For web references: As a minimum, the full URL should be given and the

date when the reference was last accessed.

*For further guidance see the IJEE template ( Word, PDF) or Contact Us.



http://ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Declaration_Sample.5431605.pdf

http://ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/IJEE_Template.4684602.doc

http://ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/IJEE_Template.4684623.pdf


Review Policy

All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers, who are expert and competent in the

relevant field. IJEE employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous

throughout the process. It is necessary to have positive reviews from both the reviewers to be

accepted for publication. Besides, the reviewers have the right to ask the author (s) for some

changes and modifications in the manuscript if required. The journal aims to send the

reviewers comment to the author(s) within 4-6 weeks and then it is published in the

forthcoming issue, if considered by the reviewers.

Contact Us

Editor in Chief

Dr. Mohd. Mahib ur Rahman [email protected]

[email protected]



CONTENTS

July 2017 Volume 6, Issue 3

1. Relation between Phonological Awareness and Reading in Marathi

Mrs. Aarti P. Waknis1 and Dr. C. S. Vanaja

2, INDIA

2. The Effectiveness of Collaborative Work in Developing Students’

L2 Writing Achievement across Social Orientation

Moh. Hasbullah Isnaini, INDONESIA 3. Teaching English Structure Using Inductive Versus Deductive Approach for the 2

nd

Semester Students of English Study Program of Nusa Nipa University Maumere in the

Academic Year 2016/2017

Wendelinus Ocar Janggo, INDONESIA

4. The Superiority of Written Corrective Feedback Outcome on EFL Writing

at Different Proficiency Levels

Suhartawan Budianto1, Nur Mukminatien

2 and M Adnan Latief

3, INDONESIA

5. Engaging Autonomous Reading Utilizing Metacognitive Strategy Instructions:

How EFL Indonesian Auditory Learners are becoming?

Silvi Listia Dewi1, Prof. Nur Mukminatien

2, Prof. Mohammad Adnan Latief

3 and

Dr. Johannes Ananto Prayogo4, INDONESIA

6. Significance of Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom

Dr. Abdul Fattah Soomro1, Dr. Tariq Hassan Umrani

2and Sumaiyya Abdul Jabbar

3,

PAKISTAN 7. Systemic Analysis of News Tackling of Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English:

A Paradigmatic Dimension

Fahd Mohammed Sagheer Eid, INDIA 8. Po(w)der Method to Increase Writing Skill of Procedure Text for Student Grade 2 in

Technical Information Unsera Banten

Ratu Dea Mada1, S.S., M.Pd. Eva Fachriyah

2, M. Pd., NDONESIA

9. New Approaches in Teaching Drama

Dr. Huda A. Galaby, SAUDI ARABIA 10. The Role of Social Media Sites in the Enhancement of English Language Learning

at the University of Tabuk

Abdulrahman M. Abdulrahman Alfahadi Ph.D. SAUDI ARABIA 11. Self-Appraisal among Engineering Undergraduates in Delivering Technical Oral

Presentation in a Public University of Malaysia

Abdelmadjid Benraghda1 and Noor Raha Binti Mohd Radzuan

2, Ph.D. MALAYSIA

12. Mirroring Casteism in Joothan: Dalit Assertion to the Socio-Cultural Aggression

Altaf Ahmad Bhat1 and Fancy Akhter

2, INDIA

13. Needs Analysis of English for Academic Purposes for Sino-Foreign Joint Collegiate

Program: A Case Study of Shanghai Polytechnic University

Mao Ting, CHINA

14. BEFORE. B-e-f-o-r-e. Not b4. We Write English, not Bingo!

Academic English and Pakistani Digital Natives

Akifa Imtiaz, PAKISTAN 15. Gender Differences in Teacher- Students Interactions in an EFL Classroom of

Islamic Junior High School in Indonesia

Andi Rustandi1 and Ani

2, INDONESIA

16. Culture and Foreign Language Reading

Ashfaq Hussain Soomro and Mr. Imran Khan Mahesar, PAKISTAN 17. Indonesian EFL Students’ Writing Efficacy and Writing Performance

Him’mawan Adi Nugroho, INDONESIA 18. Problem-Based Learning in English Writing Classroom:

