e-Journal of Linguistics


Available online at https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/index

Vol. 16, No. 1, January 2022, pages: 107--115

Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586

https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2020.v14.i01.p011

The Impact of Using Reading for Meaning Strategy Toward Student’s Reading Comprehension

Umar1,

Universitas Teknologi Sumbawa, NTB, Indonesia. email:[email protected] Suparman2, STKIP Paracendekia NW Sumbawa, Sumbawa, Indonesia. email:[email protected]

Article info

Received Date: 26 Nopember 2021

Accepted Date: 01 Desember 2021

Published Date: 31 January 2022


Keywords:*

Reading, Meaning and Comprehension.


Abstract*

This study was aimed at finding out the student’s reading comprehension by using reading for meaning strategy of the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape in academic year 2020/2021.The method of this research was an experimental research. The participants of this research were the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape academic year 2020/2021. The sample of this researh are consisted 32 of students in the control class and 31 students in the experimental class. The data collection of this research was pre test and post test. Then, data was analyzed by using SPSS. The reseult of this research was student’s reading comprehension by using reading for meaning strategy of the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape in academic year 2020/2021 wa significant. Futhermore, the mean score of the reading comprehension ability of the students taught by using conventional strategies of the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape was 78.87. There was a significant difference between the reading comprehension ability of the students taught by using reading for meaning strategy and that of the students taught by using conventional strategies of the eleventh grade students of SMAN1 Lape.

According to Leaver et al. (2005: 10) argues that reading is termed a receptive skill. Receptive means is that the reader receives input from a writer. The reader rarely has the opportunity to question the author about what he or she really had in mind when writing a text. However, in reading, a reader can, at least, read the text multiple times in order to make sense of it. Moreover, Bennete (2001: 23) argues that reading is a symbolic process of seeing an item or symbol and translating it into an idea or image. Images are processed into concepts and whole dimensions of thought.

Reading comprehension is a process of getting meaning of strange lexical items (synonym and antonym), finding reference, indentifying main point, finding explicitly and implicitly stated information (Hartatik et al., 2012: 100). In other words, reading comprehension as the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language (Snow, 2002: xiii). Moreover, Nunan (2005: 71) assert that reading comprehension refers to reading for meaning, understanding, and entertainment. It involves higher-order thinking skills and is much more complex than merely decoding specific words. All in all, reading comprehension is defined as the reader’s ability to comprehend the writer’s ideas and interpret them effectively.

Futhemore, the ssuccessful reading depends upon having available a repertoire of decoding and comprehension skills and strategies. According to Young (2013: 2) states that reading is a complex cognitive and linguistic process. It involves decoding alphabetic symbols, drawing upon experiences and language, and using strategies effectively to make meaning. Reading comprehension consists of four elements: the reader, the text, and the activity for reading. These elements interrelate in reading comprehension, an interrelationship that occurs within a larger sociocultural context that shapes and is shaped by the reader and that interacts with each of the elements iteratively throughout the process of reading (Snow, 2002: xiii).

According to Franata, Simpen, & Dhanawaty (2020) that language learning can be made easier by applying several learning approaches.There were many strategy for teaching reading involved reading aloud, reading guide, partner reading, bottom-up, top-down, reading for meaning, and so forth. In this research the strategy for teaching skill was reading for meanig. According to Reilly et al. (2009: 10-11) explain that reading for meaning strategy was a strategy that uses simple statements to help students develop informed, evidence-based interpretations of the texts they read. Silver et all. add (2007: 83) say that in a reading for meaning lesson, students are provided with simple statements that help them preview and predict before reading, actively search for relevant evidence during reading, and reflect on and synthesize what they have learned after reading. The advantage of reading for meaning were effective for the students with reading difficulties, to comprehend reading texts easily so that they become better readers, and more interactive in their teaching and this strategy was compatible with student’s condition.

Based on the explanation above the purpose of this research to analyzed the impact of using reading for meaning strategy toward student’s reading comprehension the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape Sumbawa regency.

  • 2.    Research Methods

The method of this research was an experimental research. According to Ary et al (2010: 641) explain experimental research was research in which the investigator manipulates one or more independent variables (the treatment) and observes the effect on one or more dependent variables. In addition, the type of an experimental research used in thi research was a quasiexperiment design. The quasi-experiment was an experimental situation in which the researcher

assigns, but not randomly, participants to groups because the experimenter cannot artificially create groups for the experiment (Creswell ,2012: 309). Futhermore, the quasi-experiment designs which is the nonrandomized control group, which apply the pretest–posttest design.

