Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ABSTRACTReading is a part of skills in learning English that must be taught to the junior high school students, especially for the second grade student of MTsN Kembang Tanjung. Reading is very important to study. Therefore, the students are required to understand reading compre-hension by dealing with kinds of text, texts structure, and sub-skills that will be discussed. In this study the researcher wants to know whether: (1) The students who are taught reading comprehension by cooperative learning give better result than those who are taught by teacher centre method, (2) the students identified easily reading sub-skills by using cooperative learning compared to teacher-center method, (3) the students have good responses toward the implementation of cooperative learning in leaning reading skills. The subjects of this study were the students of class IIA as an experiment group and the class IIC as a control class group. The instruments used to collect the data were test and questionnaires. The findings of the research proved that the application of cooperative learning is able to increase the students’ achievements in reading comprehension. It can be proved by presenting the statistical count. The mean score of applying cooperative learning is -0,2 on pre-test and post-test of experimental group. The mean score of pre-test and post-test of control group is 0,04. While the mean score of comparing the two groups is -0,09 on pre-test, and comparing the two mean score of post-test is 0,04.
ABSTRAKMembaca merupakan bagian dari keterampilan dalam belajar bahasa Inggris yang harus diajarkan kepada siswa SMP, terutama untuk siswa kelas dua MTsN Kembang Tanjung . Membaca adalah sangat penting untuk belajar. Oleh karena itu, mahasiswa diwajibkan untuk memahami pe-mahaman membaca dengan berurusan dengan jenis teks, teks struktur , dan sub - keterampilan yang akan dibahas . Dalam penelitian ini peneliti ingin mengetahui apakah: (1) siswa yang diajar pemahaman membaca dengan pembelajaran kooperatif memberikan hasil yang lebih baik daripada mereka yang diajar dengan metode pusat guru, (2) siswa yang diidentifikasi dengan mudah membaca sub - keterampilan dengan menggunakan koperasi pem-belajaran dibandingkan dengan metode guru - center, (3) siswa me-miliki tanggapan yang baik terhadap penerapan pembelajaran kooperatif bersandar keterampilan membaca . Subyek penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas IIA sebagai kelompok eksperimen dan kelas IIC sebagai kelompok kelas kontrol . Instrumen yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data adalah tes dan kuesioner . Temuan dari penelitian ini mem-buktikan bahwa penerapan pem-belajaran kooperatif mampu me-ningkatkan prestasi siswa dalam membaca pemahaman. Hal ini dapat dibuktikan dengan menghadirkan hitungan statistik . Rata- rata menerap-kan pembelajaran kooperatif adalah -0,2 pada pre-test dan post-test dari kelompok eksperimen. Rata-rata pre - test dan post -test dari kelompok kontrol adalah 0,04. Sementara nilai rata-rata membandingkan dua ke-lompok adalah -0,09 pada pre -test , dan membandingkan dua nilai rata-rata post-test adalah 0,04 .
Kata Kunci: Listening, pembelajaran kooperatif
108
IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN READING COMPREHENSION BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING (STAD)
(An Experimental Study at the Second Grade of MTsN Kembang Tanjong)
KamarullahProdi PGMI STIT Al-Hilal Sigli, Pidie Provinsi Aceh
Email: [email protected]
I. INTRODOCTION
Reading is one of the four skills of
English that must be learned by the
learners at junior high schools. Reading
Comprehension employed in this study
is the students’ ability in comprehension
such kinds of text report, recount,
description, and procedure which
includes word meaning, word reference,
main idea, and specific information sub-
skill based on the syllabus of junior high
schools. These skills were difficult to
teach at junior high school especially at
MTsN Kembang Tanjong. Since
students did not have enough time to
practice reading comprehension, they
find it difficult, consequently not all
students have time to express with
language. This study is intended to
know why the students’ unable to: (1)
Identify word meaning, (2) Identify
word reference, (3) Find out main ideas,
and (4) Get specific information in the
paragraph or text.