A Study on Students’ Perceptions toward Its Impacts

Jumariati1 and Enny Irawati

2, INDONESIA

19. Translation Procedures in Startup Guide Sony Xperia C5 Ultra Dual Smartphone

Halimatun Husna Rambe, INDONESIA 20. Language Learning Strategies Used by the Students in Learning Essay Writing Skills in

English Language in Secondary Schools in Manga Sub County, Kenya

Benard Nyasimi Nyang’au M. ED. KENYA 21. The Effectiveness of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) for Teaching Reading

and the Students’ Perception toward the Instruction

Semi Sukarni1, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Dwi Rukmini

2, M.Pd.,

Drs. Ahmad Sofwan3, M.A., Ph.D. and Dr. Rudi Hartono

4, M.Pd. INDONESIA

22. Formal and Dynamic Equivalence in Translating English Noun Phrase in Dr. Zakir

Naik’s Lecture

Nurhafni Hidayah Rambe1 and Ayu Saleha Simamora

2, INDONESIA

23. Factors Affecting Students’ Speaking Performance at High Schools in Malang

Khalil Jahbel, INDONESIA 24. Difficulties in Academic Writing

Mohamed Dalem,INDONESIA

25. Samuel Butler-The Ultimate Victorian

Dr. (Mrs.) Nivedita Lal, INDIA 26. Postmodern Doubleness of ‘Fact’ and ‘Fiction’ in Meta – History:

The White Mughals as a Historiographic Metafiction

Amna Ehsan1 and Prof Dr. Zafar Iqbal

2, PAKISTAN

27. Cooperative Integrative and Reading Composition Strategy to Enhance Reading

Comprehension

Wahyunengsih, INDONESIA

28. A Study on the Relationship between Anxieties with Learning Grammar in Public and

Private Schools

Fatemeh Toktam Barmar1, Shahryar Sanaee

2, IRAN

International Journal of English and Education

ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:6, Issue:3, July 2017

213

| www.ijee.org

The Effectiveness of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) for Teaching Reading and the Students’ Perception toward the Instruction

Semi Sukarni, M.Pd.

A Doctorate Student of Universitas Negeri Semarang A lecturer of English Education Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo, Indonesia

Prof. Dr. Dwi Rukmini, M.Pd.

A Lecturer of Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Drs. Ahmad Sofwan, M.A., Ph.D. A lecturer of Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Dr. Rudi Hartono, M.Pd.

A lecturer of Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Abstract

The objective of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) for teaching Reading. It also has purpose to examine the students’ Perception toward the implementation of the reading instruction. The model of strategy-based instruction that can help students to read more effectively and become independent learners was suggested by Chamot (2008) namely Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA). There are five phases of the instructional sequence, namely Preparation, Presentation, Practice, Self-evaluation and Expansion. The study involved two classes: one class was treated as experimental group and another class was treated as control group. The instruction was carried-out for 12 meetings with one meeting each week. There were two instruments for collecting the data namely reading comprehension test and a questionnaire of students’ Perception toward the instruction. The finding of the study shows that the students’ reading ability increases. The mean score of the experimental group is 66.46 as it is in the good level, while the mean score of the control group is 61.4 as it is in the sufficient level. The inferential statistics shows that the t-test is 2.27 higher than the t-table 2.00 with the significant level 0.027 (< 0.05). The students found that Strategy-based Reading Instruction were helpful and practical for solving reading comprehension difficulty. Keywords: SBRI, reading comprehension, proficiency, perception

1. Introduction

As the country become more developed the need of English skills is urgently required. Reading as one of the skills is badly needed to advance the new knowledge and technology that mostly written in English. Reading has many purposes. Reading for searching information, reading to learn from text and reading for general comprehension (Grabe and Stroller, 2013). These give reason why people read.



214

| www.ijee.org

However, reading in foreign language such English as not as easy as reading in the first language. These are often hindered by limited vocabulary knowledge, lack of fluency, lack of familiarity with subject matter, readibility in text level, inadequate use of effective reading strategies (Westwood, 2008). In order to be able to read more effectively in foreign language learner must be trained with explicit instruction in reading comprehension.

Many research on reading had been done by focusing of Language Learning Strategy (LLS) in the form of explorative studies by using Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). These learning strategies had been issued by Oxford which cover Direct Strategies and Indirect Strategies. Direct Strategies include Memory Strategies, Cognitive Strategies and Compensation Strategies, while Indirect strategies cover Metacognitive strategies, Affective strategies and Social Strategies (Oxford, 1990).

