44

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of report of the researcher’s findings and analysis of

the data that had been collected during the procedure of the research. As stated in

the previous chapter, the students of SMP Negeri 2 Singaraja especially class 7 D

faced the problems in reading English texts. The problems of reading that had

been investigated namely, finding general information, finding specific

information, textual reference, and word meaning.

Before continuing to explain the finding and analysis, it will be informed

that this study was a classroom action research. This study was conducted by

applying Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) strategy in order to improve the

students’ reading comprehension. It was conducted in two cycles in which each

cycle consisted of four sessions. Three sessions were used for action and one

session was for the test. The reason for conducting the research in two cycles was

caused by the score had been reached by the students.

There were two findings that had been gathered in this study. They were

quantitative and qualitative findings. The quantitative findings were dealing with

students’ reading comprehension that was achieved during pre-test and post-test in

each cycle. The results of the test were compared in order to know the

improvement of the students’ reading comprehension. The qualitative data was

 45

taken from both analysis of the researcher’s diary in every session on the two

cycles and also from the questionnaires that were administered for the students.

4.1 Reading Problems and Sources

In this stage, students were given a pre-test. This test was conducted to the

students before the treatment was given in order to investigate the students’

reading comprehension as well as to find out the students’ problems. Besides, a

pre-observation was held to see students’ activities in the classroom during the

reading lesson before conducting the treatment. The result of both pre-observation

and pre-test is presented as follows:

4.2 The Findings

The findings would concern three main stages of the study. They are the

findings of pre-observation and pre-test, cycle 1 and cycle 2.

4.2.1 The Findings on the Pre-Observation and Pre-Test.

4.2.1.1 The Findings on the Pre-Observation

The preliminary observation was conducted on Monday, 23rd January

2012. It was done in order to obtain an overview about teaching reading process.

Observation on the lesson plan used by the teacher and her way in teaching

showed that Direct Method was used by the teacher and GTM (Grammar
 46

Translation Method) was added occasionally. The media was used by the teacher

was a handbook and students’ worksheet book. The learning material was taken

from these books. She did not use another media like picture when teaching. She

asked the students to open the book and gave example how to read and some

explanation about the text. Then, the teacher asked the students to comprehend the

reading text by answering the question. If there were some difficulties which were

faced by the students, teacher would translate it. She applied an individual written

test as an assessment. The teacher also gave some confirmation at the last before

she collected students’ works. Observation on the teaching and learning process

showed that the students seemed bored and just few of the students raised their

hand to answer teacher’s questions.

Referring to the researcher observation, the teacher had been already

started the lesson with giving enough brainstorming activities. Then, the teacher

directly asked the students to read the text and answered the question without

giving some kinds of warming up activity. In term of vocabulary mastery, the

students said that it was difficult to understand the text because they did not want

to open their dictionary to find out the meaning of those words. This situation

made the students get bored and unmotivated to continue their reading. The

students tended to speak only when they were asked to answer the questions.

4.2.1.2 The Findings on pre-test

Before conducting the application of Collaborative Strategic Reading

(CSR), pre-test was administered to find out the preliminary data about the
 47

students reading level and their problems. Besides, this pre-test was used to

support the preliminary findings that students of 7 D got the lowest mean score at

last semester academic test in December 2011. Pre-test was conducted on

Thursday, 26th January 2012. The test was in the form of multiple-choice tests in

which students were given reading text and asked to choose the correct option.

The test consisted of 40 items (8 items for finding general information, 22 items

for finding specific information, 5 items for finding the textual references and 5

items for finding the word meaning). The reading material used was taken from

10 texts. The more details of pre-test could be seen in appendix 4. The result of

pre-test was used as initial reflection of the study and as a base to give treatment

to solve the students’ problems. Before conducting pre-test, the researcher spent 5

minutes to prepare the students. In conducting the test, it is allocated 60 minutes

to do the test. Researcher explained how the students should do the test and asked

them to do it individually. The students were asked to do the test, after the test had

been distributed. The students looked panic and did not seem to be interested to

answer the test. They complained and said that they were not ready for it, but after

the researcher explained that the test was used to know their initial reading

comprehension, they stopped complaining and answered the test.

