Linguistik Terapan 11 (2) (2014): 136-143
Jurnal Linguistik Pascasarjana Unimed
Available online
http://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2014/index.php/JLT-Unimed
The Effect of Teaching Reading Methods and Learning Motivationon
the stdent’s Achievement in Reading Comprehension
Sa’adah Bahri Rangkuti
Berlin Sibarani
D.P. Tampubolon
Diterima Juli 2014; Disetujui September 2014; Dipublikasikan November 2014
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to investigate whether: (1) Students’ achievement in reading
comprehension taught by using SPE is higher than students’ Achievement in Reading
comprehension taught by using SQ4R, (2) Reading comprehension achievement of high learning
motivation students is higher than reading achievement of low learning motivation students, and
(3) There is significant interaction between teaching reading methods and students learning
motivation on students reading comprehension achievement. An experimental research with
factorial design 2x2 was used in this research. The first group was treated by using SPE and the
second group was treated by using SQ4R. The learning motivation test was conducted for
classifying the students upon the high learning motivation and the low learning motivation. The
data were analyzed by applying Two-Way ANOVA. The result reveals that (1) students
achievement in reading comprehension taught by using SQ4R is higher than that of taught by
using SPE, (2) reading comprehension achievement of high learning motivation students is higher
that reading achievement of low learning motivation students (3) There is significant interaction
between teaching reading method and students learning motivation on students achievement in
reading comprehension. Thus, teaching methods and students’ learning motivation significantly
affect the students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
Keywords: Motivation; Reading Comprehension; and Teaching Reading Methods.
How to Cite: Rangkuti,B,S. (2014).
The Effect of Teaching Reading Methods and Learning Motivation on the Student’s Achievement
in Reading Comprehension. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Pascasarjana Unimed, 11 (2): 136-
143
*Corresponding author:
E-mail:rangkutisa’[email protected]
136
ISSN 0216-5139
In this case, it means that reading
methods can help students maximize their
comprehension and identify relevant and
non-relevant information. In reading, there
are many reading methods to facilitate
comprehension and to make their reading
more effective such 'as speed reading,
critical reading, proof reading, SQ4R
(Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Write and
Review), and SPE (Structure, proposition,
Evaluation) teaching reading methods
(Vandergrift, 1996:65). By using those
teaching reading methods can help students
build up independence and control their
reading
The explanation above implies that
reading ability requires the students to be
able to read the text effectively and
efficiently. Not only are they reading rapidly
but also comprehensively. Therefore, the
students should master the way of good
reading to read effectively and efficiently, as
such that they do not need to spend much
time to read they can understand their text
completely.
The fact shows that this phenomenon
does not happen in Indonesian Students. in
this case, they still have difficulties in
comprehending
reading.
Sukyadi.et.al
(2003: 2) stated that research on reading
skill in Indonesian students’, particularly in
reading comprehension are still far from
satisfactory. Sixty nine percent (69%) of 16year-old Indonesian students have the worst
reading performance internationally; and
around 37.6% of 16-year-old students only
afford to read the texts without
understanding the meaning of it. Only
24.8% out of them are able to correlate the
texts with their prior knowledge. Therefore,
from explanation above we can conclude
that the students’ achievement in reading
comprehension still low.
Suci (2009: 4) said that the problems
of reading comprehension appear because
some English teachers still use traditional or
conventional method to teach reading.
Conventional method usually makes
students bored because the method is
INTRODUCTION
Reading is so prevalent in language
use and the primary means of language
learning for students. Because of' the
increasing of direct communication in
foreign language, the development of
reading comprehension as a skill and a
channel for language input has become the
object of attention in education that needs to
be researched.
Maria (1990: 98) stated that reading
skill is necessary and it supports all the
subjects’ learning since knowledge rapidly
accumulates. The ability to read is primarily
to be improved to enable students to get
information. Actually reading is not an easy
process because it involves the work, eye
and brain almost to get information or
message from the text. The students should
be able to comprehend the text quickly and
comprehensively.
Funchs (2007) said that students who
ejoy reading do it more often and they tend
to become skilled at it. Poor readers, by
contrast, often display low motivation to
read. One possible explanation of this is that
reading skill and reading motivation
influence each other. 15 studies were
reviewed addressing the relationship
between students’ reading and competency
belief or goal orientations. Results indicate
that reading skills and motivation correlate,
and support the possibility of a bidirectional
relationship between the two.