Research in reading had more developed into the explicit instruction of teaching learning strategies. There are a few frameworks which can be applied for teaching strategy in reading, namely: (1) The 4-Pronged Comprehension Strategy Framework by (McNamara, 2006); (2) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) by (Chamot, 2008); (3) Patterson Instructional Model by (Patterson, 2010).

The framework that was more recomended is Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach/CALLA (Chamot, Ph, Robbins, & Ph, 2005). Based on the CALLA framework there are five stages in teaching the strategies i.e. Preparation, Presentation, Practice, Self-evaluation and Expansion. In this research, the researcher adopted this framework to give instruction in reading comprehension in the term so call Strategy-based Reading Instruction (Chamot, 1995).

In Strategy based Reading Instruction, reading strategies are taught explicitly; students are told the names of particular strategies; they are given the reasons for using the strategy; they observe the teacher modelling the strategy; and they are given opportunities to practice the strategies (Cohen, 1996).

There are some earlier research using this strategy (SBRI). Among them are firstly Yousefv and Lotfi (2011) focused on investigating reading comprehension of graduate students and their attitude. The findings of the research showed that most of students improved their reading comprehension and their attitude towards reading become more positive (Yousefvand & Lotfi, 2011). Secondly is Medina (2012) focused on investigating the effect of strategy instruction of EFL reading of effectiveness of this strategy in improving reading comprehension of undergraduate students of Colombian university. The result revealed that reading instruction is really useful and students become more self-confident and enchanced their motivation (Medina S. Lopera, 2012). Thirdly is Kashef et al. (2014) focused on investigating the impact of SBRI on students’ reading strategy use. The result of the study showed that the teaching intervention had a significant effect on the use of strategy in reading. The fourth is Mohammadi et al. (2015)



215

| www.ijee.org

focused on investigating the impact of teaching learning strategy on reading comprehension ability and the learners’ believe. The result of the study showed that the strategy instruction could boost the reading comprehension ability and it could change the learners’ belief (Mohammadi, Birjandi, & Maftoon, 2015). Finally Alkhawaldeh (2015) focused on investigating the effect of reading strategy-based EFL program on reading achievement of high school students and their awareness of strategies. The finding shows that students had better understanding on texts (Alkhawaldeh, 2015).

The five earliar studies shows that Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) has showed its effectiveness in improving students reading ability particularly in EFL context. In line with the previous studies above the researcher conducted a research with the aim to investigate effectiveness of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) for teaching reading and find out the the students’ perception toward the instruction.

The following research questions were formulated to serve the objective persued in the study. (1) How is the effectiveness of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) for teaching reading? (2) How is the students’ perception toward Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI)?

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Reading

Reading is an activity to get information and process to understand the material from different kinds of text critically. According to Harmer (2003:199) reading is called receptive skills are the ways in which people extract meaning from the discourse they see or hear (Harmer, 2007). Grabe and Stoller (2002: 9) state that reading is the ability to draw meaning from the printed page and interpret this information appropriately (Grabe and Stroller, 2013). In other definition reading comprehension is an active thinking process through which a reader intentionally constructs meaning to form a deeper understanding of concepts and information presented in a text (Blanton et al. in (Westwood, 2008)).

From the definitions above, it can be concluded that generally reading is about contructing meaning and understanding of written texts. However, to understand a written text is not simply by looking at the symbols, reading is a complex activity that involves both perception and thought.

2.2 Language Learning Strategy (LLS)

Learning strategies have been described by Wenden and Rubin (1987:19) as “any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval,



216

| www.ijee.org

and use of information”. It was argued by Richards and Platt (1992:209) that “learning strategies are intentional behavior and thoughts that learners make use of during learning in order to better help them understand, learn, or remember new information”. Learning strategies were also illustrated by O’Malley and Chamot (1990:1) as “special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information”.

Hence, learning strategies were seen as special ways of processing information that improve comprehension, learning, or retention of the information. Whereas prior descriptions of learning strategies paid more attention to products of learning and behaviors reflecting unobservable cognitive processes, definitions eventually provided clearer understanding of what learners think and do during language learning. Furthermore, it was stated by Cohen (1990:4) that “learning strategies are processes which are consciously selected by learners and which may result in actions taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or foreign language through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about that language”.