  • 3.    Discussions

  • A.    Data Analysis

  • a.    The Pre-test of Experimental Group

The researcher took class XI IPS 1 as an experimental group. In the experimental group there were thirty one students as participants. The experimental group was given a pretest.

The pretest was administered on January 7, 2020 to the experimental group. It lasted about ninety minutes. Each student answered fifty questions of multiple choices. Each question had five options. The pretest was intended to know the students’ ability in reading comprehension. During the pretest, the students were not allowed to work together. After the students finished doing the pretest, the researcher graded the test. The following table illustrates the result of the pretest of experimental group.

Table 1

The Result of the Pretest of Experimental Group

Item

Experimental Group

Mean

69.03

Standard Deviation

4.902

Range

15

Sum

2140

Highest Score

75

Lowest Score

60

Based on the table above, the mean score of the pretest of experimental group was 69.03 with the standard deviation of 4.902. The Sum was 2140, the high score was 75, the low score was 60, and the range was 15. In frequency, the breakdown of the experimental group’s pretest score is as follows:

PRE TEST DIAGRAM

PRETEST

  • b.    The Post-test of Experimental Group

The posttest of experimental group was administered on April 7, 2020. The duration was 90 minutes. The test was administered by giving reading comprehension test to the students. The researcher gave 50 items in the form of multiple choices. Each question consisted of 5 options. The posttest was intended to measure the students’ ability in reading comprehension. After the students finished doing the posttest, the researcher graded the test. The following table shows the result of the posttest of experimental group.

Table 2

The Result of the Posttest of Experimental Group

Item

Experimental Group

Mean

78.87

Standard Deviation

5.117

Range

15

Sum

2445

Highest Score

85

Lowest Score

70

Based on the table above, the mean score of the posttest of experimental group was 78.87 with the standard deviation of 5.117. The Sum was 2445 the range was 15, the highest score was 85, and the lowest score was 70. In frequency, the breakdown of the experimental group’s posttest score is as follows:

POS-TEST

POSTEST

  • c.    The Pre-test of Control Group

The researcher took class XI IPS 2 as a control group. In the control group there were thirty two students as participants. The control group was given a pretest.

The pretest was administered on January 7, 2020 to the control group. It lasted about ninety minutes. Each student answered fifty questions of multiple choices. Each question had five options. The pretest was intended to know the students’ ability in reading comprehension. During the pretest, the students were not allowed to work together. After the students finished doing the pretest, the researcher graded the test. The following table illustrates the result of the pretest of control group.

Table 3

The Result of the Pretest of Control Group

Item                              Control Group

Mean                                                    66.56

Standard Deviation                                               4.990

Range

15

Sum

2130

Highest Score

75

Lowest Score

60

Based on the table above, the mean score of the pretest of control group was 66.56 with the standard deviation of 4.990. The Sum was 2130, the range was 15. The highest score was 75, and the lowest score was 60. In frequency, the breakdown of the control group’s pretest score is as follows:

d.The Post-test of Control Group

The posttest of control group was administered on April 7, 2020.The duration was 90 minutes. The test was administered by giving reading comprehension test to the students. The researcher gave 50 items in the form of multiple choices. Each question consisted of 5 options. The posttest was intended to measure the students’ ability in reading comprehension.

After the students finished doing the posttest, the researcher graded the test. The following table shows the result of students’ posttest of control group.

Table 4

The Result of the Posttest of Control Group

Item

Control Group

Mean

74.37

Standard Deviation

3.757

Range

10

Sum

2380

Highest Score

80

Lowest Score

70

The mean score of the posttest for control group was 74.37 with the standard deviation of 3.757, the Sum was 2380, and range was 10. The highest score was 80, and the lowest score was 70. In frequency, the breakdown of the control group’s posttest score is as follows:

POSTEST

  • B.    Inferential Analysis

  • 1.    Normality Testing

The researcher conducted normality testing to know whether the data were normally distributed or not. The computation showed in Kolmogorov-Smirnov that the data in pretest and posttest for both experimental and control group were normally distributed based on the calculation by using SPSS as follows:

Table 5

The Result of the Normality Testing

Variables

p value

Α

Statement

Pre Experimental

0.191

0.05

Normal

Post Experimental

0.200

0.05

Normal

Pre Control

0.248

0.05

Normal

Post Control

0.222

0.05

Normal

Based on the table, the data of pretest and posttest in experimental group is normal. It can be stated that because the value of p (probability) is higher than 0.05 (α). The value of p from the pre-test is 0.191(0.191 > 0.05) while the value of p from the post-test is 0.200 (0.200 > 0.05). Subsequently the data in the control group are also normally distributed. It is because the value of p is higher than 0.05. The value of p from the pre-test is 0.248 (0.248>0.05) whilst the value of p from the post-test is 0.222 (0.222 > 0.05).