At present time, a new perspective
in teaching learning language is an
effort of literacy development. The
perspective is necessary, due to hard
effort of native speaker in achieving
their competence in English language in
certain level. This system of education
is called literacy education which is
directed to develop communicative
competence. In that case various text on
English must be available. Thus, in
teaching English in Indonesia,
especially in Aceh, teachers should
consider any texts which is appropriate
to students, and what text are targeted in
literacy education for native speaker,
otherwise, the teaching learning process
will not support language acquisition,
mainly in reading and speaking. In fact,
the writer found out that many teachers
still use teacher-center method which
focuses on teachers-centered and
grammar is a control of the language.
Based on the researcher teaching
experience, there are several factors
affecting students’ failure in reading
skill. This failure is caused by the
techniques used by the teacher, it is not
effective to solve students’ problems in
reading comprehension. Besides that,
students do not have enough time to
practice reading, because the
curriculums provide them only 45
minutes in one session. Consequently
not all students have time to express
with language. Another reason for
students who have still low in reading
skill is that the teacher always teaches in
109
the class by using teacher-center
methods, for example the teacher reads
the text personally while students only
sit and listen to him/her, so the class is
very noisy, or translates the text into
Indonesian.
The teacher prepares himself to
translate every word into the target
language so that the students write the
meaning of the text what the teacher
said, and find out the meaning of word
by identifying the synonyms. In this
way she/he also explains the grammar
rules to make them clear of grammatical
rules, this is one of the important things
in this teaching learning process. The
last, she/he writes the summary what
does the text tell us about and he also
asks students to write sentences based
on available words. Then the teacher
gives the students the exercises to
answer some questions, if they can not
answer it, the teacher will answer all the
questions. The other reason is that the
class is crowded, therefore, it is difficult
to teach the students and the students
have low motivation so that they will be
passive in reading skills.
Reading is one of the four language
skills taught and learned at school and
university. Through reading the students
can develop the other language skills
such as writing and speaking besides
improving the language components as
well, for instance vocabulary and
grammar. Therefore, to improve and
advance the students’ ability in reading,
the teacher has to teach reading in
integrated with other language skills. [1]
articulates that “there is a constant
interplay between listening, speaking,
reading and writing, besides that it is
clear that in a lesson ostensibly labeled
“reading”, opportunities exist for the
learners to develop the other language
skills”. To help students in increasing
reading comprehension, the students
should be prepared teaching materials.
For example: notice, caution, and
invitation texts. By giving these
materials, it could be good for teaching
to train the learners to find out the
explicit meaning of texts.
Based on the problems stated above
the writer conducted the research at
MTsN Kembang Tanjong. According to
the writer many students at the school
still have low comprehension in reading
skills. Therefore, he found out the
suitable technique to achieve students’
reading skills on school-based
curriculum that will change teachers-
110
centered teaching to students-centered
technique by using cooperative learning
technique, in order to make them more
active and work collaboratively in the
small team.
Students work together in pairs and
groups, they share information and
come to each other’s aid. They are a
“team” whose players must work
together in order to achieve goals
successfully. To be sure, in a
cooperative classroom means learner-
centered characteristics and teachers
work together to pursue goals and
objective [2].
Cooperative learning method type-
Student Teams Achievement Division
(STAD) is one method that can be
applied to deal with a heterogeneous
student ability, [3] in which students are
given the opportunity to collaborate
with peers in the form of group
discussions to solve a problem each
group member four or five students who
have academic ability, gender and
others are heterogeneous, so that in one
group there will be academic Traffic
and different genders.
Related to the above research
finding, cooperative learning intends to
motivate students through the use of
extrinsic
Awards such as certificates and
grades. Slavin [4] stated that "classroom
research over two decades has
consistently found that the positive
effect of cooperative learning on student
achievement depend on the use of group
rewards. The preceding review she
revealed that cooperative learning, in
general, has a positive effect on
achievement and motivation in reading
skill.