Rubin (1987) suggested that there are three kinds of strategies that contribute directly or indirectly to language learning: learning strategies, communication strategies, and social strategies. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) proposed a framework in which three major types of learning strategies are classified: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective. Metacognitive strategies are the ones that involve planning for learning, thinking about the learning process as it is taking place, monitoring of one’s production or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an activity is completed. Cognitive strategies, according to O’Malley and Chamot (1990:8), “are more directly related to individual learning tasks and entails direct manipulation or transformation of learning materials”, strategies such as repetition, translation, grouping, deduction, contextualization, and transfer. Social/affective strategies concern interaction with other learners and native speakers and management of the affective demands made by language learning such as cooperation, question for clarification, and self-talks.

Oxford’s model of learning strategies is believed to be one of the most comprehensive classifications. In Oxford’s taxonomy (1990:37), she distinguished between direct and indirect strategies. The strategies under the first category (direct), according to Oxford, are memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. The second category (indirect) include metacognitive strategies, social strategies and affective strategies. These strategies cover actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process.”

2.3 Strategy-based Reading Instruction

According to Cohen et al. (1996) strategy-based instruction is a learner-centered approach that has two major components: (1) students are explicitly taught how, when, and why strategies can



217

| www.ijee.org

be used to facilitate language learning and language use tasks, and (2) strategies are integrated into everyday class materials, and may be explicitly or implicitly embedded into the language tasks. The first of these components has often stood alone as the approach when strategies are included in the language classroom. The field has referred to this approach as "strategy training," "strategies instruction," or "learner training".

In a typical classroom strategy training situation, the teachers describe, model, and give examples of potentially useful strategies; they elicit additional examples from students based on the students' own learning experiences; they lead small-group/whole class discussions about strategies (e.g. the rationale behind strategy use, planning an approach to a specific activity, evaluating the effectiveness of chosen strategies); and they encourage their students to experiment with a broad range of strategies.

The second component focuses on integrating and embedding strategies into classroom language tasks. To apply this, teachers may start with a set of strategies that they wish to focus on and design activities to introduce and/or reinforce them, start with the established course materials and then determine which strategies might be inserted, or insert strategies spontaneously into the lessons whenever it seems appropriate (e.g. to help students overcome problems with difficult material or to speed up the lesson). In all likelihood, teachers will be engaged in strategies-based instruction with an explicit focus on strategies only part of the time, while the rest of the time the strategies will be implicitly embedded into the language tasks. The goal of this kind of instruction is to help foreign language students become more aware of the ways in which they learn most effectively, ways in which they can enhance their own comprehension and production of the target language, and ways in which they can continue to learn on their own and communicate in the target language after they leave the language classroom. In other words, strategies- based instruction aims to assist learners in becoming more responsible for their efforts in learning and using the target language. It also aims to assist them in becoming more effective learners by allowing them to individualize the language learning experience.

Strategy-based reading instruction that proposes to help students to read more effectively and independently is based on a learner-centre approach. The features of these instructions are: (1) reading strategies are taught explicitly; (2) students are told the names of particular strategies; (3) they are given the reasons for using the strategy; (4) they observe the teacher modelling the strategy; and (5) they given opportunities to practice the strategies with ordinary classroom tasks (Cohen, Weaver & Li, 1996).



218

| www.ijee.org

2.3 Reading Instruction framework

In this research the writer chose Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) with the reasons that CALLA intructional framework is more easily applied and match with the learners’ need. The proposed framework can be seen as follows.

Figure 2.1 CALLA framework adopted from Chamot, 2008

3. Methodology

The research was carried out through experimental design pretest-posttest control group. There are two groups as one group is experimental group receiving a treatment by using SBRI while the other control group was taught by the existing method.

The research was conducted in English Education Program of Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo involving the fifth semester students. Sixty three students participated in this research, 28 students were in the experimental group and 35 students were in the control group. The treatment was done for 12 meetings in 12 weeks, one meeting each week lasted for 100 minutes.

Co

gni

tive

Aca

dem

ic L

ang

uag

e Le

arni

ng

Ap

proa

ch (

CA

LLA

)

Preparation

Presentation

- Teacher helps students to activate their prior knowledge. - Discuss and identify what strategies the students use recently.