The students tried to answer the test. They did the test seriously, but some

of them misbehaved and made some troubles to annoy their friends. Those who

were sitting at the back tried to cheat. Some students also tried to find out the

meaning of difficult words in the dictionary. Then, the students were reminded to

do the test without checking their dictionary or cheating from their friends. They
 48

seemed to face difficulty to answer the items. Most of them looked to give up but

they still tried to find the answer from the text.

When the time was over, students are asked to submit their work. The

students submitted their work while complaining that it was hard to do the test.

After that, questionnaire was administer to the students and held small discussion

in order to know their problems in reading.

4.2.1.3 The Result of Pre-Test

Referring to the findings of pre-test, the researcher found that the majority

of the students still encountered problems in reading and had low comprehension

in reading. The students mean score was 61.68 and could be categorized as

sufficient level, but their mean score could not pass the passing score required by

the school. Although, there were 6 students got more or equal than 75. The result

of pre-test is presented in following table:

Table 4.1 The Result of pre-test

1 Mean Score 61.68

2 Highest Score 80
3 Lowest Score 48
4 Number of students with score < 75 32 students
5 Number of students with score >= 75 6 students

No The Four Reading Sub-Skills Mean Score

1 Finding out the general information 60.15
2 Finding out the specific information 66.58
 49

3 Finding out the textual references 58.59

4 Finding out the word meaning 61.40
Average Score 61.68

From the table above, the majority of the students got lower than 75, only

6 students got equal and more than 75, 32 students stood under 75 and from 32 of

them 12 students got score under 55 (insufficient and poor level). It means that

just 15.79% of the students could reach the passing score required by the school.

The rest of them still got under the standard score. Besides, their mean score was

61.68. The highest score was 80 and the lowest score was 48. The entire result of

pre-test could be seen in appendix 5.

From the table above, it was obvious that the students had problems in

reading English texts, especially in finding general information, the specific

information, the textual references and the word meaning. This phenomenon was

linked to the fact that the score achieved by the students dealing with the finding

out the main idea was 60.15, the specific information was 66.58, the textual

reference was 58.59 and the word meaning was 61.40. Most of the students

belonged to sufficient category in which they were required to be good category.

Looking at the result of pre-test, it was considered important to give some

kinds of strategy in order to help the students’ comprehension in the four reading

sub-skills. The possible solution towards the students’ problems in reading

English text could be sort of teaching strategy called “Collaborative Strategic

Reading (CSR)”. This strategy was chosen because this strategy gives many

chances to the students to work collaboratively for comprehending the text.

 50

4.2.1.4 The Result of the Questionnaire on pre-test

The students were given questionnaire after they finished doing pre-test.

The questionnaire was designed on the purpose of knowing the students’

problems in reading English texts. The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions

and conducted after pre-test. It consisted of multiple choices. Item number 1 asked

about the students’ feeling in reading English texts. Item 2 asked about how often

their teacher gave English text. Item 3 asked about thinking the topic before

reading the text. Item 4 asked about question-answer activity in classroom before

reading activity. Item 5 asked about students’ problem in comprehending English

text. Item 6 asked about dictionary used for reading activity. Item 7 until 10 asked

about the students’ problems to identify the four sub-skills in reading. The

questionnaire of reading in pre-test could be seen in appendix 7A.

The result of the questionnaire indicated that most of the students faced the

problems in comprehending the texts. The details of the result of the questionnaire

on pre-test could be seen in appendix 7B. This table showed the result of the

questionnaire after pre-test.

Table. 4.2 The Result of Questionnaire after Pre-Test

No Students’ Answer
 51

1 0 0.00% 3 7.89% 21 55.26 14 36.84 0 0.00

% % %
2 5 13.16 18 47.37 15 39.47 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %
3 0 0.00% 27 71.05 11 28.95 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
4 12 31.58 26 68.42 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
5 31 81.58 7 18.42 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
6 0 0.00% 5 13.16 30 78.95 3 7.89% 0 0.00
% % %
7 0 0.00% 29 76.32 9 23.68 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
8 0 0.00% 29 76.32 9 23.68 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
9 3 7.89% 27 71.05 8 21.05 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
10 33 86.84 5 13.16 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %

From the table, it could be explained that:

Item 1 asked about the students’ feeling in reading English texts, whether

they liked reading or not. It showed that 3 (7.89%) of the students stated that they

liked reading English text. Meanwhile, 21 (55.26%) of the students showed that

they liked enough reading in English class. Moreover, 14 (36.84%) of the students

said that they did not like reading. From this percentage, it could be seen that most

of the students were in position of “rather liked” reading in having English class.