Cooperative learning can maximize
the student’s interaction in English, and
it can take away the big burden of
running larger classes. Therefore, the
teacher has to change his or her role to
be a motivation or problem solver. That
the group members have the
responsibility of updating the students
who were absent on what they missed
make they feel they are not alone.
Besides Besides that Dr. Slavin suggests
that cooperative learning is not only a
great way of learning but it is also a
very vast field of research and analysis.
Consequent to research and analysis, the
design section exist which suggest the
designing of course outline and groups
tasks.
111
II. METHODE OF STUDY
Based on the background, the writer
conducted the study at the third grade of
MTsN Kembang Tanjong. The study is
intended to find out the effectiveness of
cooperative learning, and the suitable
reading sub-skills toward the
implementation of cooperative learning.
The population of this study is 203
students belong to the second year
students. Therefore, the total sample of
this study is 27 students of experimental
group. This group was taught reading
comprehension by using cooperative
learning. The control group in which
also consist 31 students was taught with
teacher-center method.
A. The Nature of Reading Compre-
hension
Based on the previous explanation
above, reading may appear to be a
language skill high priority to develop
in teaching English as a foreign
language. This is in line with [5]. He
defined “reading is as the ability to
answer appropriate comprehension
questions, this ability must, of course,
be assessed in terms of the reading task.
Therefore, more attention needs to be
given to the teaching and learning of
reading.
Basically reading is thinking
process. It requires some kinds of
response on the part of the part of
reader. Harmer said that: reading is an
exercise dominated by the eyes and
brain. The eyes receive message and
brain then has to work out significance
of these message [6]. On the other hand,
[7] described “reading is the meaningful
interpretation of printed or written
verbal symbols”. This explanation
intended that readers should have
background of knowledge in their mind
to comprehend the content of the text.
Reading activities at High
secondary school (MTsN) is intended to
be a means of improving students’
reading competence. It can also be used
to increase the skill like writing,
speaking, and listening. For example
when a teacher asks his students’ to
write a sample summary of the reading
text, he used the text to develop
students’ writing ability. According to
[brown] reading ability will be
developed best in association with
writing, listening and speaking
activities. Even in those courses that
may be labelled “reading” your goals
will be best achieved by capitalizing on
the interrelationship of skill, especially
112
the reading-writing connection. So we
focus here on reading as a component of
general second language proficiency.
The 2004 English Curriculum
places reading equal to other English
Language skill, listening, speaking, and
writing. According to the 2004 English
Curriculum, the objectives of English
instruction at the two levels of
secondary school (junior and senior high
school) is “developing communicative
competence in spoken and written
English Language which comprises
Listening, Speaking, reading, and
writing. Raising awareness regarding
the nature and importance of English as
a foreign Language. Developing
understanding of the interrelationship of
language and culture.
To support the information stated
above, [8] also argued the skills and
strategies of reading in which the reader
will learn through exploitation of texts.
The first skills are involving flexibility
of technique, such as variation in
reading rate, skimming, scanning, and
study reading. The second skills are
utilized information that is not strictly
speaking part of the text itself, such as
reference apparatus, graphic
conventions, illustration and diagrams.
The third is word attack skills, for
instance how to tackle unfamiliar lexical
items by using morphology, inference
from contact, etc. The fourth skills are
text-attack, such as the process of
interpreting the text as a whole, using all
the clues available including cohesion
and rhetorical structure.
In addition, [Barr and Sadow] in
their “Reading Diagnosis” Stated there
are three difficulties skills in students’
experience to improve their reading
comprehension. Fist, print translation
skills are typically assessed by having
students read passages, words, or word
parts aloud; it means the reader assessed
with the “retell” the passage content.
Second word knowledge uses question s
to elicit a students’ understanding of
selected terms. The third,
comprehension strategies may be
effectively employed to examine the
students’ print translation strategies and
word knowledge in order to determine
whether the problems exist.
Based on the views of experts, the
teachers are suggested to choose reading
instruction according to the level of
skills and followed an appropriate
diagnosis. Therefore, the level of
reading skills dealing with by [Brown]
113
divided into two levels of reading
comprehension; “micro skills or lower
skills and macro skills or higher skills”
what the readers need to do become
active problem solver.
