THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION IN RECOUNT TEXT INSTRUCTION BETWEEN USING STAD AND JIGSAW TECHNIQUE AT DIFFERENT READING FREQUENCY AT THE FIRST GRADE OF SMA N 1 RUMBIA ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v2i1.719Keywords:
Jigsaw, Reading Comprehension, Reading Frequency, Recount, STADAbstract
Reading as one of the four skills has always been as a part of the syllabus in English instruction. Based on the Pra survey, reading comprehension of the students of the first grade of SMA N 1 Rumbia is still low, most of them still lack structure knowledge and vocabulary, and their reading frequency in reading is still low. There are two techniques presented as a solution in this research. They are STAD Technique and Jigsaw technique. The objective of this research is to find out the difference result of using STAD and Jigsaw technique toward students’ reading comprehension in recount text at different high and low reading frequency and to find out there is significant interaction and comparison of reading comprehension in recount text, learning technique, and different reading frequency at the first grade students of SMA N 1 Rumbia academic year 2012/2013.
The method of investigation is held through quantitative research. The researcher uses true experimental research. In this experiment, the the researcher applies factorials design. The research is conducted at the first grade of SMA N 1 Rumbia in academic year 2012/2013. The population in this research is 180 students. It consisted 6 classes and each class consist 30 students. The researcher takes 52 students from total population as the sample, 26 students as experiment class and 26 as control class that match based on classification of student level. The researcher uses cluster random sampling as technique sampling.
To analyze data, the researcher uses ANOVA TWO WAYS formula. The researcher got the result of Fhit is 18, 2 and Ftable is 7, 14. It means that Fhit > Ftable. And the criterion of Ftest is Ha accepted if Fhit > Ftable. So, there is any difference result of students’ Reading comprehension in recount text using STAD and Jigsaw, and STAD technique is more effective technique than Jigsaw technique toward students Reading comprehension at different reading frequency at the first grade of SMA N 1 Rumbia academic year 2012/2013. The researcher expects English teacher use STAD Technique in reading instruction especially in recount text, so the students feel fun and enjoy in following the learning process.
References
Ahmad Jazim. (2010). Statistik Lanjutan. Metro: Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro
Arikunto, Suharsimi. (1996). Prosedur Penelitian: suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta
Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 448-449.
Brophy, Jere (1998). Motivating Students to Learn. State University: Michigan.
Brown, H Douglas (2001). Teaching by Principles. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc: San Francisco.
Brown H. Douglas. (2000). Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. California: San Francisco State University.
David C. McClelland, et.al (1976). The Achievement Motive; New York: irvington.
Elliot, Et al (2000). Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching, Effective Learning. McGrawÂHill Companies Inc: USA.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1985). The Practice of English Language Testing
_______. (2002). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
_______. (2006). Prosedur Penelitian Ilmiah. Bandung: Bina Aksara
Retrieved wikipedia 2008
Hornby.AS. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Irianto, Agus (2004). Stastitik: Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya. Kencana: Jakarta.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative and individualistic learning. (3 rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Karwono,(1991). Jurnal Teknologi Pembelajaran Teori dan Penelitian: IKIP Malang.
Karwono, Heni Mularsih. (2010). Belajar dan Pembelajaran serta Pemanfaatan Sumber Belajar. Jakarta: Cerdas Jaya
Kessler, C (1992). Cooperative language learning: A teacher resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. M.A. Dissertation, Mahidol University.
Koindrasari, Etri. (2012). The Comparison of Jigsaw and STAD Cooperative Technique toward Simple Present Tense Mastery at the Eight Level in SMP N 3 Batanghari Nuban Academic Year 2011/2012. Published University of Muhammadiyah Metro. Metro
Metzke, L., & Berghoff, P. (1999). Cooperative learning in the classroom. In A. S. Canter & S. A. Carroll (Eds.), Helping children at home and school: Handouts from your school psychologist (pp. 147-150). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
M. Richard and Porter, W. lyman (1991). Motivation and work Behavior. Mc GrawÂHill Book: Singapure.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, David1 (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. New York: Prentice hall.
Nuttall, Christine (1996). Teaching Reading Skills: in a Foreign Language. Reed Educational and Professional Publishing: Jordan Hill.
Patel.M.F, et.al (2008). English language Teaching(methods, tools & techniques). Vaishali Nagar: Jaipur.
Prasetyo, Eko. (2012). The Comparison between Reading Ability in Narrative Text Using STAD and CBI Methods at the Tenth Level at the Senior High School Muhammadiyah 1 Metro 2011/2012. Published University of Muhammadiyah Metro. Metro
Retrived from http://www.allaboutlearningpress.com/motivation-to-read, accessed on tuesday, 5th February, 2013
Retrived from http://pustakabakul.blogspot.com/2012/02/essence-of-reading.html
Stahl, S.A (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234.
Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta
Slavin, E. Robert (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Needham Heights Steers: Massachusetts.
Uno, B Hamzah. (2007). Teori Motivasi dan Pengukurannya. Analisis dibidang pendidikan. Jakarta : PT. Bumi Aksara
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics agree to the following terms:
Creative Commons License
Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The premise offers all authors of journal articles their research openly available, free access, and time restrictions.
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. Under the CC-BY license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors permit others to use the content of publications in Premise in whole or in part provided that the original work is properly cited. Users (redistributors) of Premise are required to cite the original source, including the author's name, Premise as the initial source of publication, year of publication, volume number, and DOI (if available).