Theoretically, Rebecca (1990:8)
believes that certain methods must be
applied for effective reading comprehension
to occur. She stated that teaming methods
are specific actions taken by the learner to
make teaming easier, faster and more
enjoyable. More self-directed, more
effective and more transferable to new
situation. Awareness and deployment of
effective reading methods will help students
capitalize on language input they are
receiving. Consequently, teaming methods
provide teachers with valuable clues about
how to remedy the teaming situation.
137
monotonous and the students are not active
so it makes the learners get bored.
The same problem also happened to
the students of SMK N 1 Panyabungan. It is
revealed by their reading comprehension
score that during the first and second
semester in 2011/2012 academic year. That
can be seen in the table below.
SQ4R method is significant in reading
comprehension because SQ4R is an
excellent method to use with textbook that
provide a lot of' information and require the
readers to learn material in depth. It is also
teaming methods that enable to students to
use their own background knowledge to
understand and retain new content material.
The method supposes to find out the topic
sentence and the Important things from a
text in order to be able to remember the
content of' the text in a long time
SPE method is also significant for
students because this method involves the
way of reader to analyze the matter and the
problem from the material of reading text.
The readers do not only extract the topic
from the text, but also can do material
Judgment or evaluation to the reading text.
So, the readers will be involved in deeper
function in reading comprehension activity
So far, there has been no other
research do this kind of research and
realizing the fact happened in the field that
students who learnt English in Indonesia
face
some
difficulties
in
reading
comprehension, there were some previous
researchers have already done the discussion
in reading comprehension. However, this
study is primarily concerned with SQ4R
(Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Relate and
Review), and SPE (Structure, Proposition,
Evaluation) as the reading methods and
motivation level on students achievement in
reading comprehension.
Based on the above problems, the
objectives of the study are: to find out which
of the two methods significantly affect the
students’
achievement
in
reading
comprehension, to find out whether the
students’ learning motivation affect their
achievement in reading comprehension, and
to find out whether there is an interaction
between SQ4R and SPE Teaching reading
methods and students’ learning motivation
to students’ achievement in reading
comprehension.
Table. 1.
The Reading Comprehension Score
of Eleven Grade Students of SMKN 1
Panyabungan in 2011/2012 Academic Year
Score of Reading Comprehension Test
Semes
ter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
First
_ _ 3 6 5 8 6 5 1
_
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Secon
d
_
_
2
0
5
0
4
5
7
5
7
5
6
0
1
5
_
From the table above we can see that
from 340 students only 210 students got
score 70 to 90 in the first semester and only
150 students got score 70 to 90 in the
second semester.
According to Guthrie (2000: 408)
Motivation is an important element in
reading engagement; Motivational processes
are the foundation for coordinating
cognitive goals and strategies in reading.
For example, if a person is intrinsically
motivated to read and believes she is a
capable reader, the person will persist in
reading difficult texts and exert effort to
resolve conflicts and integrate text with
prior knowledge. A learner with high
motivation will seek books known to
provide satisfaction.
In this research, SQ4R (Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, Write and Review)
and
SPE
(Structure,
Proposition,
Evaluation) methods are chosen as reading
methods, which will be trained in order to
help students become successful reader.
Both of methods are considered as the
methods that provide detail steps and more
comprehensive reading method.
138
The research was conducted in grade
XI of SMKN-1 Panyabungan of the students
2012/2013 school years. There are ten
parallel classes and the total number of the
students is 340 students. The choice of the
grade XI is based on assumption that they
have the same characteristics; they had been
already doing the reading comprehension, at
least 4 years since grade VII.
The sample of the study was drawn by
using multistage cluster random sampling
with lottery technique. Two classes, namely
XI Akutansi 1 and XI Adm. Perkantoran 1
were selected as the sample. The XI
Akutansi 1 was treated by using SPE method
and the XI Adm. Perkantoran 1 was treated
by using SQ4R.
The instruments in this study were the
reading comprehension test and motivation
questionnaire. The reading comprehension
test is a teacher-made test and it is used to
measure the students’ achievement in
reading comprehension. The test of the
students reading comprehension is in form
of objective test with five optional based on
teaching materials contained in educational
curriculum
2006.
The
motivation’s
questionnaire is created to find the students’
motivation. The type of the questionnaire in
this research is Likert-Scale.
In testing the hypothesis, two ways
ANOVA 2X2 (Analysis of Variance)
technique with Ftest at the level of
significance 5% or 0.05 is used. Before two
ways ANOVA is done, the normality of the
test by using Lilifors and homogeneity test
uses Fisher and Barlett test. Then, to
analysis the interaction between both
independent variables toward dependent
variable Scheffe-test is used as the formula.
In line to the introduction, the
hypothesis of this study can be stated as:
1. The students’ achievement in reading
taught by using Survey, Question,
Read, Recite, write, Review (SQ4R) is
higher than that of the students taught
by using Structure, Proposition,
Evaluation (SPE).