The above review of English as a
foreign language reading practice in
Indonesia suggestion that reading
instruction has been mainly focused on
intensive reading to be more
concentrated and comfortable.
B. The Nature of Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is one strategy
for group instruction which is under the
learner-approach. Many educators give
the definitions of cooperative
learning:“Cooperative learning is an
instructional program in which students
work in small groups to help one
another master in content.” [9]
“Cooperative learning involves
students working together in pairs or
groups, and they share
information .They are a team whose
players must work together in order to
achieve goals successfully.” [Brown] In
addition, [10] proposes the definition of
cooperative learning particularly in
language learning context:“Cooperative
learning is a within-class grouping of
students usually of differing levels of
second language proficiency, who learn
to work together on specific tasks or
projects in such a way that all students
in the group benefit from the interactive
experience.
Related to it goal, [11] added in
cooperative learning, students help other
students with in groups of four to five
persons in an effort to reach goals. This
definition emphasize on a common goal
achieved in cooperative learning as a
result of team’s work through sharing
ideas.
Similarly explanation about version
of activity commonly known as
“numbered heads together” the class is
divided in to several groups of four or
five and each student is given a number
within the group. The members of each
group can study together for a test or
work together to complete an
assignment, and the group can complete
a short-term group project such as a
brief skit, a description of a scene, a
college, or a small group discussion.
Each member receives a group grade.
[Richard-Amato]
Different researchers might define
cooperative learning in different ways.
The working is defined by [12] in his
dissertation entailed the following
114
features: cooperative learning was a
system of teaching and learning
techniques in which students were
active agents in the process of learning
instead of passive receivers of the
product of any given knowledge. This
system could increase students’
academic learning as well as personal
growth because (1) it reduced learning
anxiety, (2) it increased the amount of
student participation and student talk in
the target language, (3) it built
supportive and less threatening learning
environment, and (4) it helped the rate
of learning retention.
Related to it goal, [Recard-Amoto]
added in cooperative learning, students
help other students with in groups of
four to five persons in an effort to reach
goals. This definition emphasize on a
common goal achieved in cooperative
learning as a result of team’s work
through sharing ideas.
The approach used in this research
is based on Student Teams–achievement
Divisions (STAD).It was developed by
Robert Slavin and his colleagues at the
John Hopkins University. STAD has
been used in such diverse subject areas
as math, language arts, social studies,
and science. In STAD, students are
signed to four-member learning teams
that are mixed in performance level,
gender, and ethnicity. STAD has five
major components.
There were two types of motivation
involved in STAD: (1) intrinsic
motivation which flowed from within a
person, and (2) extrinsic motivation that
came from outside the person [Slavin].
While not denying the importance of
intrinsic motivation, [Slavin] believed
that extrinsic motivation had to be used.
“Students receive about 900 hours of
instruction every year. It is unrealistic to
expect that intrinsic interest and internal
motivation will keep them
enthusiastically working day in and day
out” [Slavin]. Slavin saw cooperative
learning as a more efficient way of
delivering extrinsic motivators.
There are many benefits of
cooperative learning, and it should have
its place in the classroom for several
reasons. Humans are social beings that
learn extremely well through
interaction. Using the methods of
cooperative learning students will
develop a sense of community and
commitment. This method of learning
also supports positive peer teaching
which is beneficial as well [13].
115
III.RESULTS AND DATA
ANALISIS
In analyzing the data of pre-test and
post-test, table frequency of distribution
and percentage count were used to find
out the results.
After collecting all the data from
experimental group and control group,
the researcher analyzed them by using
suitable statistical procedure in order to
prove hypotheses as the mean, standard
deviation, and Z score. The writer used
Z score because the students were over
thirty.
The mean is used to investigate the
average scores. Its formula prescribed
[14] is as following:
X=
∑ fx
∑ f
The standard deviation is the
measure of variability most often
reported in the research, [Hasan]
s=√∑ f x2
n− (∑ f x
n )2
In which S is symbolizes standard
deviation, n is sample.