Think aloud, present, and model the strategies Cognitive (rereading texts; skimming, scanning, using dictionary,

translating, taking note, highlighting); Compensation (guessing meaning using linguistic clues)

Metacognitive (using prior knowledge, paying attention, setting goal and objective for reading, identifying the purpose of reading) and Social

(feedback).

Students practice new reading strategies with different reading texts Students discuss unfamiliar words, infer meaning and answer

comprehension questions using various reading strategies.

Students evaluate themselves after practising the strategies on the language and the strategies used

Students apply the reading strategies independanly outside of the

classroom through teacher assigments

Practice

Self-Evaluation

Expansion



219

| www.ijee.org

After the treatment completed, the both groups were given posttest. The experimental group was given students’ perception questionnaire.

The data of this study are in the form of test score and students’ perception toward the implementation of the Reading Instruction. So, the instruments which used are reading comprehension test and student’ perception questionnaire. The reading test was adopted from TOEFL and FCE which consists of 40 items. The student’ perception questionnaire consists of 12 items. The data were analyzed by both descriptive and inferential analysis. The descriptive analysis includes determining the mode, median and mean of the students’ reading ability. The inferential analysis was applied using using SPSS verse 22. T-test independent sample was used to determine the effectiveness of the treatment.

4. Findings

4.1 Students’ Reading Ability

The data of Reading ability was taken from the pretest and posttest result of reading reading proficiency test both in experimental group and control group. To make classification of students’ reading ability the researcher adopted from the Classification of Student Achievement by Arikunto (2009:245). The classification can be seen as follows.

Table 1. Classification of student achievement

Score Grade Level

80-100 A Excellent

66-79 B Good

56-65 C Sufficient

40-55 D Fairly-sufficient

30-39 E Low

4.1.1 Students’ Reading Ability in Experimental Group The data of reading ability of experimental group were taken from the result of pretest before given the treatment and posttest which given after the treatment. The different score between pretest and posttest can be seen in the following table.



220

| www.ijee.org

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of pre-test

Interval Interpretation Grade Frequency Percentage (%)

80 – 100 Excellent A 0 0 66 – 79 Good B 5 17.85 56 – 65 Sufficient C 6 21.42 40-55 Fairly Sufficient D 12 42.85 30-39 Low E 5 17.85

Total 28 100

The table shows the pretest score of 28 students in experimental group. It can be seen that there are five students belong to good category, six students belongs to sufficient category, twelve students belong to fairly sufficient category, five students belong to low catogory and none of student belongs to excellent category.

Table 3. Frequency and percentage of post-test


80–100 Excellent A 3 10.71 66–79 Good B 8 28.57 56 65 Sufficient C 13 46.42 40-55 Fairly Sufficient D 4 42.85 30-39 Low E 0 0

Total 28 100

The table shows the posttest score of 28 students in experimental group. It can be seen that there are three students belong to excellent category, eight students belong to Good category, thirteen students belongs to sufficient category, four students belong to fairly sufficient category, and none of students belongs to low category.

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Pretest and Posttest in Experimental group

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Varia

ne

Pretest 35 53,00 30,00 83,00 1779,00 50,8286 11,12095 123,676

Posttest 35 33,00 50,00 83,00 2149,00 61,4000 8,16449 66,659

Valid N

(listwise) 35

Based on the descriptive analysisscore before and after treatment of teaching Reading Comprehension by using StrategyReading Instruction (SBRI). Before treatment the minimum pretest score is 30 and after treatment the posttest score is 53. The maximum pretest score is only 77, while in posttest is 88. There is also different mean score, in the pretest is only 50.50, whileBased on achievement category the students reading proficiency be

Figure 1 Chart of Reading

4.1.2 Students’ Reading Ability

The data of Reading Ability in experimental group the lecturer taught reading comprehension using Strategywhile in control group the students were taught reading by using conventional method. score between pretest and postest ca

Table 6. Frequency and P

Interval Interpretation Grade

80–100 Excellent A

66–79 Good B

56–65 Sufficient C

40-55 Fairly Sufficient D

30-39 Low E

Total

0

5

3

8

A B

Reading Ability in Experimental Group

International Journal of English and EducationISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:6

analysis of pretest and postest experimental groupscore before and after treatment of teaching Reading Comprehension by using StrategyReading Instruction (SBRI). Before treatment the minimum pretest score is 30 and after

nt the posttest score is 53. The maximum pretest score is only 77, while in posttest is 88. There is also different mean score, in the pretest is only 50.50, while, in the pos

ent category the students reading proficiency belongs to good.