Item 2 asked about how often their teacher gave English text while she

teaching the students. It told that 5 (13.16%) of the students stated that the teacher

always gave the students reading text from other sources. Meanwhile, 18
 52

(47.37%) of the students showed that their teacher often gave English texts for

reading class. Moreover, 15 (39.47%) of the students said that sometime their

teacher gave reading text for reading class. From this percentage, it could be said

that teacher already prepared the material (reading texts) for teaching reading.

Item 3 asked about whether the students thought the topic or not before

reading the text. It responded that 27 (71.05%) of students usually thought about

the topic they read. However, 11 (28.95%) of the students stated that they

sometime thought the topic they would be read. From this percentage, most of the

students already thought about the topic before reading the text.

Item 4 asked about question-answer activity in classroom before reading.

It was about teacher-students activity in the classroom whether the teacher gave

questions or not to build students’ knowledge in reading activity. It indicated that

teacher had already fulfilled her duty to do asking-answer activity before reading.

It can be seen from the percentage that 12 (31.58 %) of the students stated that

teacher usually gave question-answer activity before reading and 26 (68.42%) of

the students said the teacher often gave question-answer activity in teaching

English.

Item 5 asked about students’ problem in comprehending English text. It

showed that 31 (81.58%) of the students usually got some difficulties in

comprehending English text. Moreover, 7 (18.42%) of students often got some

difficulties. Most of the students gave comment that in comprehending a text, they

could not find out the meaning of the words. From this percentage, it could be

seen that most of the students found some difficulties in reading activity.
 53

Item 6 asked about dictionary used for reading. It would show how often

the students used dictionary for reading activity. This item indicated that, 5

(13.16%) of the students often used dictionary to help them in finding the

meaning or translate the words. Meanwhile, 30 (78.95%) of the students stated

that sometime they used dictionary to translate the words. Then, 3 (7.89%) of the

students seldom used dictionary as tool to help them finding or translating the

word. From this percentage, it could be seen that dictionary used was not very

often.

Item 7 until 10 asked about the students’ problems to identify the four sub-

skills in reading. Item 7 tapped information about the students’ opinion whether

they got difficulty or not in finding the general information. It indicated that 29

(76.32%) of students very often found difficulty in finding general information.

Meanwhile, 9 (23.68%) of the students said that sometime they got difficulty in

finding general information. By reading this percentage, most of the students still

found difficulty in finding the general information.

Item 8 related with the students’ opinion whether or not they got difficulty

to identify the specific information. For about 29 (76.32%) of students were very

often found difficulty in identifying the specific information. Meanwhile, 9

(23.68%) of the students said that sometime they got difficulty in identifying the

specific information. From this percentage, it could be said that most of the

students still found difficulty in identifying the specific information.

Item 9 concerned with the students’ opinion whether or not they got

difficulty to find out the textual reference in reading English texts. It responded
 54

that 3 (7.89%) of the students showed that they very often got difficulty to

identify the textual reference. Furthermore, 27 (71.05%) of the students indicated

that they often got difficulty to find out the textual reference. For about, 8

(21.05%) of the students said that they rarely got difficulty to find out the textual

reference. From this percentage, it could be seen that the most of the students

were in the position of “often” got difficulty in finding out the textual reference.

Item 10 dealt with the students’ opinion whether or not they got difficulty

in finding out the word meaning in reading texts. It showed that 33 (86.84%) of

the students answered that they very often got difficulty to identify the word

meaning in reading text. Meanwhile, 5 (13.16%) of the students responded that

they often got difficulty to identify the word meaning in reading. There was no

student answered that they never got difficulty to find out the word meaning.

From this percentage, it could be seen that most of the students were in position of

“very often” got difficulty to identify the word meaning.

From the result of the questionnaire on the pre test showed that the

students gave negative respond toward learning reading. From these statements,

the researcher decided to give treatment for the students by means of using

“Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR)” strategy in teaching reading.

4.2.1.5 Analysis and Reflection

Referring to the result of pre-test, it could be said that students still had

low comprehension in reading. The result of pre-test showed that the students had
 55

problems in reading English texts especially in finding out the specific

information, the textual reference and the word meaning.