  • 4.    Novelties

The novelty in this study the process of studying English in reading comprehension showed that the applied of the using reading for meaning strategy more effective, because the situation in the classroom more active and all the student have the opportunity to share all their ideas. Besides that, there are some new vocabularies that student can be used and gained during the process of class reading comprehension.

  • 5.    Conclusion

The result analysis showed that the mean score of the reading comprehension ability of the students after taught by using reading for meaning strategy was 78.87. It was significantly higher than that of reading comprehension ability of the students before taught by using reading for meaning strategy by score 69.03.

The mean score of the reading comprehension ability of the students after taught by using conventional strategies was 74.37. It was slightly higher than that of reading comprehension ability of the students before taught by using conventional strategies by score 66.56. Reading for meaning strategy was appropriate as a good strategy to be employed in teaching reading comprehension namely narrative, hortatory exposition, and spoof for the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Lape because it can increase the reading comprehension ability of the students. In addition, it can help the students to be motivated to read and fun. In addition, teaching reading comprehension by using reading for meaning strategy is more effective than teaching reading comprehension by using other strategies. It can be concluded that teaching reading comprehension by using reading for meaning strategy was more effective. It was proven that F_calculated was higher than F_table (13.105>1.697), the p value was higher than the significance level (0.000<0.05).

  • 6.    Acknowledgements

The writer would like to thank and appreciate those who have contributed to this current study, especially the (1) Prof. Dr. Drs. Ida Bagus Putra Yadyanya, M. A. ; (2) Prof. Dr. I Wayan Simpen, M.Hum; (3) Dr. Made Sri Satyawati; for their crititicism, comments and suggestions which has contributed to the maximum completion of this study. The English teachers of SMAN 1 Lape who always support writer during research in his English class.

References

Ary, Donald., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, Chris., and Razavieh, Asghar. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education 8th Edition. Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Bennete, Joseph. 2001. A Course in Light Speed Reading. Salem: Jbennette.

Creswell, John. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research 4th Edition. Boston: Pearson.

Franata, I. P., Simpen, I. W., & Dhanawaty, N. M. (2020). Improvement of English Speaking Ability In 7th Grade Students of Ganesha Junior High School Denpasar Through TANDUR Method. e-Linguistics of Journal, 14(2), 242-256.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2011. How to Teach English. Oxford: Pearson Longman.

Hartatik, Sugi., Asib, Adib., and Martono. 2012. The Effectiveness of Analytic Teams Technique to Teach Reading Comprehension Viewed from Students Intelligence.

Hornby, A S. 2010. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leaver, B.L., Ehrman, M, and Shektman, B. 2005. Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, David. 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. McGraw: Hill.

Reilly, Elizabeth R., Silver, Harvey F., and Perini, Matthew J. 2009. The Thoughtful Education Guide to Reading for Meaning. California: A SAGE Company.

Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, Richard. 2010. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Pearson.

Ristati, Suparwa, I. N., Sudipa, I. N., & Dhanawaty, N. M. (2019). Improving Dayaknese Speaking Learners’ English Pronunciation. e-Journal Linguistics, 13(2), 290-302.

Snow, Catherine. 2002. Reading for Understanding. Pittsburgh: Rand Education.

Young, Beverly L. 2013. Preparing Teachers to Teach Effectively. California: The California University Press.

Biography of Author



Dr. Umar, S.Pd., M.Pd is a lecturer at the Management of Innovation of Universitas Teknologi Sumbawa. His research interests are speaking strategies, English writing, language learning strategies, reading in a foreign language, education management, and semantics analysis. He can be reached at; 1) [email protected], 2) Sinta: 5986209 3) Scopus: 57212196658 4) Google Scholar: koG4KIoAAAAJ 5) ORCID: 0000-0003-2485-9138 6) Research Gate : Umar_Umar19

Suparman was born in the Lab. Terata, October 7, 1987. He is a lecturer in English at the Higher School of Teacher Training and Education of Paracendekia NW Sumbawa, Indonesia. He took his undergraduate education at IKIP Mataram which is now the University of Mandalika Mataram (UNDIKMA), majoring in English education. Then, he continued his master's degree at Ahmad Dahlan University, Yogyakarta, majoring in English Education. Currently, he is pursuing his doctoral education at Udayana University, Denpasar. He took a doctoral program in the study of linguistics.

Email: [email protected]