Ability in control group

control group were taken from the result of pretest experimental group the lecturer taught reading comprehension using Strategy-based Reading Instruction, while in control group the students were taught reading by using conventional method. score between pretest and postest can be seen in the following table.

6. Frequency and Percentage of pre-test

Grade Frequency Percentage

(%)

1 2.85

3 8.57

7 20

21 75

3 8.57

35 100

6

12

5

13

40

C D E


Pretest Postest


4012, Volume:6, Issue:3, July 2017

221

| www.ijee.org

of pretest and postest experimental group there are different score before and after treatment of teaching Reading Comprehension by using Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI). Before treatment the minimum pretest score is 30 and after

nt the posttest score is 53. The maximum pretest score is only 77, while in posttest is 88. in the posttest is 66.46.

longs to good.

pretest and posttest. In the based Reading Instruction,

while in control group the students were taught reading by using conventional method. The different



222

| www.ijee.org

The table shows the pretest score of 35 students in control group. It can be seen that there is one student belong to excellent category, three students belong to good category, seven students belongs to sufficient category, twenty-one students belong to fairly sufficient category and three students belong to low catogory.

Table 7. Frequency and percentage of post-test


80–100 Excellent A 1 10.71 66–79 Good B 10 28.57 56–65 Sufficient C 14 40 40-55 Fairly Sufficient D 10 28.57 30-39 Low E 0 0

Total 35 100 The table shows the posttest score of 35 students in control group. It can be seen that there is one student belong to excellent category, ten students belong to good category, fourteen students belongs to sufficient category, ten students belong to fairly sufficient category and none of the student belongs to low catogory.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Pretest and Posttest in Control group


N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean

Std.

Deviation Variane

Pretest 35 53,00 30,00 83,00 1779,00 50,8286 11,12095 123,676

Posttest 35 33,00 50,00 83,00 2149,00 61,4000 8,16449 66,659

Valid N

(listwise) 35

Based on the descriptive analysis of pretest and postest in control group the minimum pretest score is 30 and the posttest score is 53. The maximum pretest score is 83 and the same score gotten in posttest. There is different mean score, in the pretest is only 50.82, while in the posttest is 61.40. Based on achievement category the students reading proficiency belongs to sufficient.

Figure 2 Chart of

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum

Statistic Statistic Statistic

SBRI 28 35

CM 35 33

Valid N

(listwise) 28

Based on the descriptive analysisminimum score of experimental group and the maximum score of the experimental group is 88, whilegroup is 83.There is a different mean scorecontrol group is only 61.40. Based on of experimental group belongs to “Goo

The researcher used t-test for the inferential analysis which is done using SPSS Verse 22. Tis used to test the different mean between the experimental group and the control group. The result of the t-test can be seen in the table below.

1 31

A

International Journal of English and EducationISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:6

Figure 2 Chart of Reading Ability in Control Group

Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control group


Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic

53 88 1861 66,46 1,803

50 83 2149 61,40 1,380

Based on the descriptive analysis there are different score in experimental and control group. Tof experimental group is 53, while the minimum score

maximum score of the experimental group is 88, while maximumdifferent mean score too, in the experimental group 66.46

Based on achievement category the students’ reading proficiency in of experimental group belongs to “Good”, while in the control group is “Sufficient”.

test for the inferential analysis which is done using SPSS Verse 22. Tis used to test the different mean between the experimental group and the control group. The

test can be seen in the table below.

7

21

3

10

14

10

0

B C D E

Reading Ability in Control Class

Pretest Posttest


4012, Volume:6, Issue:3, July 2017

223

| www.ijee.org

group

Std.