The Z - score is used in order to
investigate the significant differences
between the two means of the two
groups. The formula as prescribed by
Kustituanto (1988:221), since the
numbers of students (n) is more than 30
is used for analyzing the data:
Z =x1 − x2
√ S12
n1+
S22
n2
To answer the second research
problem dealing with reading sub-skills,
the formula used was percentage count.
It means that the data would be
described on qualitative transcript based
on students’ ability and difficulty by
using cooperative learning
To answer the third research
question of students’ response in
reading comprehension through
cooperative learning, the same process
as done in the second research question.
The data would be presented in the table
and described it based on the students’
interest in learning reading.
Table 1
116
The Raw Scores of Experimental Group
in reading sub-skills
Students’Number
Kelas VIIAPre-test Post-test
01 35 4502 50 4503 50 6004 25 3505 45 7006 60 5507 55 6508 25 5509 50 3510 30 5511 60 7512 60 5513 45 6014 10 4515 15 3516 35 4017 30 4518 60 5019 50 4520 50 7021 5 3022 70 6023 40 7024 40 5525 50 4526 55 6527 40 7028 55 5029 65 7530 55 5031 55 50
Table 2
The Raw Scores of Control Group in Reading sub-skills.
Students’Number
Kelas VIICPre-test Post-test
01 50 6502 30 4003 50 4504 40 2505 50 3006 65 4507 35 2508 45 5009 55 3510 50 6511 75 7512 30 4513 45 5514 70 6015 50 6016 25 3017 60 5518 40 4519 70 5020 60 5021 65 6522 60 5523 60 5024 50 6025 25 3526 45 5027 55 60
The Statistical Summary of Pre-test and Post-test for both Experimental and Control Groups.
The statistic summary of the pre-test is described on the tables below. In order to know whether there are differences among the range, mean, Z- score and standard deviation for both experimental and control groups. Pre-test score of the Experimental Group (EG) and Control Group (CG) is presented in the following table 3
117
Table 3Statistical Summary of the pre-Test of
EG and CG
Pre (EG) Z score Pre (CG)
N 31
-1,26
27R 65 50X 45 50S 17,02 13,15
To see the pre-test and the post-test scores of the EG is summarized on table: 4
Table 4Statistical Summary of the Pre-Test and
Post-Test on EG
Pre EG Z score Post EG
N 31
-2,89
31 R 65 45
X 45 56S 17,02 12,64
To see the differences between the pre-test and the post-test scores of the CG. The result is presented in the following table: 5
Table 5Statistical summary of the Pre-Test and
Post-Test on CG
Pre CG Z score Post CG
N 27
0,29
27 R 50 50
X 50 49S 13,15 11,76
To see whether there is significant different between EG and CG in their performance table: 6 is constructed.
Table 6Statistical Summary of the Post-Test of
EG and CG
Post EG Z score Post
CGN 31
2,18
27 R 45 50
X 56 49S 12,64 11,76
The Result of Pre-test and Post-test in Reading Sub-Skills for Both Experimental Group and Control Groups.
To know how many percentages who could answer each sub-skills such as word reference, word meaning, main idea, and specific information. The result is summarized in the following table 7 (pre-test and post-test for each group and to see the other see table 7.
Table 7Percentages Summary of Pre-Test and
Post-Test of Experimental group.
Test
Experimental GroupWord
reference
Word meanti
me
Main
idea
Spec. infor
mPre-
test
27.5% 32.6% 43.5%
49.3%
Post-
test43.5% 24.7% 45.2
%64.1%
Table 8
118
Percentages Summary of Pre-test and
Pos-test of Control Group.