2. The students’ achievement with high
learning motivation is higher than that
Research Method
This study was carried out by applying
a
quantitative
approach
with
an
experimental design with two times two
factorial designs (Ary, 1979: 255). There are
three kinds of variables in this research, they
are: independent variables: SQ4R and SPE
teaching reading methods, moderator
variable motivation (high study motivation
and low study motivation) and dependent
variable: students’ reading comprehension.
There are two groups of students in
this research namely; group 1 that is taught
by using SQ4R and group 2 that is taught by
using SPE. The subjects were randomly
assigned into 2 groups labeled A1 and A2.
The moderator variable labeled B had 2
factors (B1 representing the high level of
motivation, and B2 representing the low
level of motivation). The research design
can be seen on the table:
Table 2 Factorial Research Design
Reading methods
(A)
SQ4R
(A1)
Motivation of study(B)
High motivation level
AIBI
(B1)
Low motivation level (B2)
A1B2
SPE
(A2)
A2B1
A2B2
Note:
A
B
A1
A2
A1B1
= Teaching reading method
= Motivation of study
= SQ4R teaching reading method
= SPE teaching reading method
= The students’ reading
comprehension with high
motivation taught by using SQ4R
A2B1 = The students’ reading
comprehension
with
high
motivation taught by using SPE
A1B2
=
The
students’
reading
comprehension
with
low
motivation taught by using SQ4R
A2B2
=
The
students’
reading
comprehension
with
low
motivation taught by using SPE
139
3.
0.
of the students with low learning
motivation.
There is any interaction between
Survey, Question, Read, Recite, write,
Review
(SQ4R)
and
Structure,
Samples
No
A1
A2
B1
B2
A1B1
A1B2
A2B1
A2B2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ltable
Lobserved
Description
0.1519
0.1519
0.128
0.19
0.169
0.3
0.186
0.132
0.04
0.0874
0.0222
0.0784
0.0331
0.0563
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
0.234
0.0468
Normal
N Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Error
of Mean
Median
Mode
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
A1
B1
27
23
56.
88
2.1
58
56.
00
42.
00
11.
21
125
.7
38.
00
42.
00
80.
00
153
A1
B2
7
43
71.
42
2.9
50
73.
00
60.
00
7.8
07
60.
95
20.
00
60.
00
80.
00
500
A2
B1
21
29
66.
95
1.8
28
66.
00
66.
00
8.3
81
70.
24
39.
00
46.
00
85.
00
140
.0
6.
.0
Homogeneity test of variance was
calculated by using F-test for teaching
methods and learning motivation and Barlett
–test is for interaction group.
The result of calculation on group
teaching methods was shown in table 5
Table 3 Research Data Description
B2
20
30
64.
70
1.6
14
66.
00
66.
00
7.2
19
52.
11
24.
00
56.
00
80.
00
133
6.
Table 4 show That Lobserved values from
each group are lower than Ltable. It can be
concluded that scores of the students’
achievement in reading comprehension for
each group are normally distributed. After
the normality test had been calculated, the
further stage in the requirements of analysis
of variance is homogeneity test.
Based on the data of reading
comprehension and motivation research
that have done to the students of SMKN 1
Panyabungan; thus the analysis will be done
to the each groups that included some
aspects such as mean, media, mode,
standard deviations, variance, range, the
maximum and minimum scores and sum.
The values can be seen in the table below:
B1
48
2
67.
29
1.6
13
61.
00
42.
00
11.
17
124
.9
43.
00
42.
00
85.
00
294
4.
Table 4 The Summary of the Result of Normality
Test
Findings And Discussions
A2
34
16
59.
88
2.0
70
60.
00
42.
00
12.
07
145
.8
38.
00
42.
00
80.
00
203
2.
The normality test applied in this
study was Liliefors teston α = 0.05
significance level. In Liliefors,data are
called to have normal distribution if
Lobserved<Ltable. Based on the summary of the
result of normality test described in table 4
and the criteria of normality test, it is
concluded that all data in this study had
normal distribution.
Proposition, Evaluation (SPE) and
learning motivation
to
students
achievement in reading comprehension
A1
34
16
65.
88
1.2
84
66.
00
66.
00
7.4
90
56.
10
39.
00
46.
00
85.
00
224
6.
Table 5 Homogeneity test of teaching methods
A2
B2
13
37
64.
15
1.5
68
65.
00
56.
00
5.6
54
31.
97
16.
00
56.
00
72.