Considering the result of the researcher’s diary, the students failed to get

high score in pre-test because they did not try to comprehend what the text was

about. They just read the sentences which were related to the questions. They did

not realize that other sentences also gave other information for it. The researcher

observed that only the students who sat in front did their task seriously while the

others were very busy tried to cheat. The students seemed very afraid and were

very noisy when they were told that they would have a test. Then, from the

interview with the students, most of them reported that they did not like reading

because it was difficult to understand the whole text without consulting to the

dictionary.

It was considered important to find an effective way to help the students’

improving their reading comprehension. It was decided to give treatment for the

students by means of using “Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR)” strategy in

teaching reading. It was hoped that the application of CSR could make reading

activity become enjoyable and overcome their reading problems by developing

each aspect of reading to improve the students’ reading comprehension.

4.2.2 The Finding on Cycle 1

All the things needed were planned and prepared before giving treatment

in cycle 1 such as lesson plan, the researcher’s diary, teaching material and media,

post-test 1 and the questionnaire. Cycle 1 of this research carried out in four
 56

sessions. Three sessions were used for giving the treatment and one session was

used for giving post-test 1. The questionnaire was administered after giving post-

test 1. Data were presented in qualitative and quantitative data. They were gained

from the result of the questionnaire and post-test 1. This cycle was also followed

with the four basic steps in action based research such as: planning, action,

observation and reflection.

4.2.2.1 Planning

Planning referred to the researcher’s action to prepare everything that was

needed to conduct the treatment such as: the teaching material, the lesson plans,

the researcher’s diary, the questionnaire and post-test 1. The components of

planning as mention above would be clarified as follows:

1. Selecting Materials

The material that was given to the students should be based on the

institutional curriculum for seventh grade students of SMP Negeri 2

Singaraja. The researcher provided two different titles of text for each

session. One text was used for group activity and another for individual

assignment. The media should be prepared before conducting the

treatment, such as: clunk cards, and CSR log.

2. The Lesson Plan

The lesson plans were prepared as plans about how the class would be

managed during the action. The lesson plan consisted of all of the
 57

activities in each session. The details lesson plans for cycle 1 were

provided in appendix 8-10.

3. The researcher’s Diary

The researcher’s diary was used to record how the class was going on. It

was also to note the researcher’s activity, the students’ activity, the

students’ response and classroom situation during the reading class. The

details were presented in appendix 11-14.

4. The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was given at the end of cycle 1 in order to know the

students’ response toward the implementation of the strategy. The details

of the questionnaire on cycle 1 could be seen in appendix 7.

5. Post-test 1

Post-test 1 was administered at the end of cycle 1 in order to know the

result of learning after the implementation of the strategy in reading class.

4.2.2.2 Action

In this step of cycle 1, three sessions were conducted as a treatment. On

the first session, procedure text was taught to the students. Then, for two

remaining sessions were used for descriptive texts. It based on the time allotment

for reading class that provided by the school.

4.2.2.3 Observation

All of the activities in each session were observed and written in the form

of the researcher’s diary. Besides, the questionnaire and post-test 1 were observed
 58

and analyzed. The result of researcher’s diary, questionnaire and post-test 1 were

used for the reflection to develop the next activity.

4.2.2.3.1 The Result of the Researcher’s Diary

A. The Result of the Observation on Cycle 1 Session 1

Session 1 of cycle 1 was conducted on Thursday, March 8 th, 2012 in 6th –

7th period. Before teaching and learning process was started, the researcher did a

planning including designing the lesson plan, preparing the researcher’s diary

form, post-test 1 and the questionnaire needed, the reading material, teaching

media for reading class and copying click and clunks cards. Through this way, it

was expected that there were not unnecessary mistakes committing during the

teaching and learning process.

On that day, the teaching and learning activity were conducted from 04.40

p.m. to 06.00 p.m. The researcher entered the class and greeted the students. In

return, the students greeted the researcher by saying “Good Afternoon”. Before

starting the lesson, the researcher introduced himself and told the students about

the aim of giving the lesson. The students’ attendances were checked before

conducting the lesson. In this session, one student did not attend the class because

he was sick. The class was rather noisy, before the teaching and learning process

was begun. The students were still busy in preparing the things that they needed to

study. Some of them still made a joke with others. Then, the researcher told the

students that they would get a reading class, especially reading procedure text
 59

through new strategy. It was explained what they would do during the lesson.

Some of students annoyed their friends.