Test
Control GroupWord
reference
Word meani
ng
Main idea
Spec. infor
mPre-test 43.3% 40.9% 37.1
%46.7%
Post-
test46.2% 26.9% 44.9
%45.4%
Based on the source of the data, that
the number of students of EG is
different from the CG, 31 for EG and 27
of CG and the range of the scores of the
EG and CG are not small, so that the
distribution appears normal since there
are no extremes scores. The range of the
pre-test score is 65 for the EG and 50
for the CG. From this range, we notice
that the two groups of scores are not
widely scattered. Thus, the score
distribution of the pre-test of the CG is
higher scattered than the EG. It means
that the score spread off so for, about 15
point increase.
The X statistic (arithmetic mean) of
each test shows the relative achievement
of the groups. The pre-test X for the EG
is 45 and 50 for the CG. The standard
deviation of pre-test of EG is 17,02
while the pre-test of CG is 13,15. So,
the score distribution of the pre-test for
the EG is better than that of the CG. The
Z-score of pre-test EG and CG is -1.26
at level of significance 0.05. So null
hypothesis (Ho) is accepted and because
the Z-score in the limit given (-1.96 and
1.96), it means that there is no
difference different between EG and CG
achievement.
The pre-test scores of EG is
different from that of the post-test
scores. Since, the range of the pre-test of
EG is 65 and the range of post-test is 45,
they indicate that the scores of the pre-
test are more homogeneous. The mean
score of the pre-test is 45 and the mean
score of the post-test is 56, the standard
deviation of the pre-test is 17,02 and the
standard deviation of the post-test is
12,64 on EG. It means that the score
distribution of the post-test is significant
difference than that of the pre-test. Then
the Z-score of the pre-test and the post-
test on EG is -2,89 at the level of
significance 0.05. Thus, we can accept
the alternative hypothesis (H1). This
indicates that there is a significant
difference between two means of pre-
test 45 and post-test 56 of EG, we could
say that the outcome of the test on the
EG is due to the effect of the treatment.
119
The range of the post-test scores for
the EG is 45 and 50 for the CG. The
ranges theoretically are not quite
different from the range of the pre-test is
65 for EG and 50 for the CG. The mean
of the post-test is 56 for EG and post-
test for CG is 49. The standard
deviation of the post-test is 12,64 for
EG and 11.76 for the CG In the same
way the standard deviation of the post-
test for EG is better than that of the pre-
test , 17,02 and 12,64, respectively. The
Z- score of the post-test of EG and CG
is 2,18 at the level of significance 0,05.
We should accept the alternative
hypothesis, it means that there is a
significant difference meaning between
the two groups, where some students
have better performance and some of
them have lower performance in
mastering reading comprehension.
Relating to the sub-skills that
maintain in this study, how many
students did better each sub-skills, let us
discuss below. Table 4.5 shows the
result of students’ performance in each
reading sub-skills. It shows that the
highest score in the Pre-test is (49.3%)
for specific information and the lowest
one is word reference only (27.5%), the
students’ answers of word meaning is
(32. 6%), and the students’ answer of
main idea is (43.5%). So that, specific
information is easier than main idea and
word reference is more difficult than
word meaning for experimental group.
It means that the students did not know
the relationship among sentence idea,
word relation, and similar meaning of
word.
The highest result of the post-test is
still specific information with (64.1%),
and the lowest result is word meaning
with (24.7%), the students’ answer of
word reference is (43.5%), and the
students’ answer of main idea is
(45.2%). In other word, specific
information is easier than main idea and
word meaning is more difficult than
word reference for experimental group.
In this way the students are poor
understanding of group words and lack
of vocabularies in identifying the words.
The result of pre-test on control
group, the highest score is specific
information with (46.7%), and the
lowest result is main idea with (37.1%),
the students’ answers of word meaning
is (40.9%), and the students’ answer of
word reference is (43.3%). So that,
specific information is easier than word
reference and main idea is more difficult
120
than word meaning. It means that they
are less mastery neither word classes or
similar meaning.
The highest score of the post-test is
word reference with 46.2%, the lowest
is word meaning with 26.9%, the
students’ answer of specific information
is 45.4%, and the students’ answer of
main idea is 44.9%. In other words,
word reference is easier than specific
information and main idea, the difficult
one is word meaning for control group.