00
834
Samples
S12
Fobserved
Ftable
Description
A1
145.8
56.1
0.384
1.787
Homogenous
A2
Table 5 show that F observed =
0.384 are lower than F table = 1.787. It can
be concluded that the population of each
teaching methods group is homogenous.
The result of calculation on group
learning motivation was shown in table 6
Table 6 Homogeneity test of learning motivation
Sample
S12
Fobserved
Ftable
Description
s
140
B1
B2
124.
9
52.1
1
0.417
1.787
Therefore, it can be concluded that the
research hypothesis which states that the
students’
achievement
in
reading
comprehension taught by using Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, write, Review
(SQ4R) is higher than that of the students
taught by Structure, Proposition, Evaluation
(SPE) is really true in this research.
The result of the data analysis
indicates that the average score of
achievement in reading comprehension of
high learning motivation students is 61,920
and the average score of achievement in
reading comprehension of low learning
motivation students is 67,791. The data
Presented in Table 4.16 indicates that
Fobserved is 4,87 and Ftable is 3,98. Thus null
hypotheses (Ho) is rejected at the level
significance α = 0.05. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the research hypothesis
which states that the students’ achievement
with high learning motivation is higher than
that of the students with low learning
motivation is really true in this research.
The
summary
of
ANOVA
calculation indicates that Fobserved is 9,73 and
Ftable is 3,98. Thus null hypotheses (Ho) is
rejected at the level significance α = 0.05.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the
research hypothesis which states that There
is interaction between Survey, Question,
Read, Recite, write, Review (SQ4R)and
Structure, Proposition, Evaluation (SPE)
and learning motivation to students
achievement in reading comprehension is
really true in this research.
Since there is an interaction between
Homogenou
s
Table 6 show that F observed =
0.417 are lower than F table = 1.787. It can
be concluded that the population of each
learning motivation group is homogenous.
Homogeneity
test
for
group
interaction do with Bartlett test. The test
criteria X2observed< X2tabelindicated population
is homogenous.
The result of variance calculation on
group of interaction is summarized in table
7
Table 7 The Result of Homogeneity test
log S2
B
X 2observed
X2table
Description
1,928
123.406
7.163
7,815
Homogenous
Based on table 7 it can be see that
X2observed = 7.163 is lower than X2table =
7,815. It can be concluded that the data on
scores of students achievement in reading
comprehension have homogenous variance.
Thus, all samples have normally distributed
data
and
homogenous
population.
Therefore, the requirements of the test had
been fulfilled and continued to hypotheses
test that used two-way ANOVA.
The research hypotheses were tested
by using two-way ANOVA. The summary
the calculation that tested the research
hypotheses is revealed in Table 8
Table 8 Summary on the Calculation Result
of Two-Way ANOVA
The result of the data analysis
indicates that the mean score of the
student’s
achievement
in
reading
comprehension taught by using Structure,
Proposition, Evaluation (SPE) is 64,159 and
the mean score of the student’s achievement
in reading comprehension taught by Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, write, Review
(SQ4R) is 65,553.The data Presented in
Table 4.16 indicates that Fobserved is 7,22 and
Ftable is 3,98. Thus null hypotheses (Ho) is
rejected at the level significance α = 0.05.
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squar
e
1
612
612
1
412.94
Interaction
1
824.96
Error
64
5425.16
67
7275.06
Source of
Variance
Teaching
Methods
Learning
Motivation
Total
df
412.9
4
824.9
6
84.76
Ftabel(1.
Fobser
67)
ved
(α =
0.05)
7.22
3,98
4.87
3,98
9.73
3,98
teaching methods and learning motivation
that
significantly
affects
students
achievement in reading comprehension, the
141
multiple comparison calculated by using
Scheffe test so the interaction can be
examined based on pairs of average scores
on students achievement in reading
comprehension. The calculation of Scheffe
test can be seen in appendix L. The
summary of the result of the Scheffe test
calculation is tabulated in table 9
For µ11 compared withµ21, the
calculation result of the average score on
group of students who have high motivation
taught by using Survey, Question, Read,
Recite, write, Review (SQ4R) (56.889) is
lower than the average score on group of
students who have high motivation taught
by using Structure, Proposition, Evaluation
(SPE) (66.952). Analysis result indicates
Table 9 The Summary of Calculation Result by
that Fobserved = 9.57> Ftable = 3.99 which
Using Scheffe Test
means the difference is significant.