For the first time, pre-activity was given to the students. Brainstorming

was given to the students by asking the way of making coffee. They were very

enthusiastic to answer the question even though some of them used Indonesian in

expressing their idea and used ungrammatical sentences, and they did not raise

their hand. This activity was done in order to activate the students’ prior

knowledge toward the topic that would be given as well as to make the students to

be more active. The students were asked about their understanding about

procedure text, the characteristics of procedure, the organization of procedure and

the tense that was used in procedure text. Then, opened class discussion was

started in order to make sure students’ understanding. The students were asked to

raise their hand before answering the questions. Most of them just kept silent.

There were about 13 students who raised their hands and stated their opinion

about procedure text. The students’ opinions related to the question were listened

attentively. At last, the students’ opinion were revised and united so that both of

the researcher and the students had the same perception about procedure text.

The students were told that they would be given a “Collaborative Strategic

Reading (CSR)” to help them in learning reading English texts. Then, the

definition of CSR and what students would do were explained to the students.

There were about 25 of the students who listened seriously and the rest of them

just kept talking and made jokes with their friends. After the strategy had been

explained, the students were asked whether or not they understood the

explanation. Most of them said that they had already understood about the
 60

strategy. So, they moved to the next activity. The students were asked to make

group consists of 2-3 students. There were 12 groups in the class. Two texts

entitled “How to Make a Cup of Tea” and “How to Install Your TV Set” were

given to the students.

Then, the students were asked to preview the whole of the texts. There

were some students still did not work, they just sat and had a look to their friends.

The students were asked to make a prediction for each the text. This activity was

used to find out the general information about the texts. After writing the

predictions, the students were asked to find out difficult words in each text. The

students wrote down the words and they were asked to open their dictionary to

find out the meaning. However, there were only 6 students brought dictionary, so

that it was difficult to solve the problems. Then they were to use researcher’s

dictionary. It made the class become noisy. It took much time. The students were

required to bring dictionary for the next meeting by borrowing from other classes.

To make the activity became effectively, the students were help in finding

out the meaning. After that, students wrote the most important ideas and translate

them into Indonesian. They were led them by the researcher, but there were just

30 of the students did their work seriously. Other students just talked without

doing anything. The students said that they had finished their work. Then, the

students were asked to make question, but the students said that they were not

able to make question in English. So, the activity was changed. The students were

asked to make questions in Indonesian.

 61

Delivering questions was the most active activity in this session. All of the

students raised their hand tried to answer other group’s question. This activity

spent about 10 minutes, and then the activity moved to answering questions

individually. The students back to their own seat. They answer ten questions about

the text given before, but in doing their assignment some students at the back tried

to cheat. The students were asked to do their assignment individually. 15 minutes

before 06.00 p.m., students collected their work. The class became noisy. The

students were asked to sit again and made the conclusion together. The students

just kept silent, but some minutes later they talked with their friends. The

conclusion had been concluded and the most active students were given a present,

it made some students shouted and asked for the presents too. They were told that

if they would be active, they would get the present too. At about 06.00 p.m., the

students prayed together to close the teaching and learning activity and they

closed this session by saying “Good Bye”.

B. The Result of the Observation on Cycle 1 Session 2

The second treatment of cycle 1 was done on Monday, March 19th, 2012 at

3rd to 4th period (02.10 p.m.-02.50 p.m. and students had first break for 15 minutes

then the 4th period was continued at 03.05 p.m. – 03.45 p.m.). As usual, when

researcher entered the class, the students greeted the researcher, but some students

were still outside the class. They entered the class soon. The researcher replied

their greeting by saying “Good Afternoon”. The students’ attendances were

checked and it was found that none of the students was absent. The class was
 62

begun by telling the students that they would have a reading class. After that, the

researcher told the students what they would do during the session.

The lesson was started by asking whether or not the students still

remembered the strategy that was discussed on the previous meeting. Most of the

students said that they did not remember and understand about the strategy. So the

it was decided to explain it again and give an example by writing it on the

blackboard. Then, they were told that at this session they would have descriptive

text. Some questions were delivered to the students about descriptive text and all

students gave their idea and expressed it well. From their answer, it could be said

that they still remembered the material about descriptive text. Then, they decided

to move to next activity.

Before giving the text, the class was divided into some groups. The class

became noisy when some students were asked to move to other groups. They said

that they wanted to work with previous group. They sat with the previous group

members, but some of them move to other groups. Two descriptive texts entitled

“My Little Bombi” and “Betty” were given to the students. The students were

asked to preview the whole of the texts given. They guessed the contents by

reading the title and whole the texts in general, then they wrote their prediction.