It means that they did not know how to
comprehend the synonym and the
antonym in the sentence.
In general, the finding showed that
the score of post-test is higher than on
the pre-test score. The average score is
44.3% for experimental group and the
control group is 40.8%. In other word,
there are significant differences between
experimental and control group in
reading comprehension by using
cooperative learning in post-test.
Related to the above research
finding the writer also found that the
experimental students increased the
scores on specific information skills
based on the research finding showed on
the pre and post-test (49, 3% and
64,1%). Main idea is the second
position of increasing sub-skills on pre
and post-test (43, 5% and 45, 2%).
Word reference is at the third level of
improving the issues on pre and post-
tests (27, 5% and 43, 5%). The fourth
sub-skills is word meaning on pre and
post-tests (32, 6% and 24,7%). It means
that cooperative learning could not
improve the learners’ scores especially
for this sub-skills, because of the school
situated in rural area, lack of
vocabulary, and educational
background, including they did not take
any courses at all. Consequently, the
learners could not improve their
achievements especially for word
meaning sub-skills.
In addition, the researcher found
that the students were very enthusiastic
and interested (100%) in learning
process when he was applying that
technique. The writer considered that
students learning reading compre-
hension by using cooperative learning
were better than those who were taught
by using teacher-centered learning
technique.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
121
The purpose of this study is to
know whether the cooperative learning
technique can contribute to improve
reading comprehension on second grade
junior high school. Based on the
research findings the writer found that
there is no significant differences
between experimental and control group
in reading comprehension by using
cooperative learning on pre-test (means
score 45 EG and 50 for CG) before
treatment. After the researcher taught
them (EG) for six periods of teaching,
there is significant difference between
experimental group and control group
score. On post-test, the mean of
experimental group increased to be 59,
and for control group there is not
improvement of the students’ scores.
The mean is 49; it becomes lower. In
other words, it is concluded that
cooperative learning is effective in
teaching reading comprehension. It
means that cooperative learning could
improve students’ ability in reading
comprehension. The most interesting
thing in applying cooperative learning is
that the learners were very active, the
learners worked collaboratively, and
helped each other when the teaching
process was going on.
Cooperative learning is a possible
teaching method that may address the
various needs of the students with
mixed levels of English ability in a
heterogeneous class. Many scholars
assert that cooperative learning is the
best option for all students because it
emphasizes active interaction between
students of diverse abilities.
From the findings, It can be
concluded that cooperative learning
might not be beneficial for every
student. However, the majority of the
students would benefit both socially and
academically if cooperative learning is
implemented in the classroom. It can
enhance students’ achievement in
reading comprehension in a class.
Cooperative learning activities can help
maximize the performance of the
students in acquiring the English
language as well as interpersonal skills
needed for success in school and
society.
In addition, it concludes that STAD
has some characteristics in teaching
learning: (1) the teacher should present
teaching materials, (2) the learners work
collaboratively in group with one tutor
which discuss the project actively, and
122
(3) recognize the team by giving award
to group.
In terms of reading sub-skills, the
researcher found in the experimental
group that the students have good score
on specific information (64.1%) and
main idea (45.2%) compare to others. In
the other hand, word reference and word
meaning are very difficult for them (to
be lower score). In the control group the
students have good score on word
reference (46.2%) and specific
information (45.4%) compare to the
others. In the other hand, main idea and
word meaning are difficult for the
students (to be lower). It means that
there is significant difference of the two
groups. Furthermore, the group still
needs some more treatment and
guidance in reading performance.
The last conclusion is concerned
with the students’ responses about
teaching reading by using cooperative
learning. The results showed that over
90 % agreed feel comfortable with the
technique used in teaching materials.