Deviation Variance

Statistic Statistic

9,543 91,073

8,164 66,659

there are different score in experimental and control group. The of control group is 50

aximum score of the control experimental group 66.46, while in the

ent category the students’ reading proficiency in d”, while in the control group is “Sufficient”.

test for the inferential analysis which is done using SPSS Verse 22. T-test is used to test the different mean between the experimental group and the control group. The



224

| www.ijee.org

Table 10. Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Exp 28 66,46 9,543 1,803

Control 35 61,40 8,164 1,380

Table 11. Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis

Hypothesis t-value t-table Note

Hypothesis 1 2.269 2.000 Ha: accepted

Based on the analysis using t-test, it is found that t-value of t-observe 2.27 is higher than the t-table 2.00 with the significant level 0.027 (< 0.05). It means that the use of Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) is effective to teach reading comprehension. So, Ho which says “the use of SBRI is not effective for teaching Reading” is rejected. Ha is accepted. It means the use of SBRI is effective for teaching Reading. This finding is in line with earlier studies related to strategy-based reading instruction in foreign language learning context. In Yousef and Lotfi study (2011) after training by strategy-based reading instruction most of their students improved their reading comprehension. Similar finding on Effects Of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction conducted by Wichadee (2011) shows after the instruction, the reading score and metacognitive strategy use were significantly higher. The finding of the study also support Medina research’s finding (2012) as the result showed that reading strategy is really very helpful to students and acn reduce the use of dictionary. Finally, the finding also support the result of research conducted by Mohammadi et al. (2015) as the result suggested that the instruction of learning strategies changed the students’ belief about learning and the instruction could boost their reading comprehension ability.

4.2 Students’ Perception toward Strategy-Based Reading Instruction

To answer the second research question, the researcher used the data of the students’ perception taken from the students’ questionnaire of SBRI class. The questionnaire covers a statement and 5 responses with five rating scales. Strongly Agree (SA) rates 5; Agree (A) rates 4; Neutral (N) rates 3; Disagree (D) rates 2 and Strong Disagree (SD) rates 1. The researcher calculates the score of each statement from the students’ responses. Then, she finds the mean score by dividing the total score by the total number student. The table of class interval and category can be seen as follows.



225

| www.ijee.org

Table 12: Criterion Category based on Class Inverval

Class Interval Category 1.00 – 1.79 Totally (Disagree/Bad/Dislike) 1.80 - 2.59 Disagree/Not Good 2.60 – 3.39 Sufficient/Neutral 3.40 – 4.19 Agree, Good, Like 4.20 – 5.00 Totally (Agree/Good/Like)

Silaen & Widiyono (2013)

The result of the students’ perception can be seen as follows.

Table 13. Students' Perception toward Strategy-Based Reading Instruction

No Statement SA A N D SD

Total Mean

Score

1 Through SBRI you can improve in comprehending reading texts. 7 20 1 0 0

118 4,214

2 Presentation of the strategies, modeling and discussion are carefully organized and planned in coheren manner. 5 21 2 0 0

115 4,107

3 Clear explanation to help students connect new and challenging materials through relating your background knowledge. 5 21 2 0 0

115 4,107

4 Lecturer presents the materials clearly. 5 19 4 0 0 113 4,036

5 Lecturer gives attention and entuasiam during the reading instruction.

10 15 3 0 0 119 4,25

6 Through SBRI you can practice the reading strategies for completing the reading exercices.

9 17 2 0 0 119 4,25

7 Lecturer encourages active involvement, participation and interaction of students during the class.

5 20 3 0 0 114 4,071

8 Lecturer provides clear guidance for learning and stimulates learning environment.

7 19 2 0 0 117 4,179

9 Lecturer provides constructive feedback on the students’ work so students can learn by mistakes.

8 18 2 0 0 118 4,214

10 Through SBRI you can do self-evaluation on your vocabulary, answer completion and strategy use.

4 20 4 0 0 112 4

11 After following the reading instruction, you can expand your knowledge and reading skills to complete reading proficiency exercises.

2 26 0 0 0 114 4,071

12

After following the reading instruction, when you encounter difficulties while reading English, you will use the reading strategies that the teacher taught to solve problems.

2 19 7 0 0 107 3,821



226

| www.ijee.org

The table shows there are 4 statements in the questionnaire (S1, S5, S6 and S9 that can be interpreted that the students are totally agree to certain condition in the instruction. In other words, the students have “Very Good” appraisal to Strategy-Based Reading Instruction (SBRI) as the mean is in the class interval between 4.2 – 5. Eight statements in the the questionnaire (S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S10, S11 and S12) can be interpreted that the students “Agree” to the condition as the mean is in the class interval between 3.40 -4.19).