F
For µ11 compared with µ22, the
table
The Mean Scores
Fobserved
calculation result of the average score on
Compared
α = 0.05
group of students who have high motivation
µ11 withµ12
8.05
3.99
taught by using Survey, Question, Read,
Recite, write, Review (SQ4R) (56.889) is
µ11 with µ21
9.57
3.99
lower than the average score on group of
µ11 with µ22
4.38
3.99
students who have low motivation taught
µ21 with µ12
1.51
3.99
by using Structure, Proposition, Evaluation
(SPE) (64.154). Analysis result indicates
µ21 with µ22
1.12
3.99
that Fobserved = 4.38> Ftable = 3.99 which
µ12 with µ22
4.62
3.99
means the difference is significant.
For µ21compared with µ12, the
calculation result of the average score on
group of students who have high motivation
Where:
taught by using Structure, Proposition,
µ11 :SQ4Rwith high motivation
Evaluation (SPE) (66.952) is lower than the
µ12 :SQ4R with low motivation
average score on group of students who
µ21 :SPE with high motivation
have low motivation
taught by using
µ22 :SPE with low motivation
Survey, Question, Read, Recite, write,
Review (SQ4R) (71.429). Analysis result
In general, the result of Scheffe test
indicates that Fobserved = 1.51 < Ftable = 3.99
calculation indicates the six combination of
which means the difference is not really
the comparison of the average students’
significant.
achievement in reading comprehension
For µ21compared with µ22, the
(based on ANOVA factorial design 2x2).
calculation
result of the average score on
All of the six combinations are not
group
of
students
who have high motivation
significantly different.
taught by using Structure, Proposition,
For µ11 compared with µ12, the
Evaluation (SPE) (66.952) is higher than the
calculation result of the average score on
average score on group of students who
group of students who have high motivation
have low motivation taught by using
taught by using Survey, Question, Read,
Structure,
Proposition,
Evaluation
Recite, write, Review (SQ4R) (56.889) is
(SPE)(64.154).
Analysis
result
indicates
that
lower than the average score on group of
Fobserved = 1.12 < Ftable = 3.99 which means
students who have low motivation taught
the difference is not really significant.
by using Survey, Question, Read, Recite,
For µ12 compared with µ22, the
write, Review (SQ4R) (71.429). Analysis
calculation result of the average score on
result indicates that Fobserved = 8.05> Ftable =
group of students who have low motivation
3.99 which means the difference is
taught by using Survey, Question, Read,
significant.
Recite, write, Review (SQ4R)(71.429) is
142
higher than the average score on group of
students who have low motivation taught
by using Structure, Proposition, Evaluation
(SPE)(64.154). Analysis result indicates that
Fobserved = 4.62 > Ftable = 3.99 which means
the difference is significant.
Figure 4.9 shows the interaction
between teaching methods (SPE and SQ4R)
and students’ learning motivation (high and
low) to the students’ achievement in reading
comprehension.
achievement in reading comprehension.
The students’ achievement in reading
comprehension of the students who have
high motivation better than that of the
students who have low motivation
3. There is an interaction between Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, write, Review
(SQ4R)
method
and
Structure,
Proposition, Evaluation (SPE) method
and students’ motivation to the students’
achievement in reading comprehension.
The interaction is the students who have
high motivation better to be taught by
using SQ4R and the students who have
low motivation better to be taught by
using SPE in their achievement in
reading comprehension.
75
70
Means
65
REFERENCES
60
Ary, Donald. 1979. Introduction to Research
education. New York: Holt, Renchart and
Winston.
Funchs, Douglas. 2007. Motivation in
Education. New York : Council For
Exeptional
Children.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/
exceptional children/157586953.html
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield A. 2000.
Engagement and Motivation in Reading.
New York: Erlbaum.
Maria. 1990. Reading Comprehension:
Instruction Issues and Strategies. New
York Press.
Rebecca D, Alcantara and Josefina. 1990.
Teaching strategies I: for the
Teaching of the Communication Arts.
Philippine: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
Sukyadi , Didik and Hasanah, Neneng
Uswatun. 2003. Scaffolding Students
Reading Comprehension. Bandung.
Suci, Septiana. 2009. The Effectiveness of
Teaching Reading Jigsaw Technique,
Surakarta.
55
50
SQ4R
SPE
Teaching Methods
Figure 4.9 Interactions between Teaching
Methods and Learning Motivation
Conclusions
Based on the data analysis, hypothesis
testing it can be concluded that:
1. Survey, Question, Read, Recite, write,
Review (SQ4R) method and Structure,
Proposition, Evaluation (SPE) method
significantly
affect
students’
achievement in reading comprehension.
The students’ achievement in reading
comprehension taught by using Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, write, Review
(SQ4R) method better than that of the
students taught by using Structure,
Proposition, Evaluation (SPE) method.
2.
Students’
learning
motivation
significantly
affects
students’
143
144