Even though, they still have a little
weakness in certain sub-skills that have
to give any treatments.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Abidin , Zainal. (2011) cooperative-learning-type-student achievement-teams-division. Html, (online) retrieved on January 15, 2012 From http://www.greateducationnews.com/
Al Badawi, Ghina Hasan. (2005). The Effect Jigsaw II versus Whole Class Instruction on EFL Students’ Reading motivation and achievement, Unpublished Thesis, Lebanon: American University of Beirut
Al Badawi, Ghina Hasan. (2005). The Effect…
Barr, Rabecca & Sadow, Marilyn. (1985). Reading Diagnosis for Teachers, New York and London: Longman, p. 114.
Brown, Douglas. (2007). Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Third Edition, San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman. P. 53.
Cahyono, B. Y. (1996). The Teaching of EFL Reading in Indonesian Context: The State of the Art, Teaching English as A Foreign Language in Indonesia (Journal, Second year, 1), P. 49
Elvinda. (2011). Improving Students’ Reading Skills through Interactive Approach. (A classroom Action Reseach at Second Grade of SMA 13 Banda Aceh), Unpulish Thesis, Banda Aceh: Graduate Program in English Language Education Syiah Kuala University, p.8.
Gantly, Sarah. (2010). Benefits, Methods and Limitations of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom, (online), Retrieved on
123
October 20, 2011, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5573032/benefits_methods_and_limitations_of.html?cat=4
Grellet, Francois. (1986). Developing Reading Skills: A Practical Guide to Reading Comprehension Exercise, London: Cambridge University press.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth Edition, England: Pearson Education Limited, p. 153.
Hedge, Tricia. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the language Classroom: Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press
Jacob, Evelyn. (1999). Cooperative Learning in Context: An Educational Education in Everyday Classroom, USA: State University of New York Press, p. 13.
Johnson, D & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company
Johnson, D. Johnson, R & Holubec. (1990). Cooperative Learning and the Academically Talented Student, (online), Retrieved on January 21, 2012, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9106/rbdm9106.pdf ,
Johnson, D. Johnson, R & Holubec. (1991). Basic Elements of Cooperative learning, (online), Retrieved on January 21, 2012, from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/cooplrn.htm.
Johnson, et al. (2006). Five Key Elements of Cooperative Learning, (online), Retrieved on February 1, 2012, from http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/whatis.html.
Kagan, S. (1994). Inside-Outside Circle, (online), Retrieved on January 18, 2012, from http://wvde.state.wv.us/strategybank/Inside-OutsideCircle.html.
Kagan, S. (1999). Positive Interdependent. In Kagan (online Magazine), Retrieved on January 19, 2012, from http://www.cooperativelearning.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/ASK04.php
Kagan, S. (2011). Kalgan’s Thoughts on Cooperative Learning: (online) Retrieved on January 19, 2011, from http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/cooperative_learning/kagan/ .
Kessler, C. (1992). (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book,(online), Retrieved on October 16, 2011, from http://ebookkuliah.com/implementing-cooperative-learning-in-efl-teaching--process-and-effects
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative Task and the Language Curriculum, TESOL: Quarterly, p. 82.
Richard, A & Patria, A. (1988). Making It Happen: Interaction in the Second Language Classroom from Theory to Practice, New York and London: Longman, p. 193.
Sharan, S. (2010). Limitation of Cooperative learning: (online), Retrieved on January 19, 2012, from
124
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_learning .
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes and Ethnic Relations, Review of Educational Research
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic Approaches to Classroom Motivation Meet, The Elementary School, (Sage Journal), (online), Vol.15, No.1225-250, Retrieved on February 3, 2012¸ From http://rre.sagepub.com/content/15/1/225.extract .
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.) Boston: MA. Allyn and Bacon
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.) Boston: MA. Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. (1995a). Improving Intergroup Relations: Lessons LearnedFrom Cooperative Learning Programs, (Journal of Social Issues, winter 1999 v55 i4 p647), (online), Retrieved January 21, 2012, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~slm/AdjCI/Teaching/Cooperative.html.
Tsailing, Liang. (2002). Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Teaching: Process and Effects, Unpublished Thesis, Taiwan:
English National Taiwan Normal University, p. 16.
125