Through Strategy-Based Reading Instruction the students feel that they can improve their comprehension; they can do self evaluation on vocabulary, answer completion and strategy use; they can expand their knowledge and reading skills to complete reading comprehension exercises and when they encounter difficulties they can use the reading strategies that the teacher taught to solve problems.

The perception toward the lecturer in the SBRI class is “ Good”. They students think the lecturer presents the materials clearly, encourages active participation during the class, provides constructive feedback on the students’ work so students can learn by mistakes.

5. CONCLUSION

Based on the finding and discussion the conclusion is made as follows.

Strategy-based Reading Instruction (SBRI) is effective for teaching reading comprehension as it can be proved by the different mean score of reading ability between the experimental group and the control group. The mean score of the experimental group is 66.46 as it is in the good level, while the mean score of the control group is 61.4 as it is in the sufficient level. The inferential statistics shows that the t-test is 2.27 higher than the t-table 2.00 with the significant level 0.027 (< 0.05). So, Ho which says “the use of SBRI is not effective for teaching Reading” is rejected. Ha is accepted. It means the use of SBRI is effective for teaching Reading.

The overall students’ perception toward Strategy-Based Reading Instruction is “Good”. With the reading strategy they can overcome the difficulty in reading text and they feel that they can improve their comprehension.

6. Suggestions and Recommendations

The suggestion will be addressed to the students and the reading lecturers.

6.1 To the lecturers

In order to develop the students’ reading ability the lecturers should understand the common reading problems faced by their students. One of the techniques to anticipate the problems, the



227

| www.ijee.org

reading lecturers can teach the students reading comprehension strategies which were adopted from Language Learning Strategy (LLS) from Oxford (1990) such cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, compensation strategies and social strategies. The lecturers can integrate the strategies through the reading tasks, model and practice the strategies regularly.

6.2 To the students

In order to develop their readingability, the students should apply reading strategies in answering reading comprehension questions. They should learn from the way the lecturers model the strategies and should practice through reading questions. Through applying the reading strategies the students will not always depend on dictionary and they can read more efficiently and more accurately in answering the reading questions.

REFERENCES

Arikunto. 2009. Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Aneka Cipta. Jakarta.

Alkhawaldeh, A. (2015). The Effect of an EFL Reading Strategies-Based Instructional Programme on Reading Achievement and Awareness of Reading Strategies among Jordanian High School Students, 23(5), 962–973. http://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2015.23.05.22237

Chamot, A. U. (1995). ACADEMIC LANGUAGE LEARNING APPROACH : The Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 379–394.

Chamot, A. U. (2008). Teaching Learning Strategies. Teaching Learning Strategies, 1–4.

Chamot, A. U., Ph, D., Robbins, J., & Ph, D. (2005). The CALLA Model : Strategies for ELL Student Success Workshop for Region 10 New York City Board of Education New York , NY Presented by.

Cohen, W. &Tao. (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language, (June).

Grabe and Stroller. (2013). Teaching and Researching Reading. New York 10017 USA: Routledge.

Harmer, J. (2007). _The_Practice_of_English_Language_T. Longman Pearson.

McNamara, D. (2006). Reading Comprehension Strategies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahwah, New Jersey.

Medina S. Lopera. (2012). Effects of Strategy Instruction in an EFL Reading Comprehension Course : A Case Study, 14(1), 79–89.



228

| www.ijee.org

Mohammadi, M., Birjandi, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). Learning Strategy Training and the Shift in Learners ’ Beliefs About Language Learning : A Reading Comprehension Context. http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015579726

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Patterson. (2010). The Impact of Explicit Teaching of Metacognitive Strategies on the Reading-Specific Self-Efficacy of Upper-Primary Students.

Silaen. Sofar & Widiyono. 2013. Metodologi Penelitian Sosial untuk Penulisan Skripsi dan Tesis. In Media. Jakarta.

Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about Reading and writing. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press, an imprint of Australian Council for Edu Research Ltd.

Yousefvand, Z., & Lotfi, A. R. (2011). The Effect of Strategy-Based Reading Instruction on Iranian EFL Graduate Students ` Reading Comprehension and Their Attitudes toward Reading Strategies Instruction, 1(December), 39–55.

WELCOME TO IJEErudihartonoinggris.blog.unnes.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/...Besides, the reviewers have...

Documents

Transcript of WELCOME TO IJEErudihartonoinggris.blog.unnes.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/...Besides, the reviewers have...