After that, they should find out some difficult words and discussed them.

However, there were still 18 students brought the dictionary, but they could use

the dictionary together. Some students wrote the meaning on the text directly.

They did it well, and they were ready to move to the next activity.
 63

10 questions were provided about “My Little Bombi”. The students

answered them and collected their group’s answer before the first break bell rang.

They had the first break for 15 minutes. The bell rang again and indicated that the

first break had finished. Students backed to the class and they were asked to move

to their own seat. They seemed disappointed because they were asked to answer

questions individually, but when the researcher said it was used for their mark,

they did it. The students who did not bring dictionary tried to borrow dictionary to

other friends. It made the class became noisy again. Then, they were helped by

remembering them about their work in group. The students were asked to bring

dictionary for the next session. It was about 15 minutes they did their individual

assignment and they collected them. The class became noisy again. The students

talked too much when collecting their work.

After that, the researcher and students made conclusion together. It was

started by checking group’s assignment. There was no question, but some students

looked so active to conclude the lesson. As the researcher’s promise, three active

groups and the winner got a present. They clapped their hand for them. Before

ending the class, the students were asked whether they enjoyed the class or not.

The students were given a chance for asking questions as well. There was no

question occurred, so the researcher ended the class by saying “Good Bye”.

C. The Result of the Observation on Cycle 1 Session 3

The third treatment of cycle 1 was done on Monday, March 26 th, 2012 at

3rd to 4th period. As usual, when researcher entered the class, the students greeted
 64

the researcher, but some students were still outside the class to borrow some

dictionaries from 7 C students. They entered the class soon. Their greeting was

replied by saying “Good Afternoon” and the students’ attendances were checked.

It was found that none of students was absent. The class was begun by telling the

students that they would have the same activity with previous session. In this

session, they were told that this meeting would emphasize on the explanation

about descriptive features and then, teacher asked the students about the strategy.

About 25 students raised their hands to give their ideas about what they would do.

When the researcher was explaining the material, some students took a note and 3

students asked for permission to borrow dictionary in other classes.

The students were asked to make group consisted of 2-3 students. They

moved as soon as possible without any noises, they sat with the previous group.

However, there were two groups still consisted of extreme students. They made

joke and annoyed another group. They were moved and asked to sit in the first

row of the class. Two descriptive entitled “My Diva” and “My Mother” were

given to the students. Without any commands, students previewed the text and

wrote the prediction. Some of group’s members checked the dictionary to find out

the meaning of some difficult words and wrote down on the CSR log. Then they

translate those texts together in the group. One group at the back corner asked the

researcher for the questions. So, the questions for group assignment were given

and the students did it in their group. Then, as individual assignment, the students

should back to their own seat to answer another 10 question. As additional

activity, the students were asked to write down the features of descriptive text.

The two extreme groups looked confused. They could not follow other friends in
 65

learning, and then they were helped by the researcher to understand descriptive

text intensively. The bell rang just few minutes after the students started to answer

the questions.

After having first break, all students came to class to continue answering

the questions. About 7 minutes later, some students collected their assignments.

They were asked to switch their work with others. The researcher and students

discussed the answer together and then, they made conclusion together by

previewing descriptive and procedure texts. All of students were looked very

active in this activity.

Before ending the class, the students were given chances to ask questions,

but there was no question asked by the students. At that time, the researcher gave

a present for all the students. They looked so happy getting the presents. At last,

they were told thus they would have a test for the next meeting and students were

asked to prepare themselves for the test on the next meeting. The class was ended

by saying “Good Bye”.

D. The Result of the Observation on Post-test 1 Cycle 1

Post-test 1 on cycle 1 was conducted on Thursday, March 29 th, 2012 from

04.45 p.m. – 05.55 p.m. (the time allotment is 60 minutes). In this session, the

students were given post-test 1 in the form of multiple choices. The test consisted

of 40 items in which 7 items for finding general information, 16 items for finding

specific information, 7 items for finding the textual reference, and 10 items for

finding the word meaning. There were eight reading texts given in the test. They
 66

were: Kevin, Uncle Ben, Coco, How to Make Ice, My Cape Jasmine, My Timmy,

Cooking Rice and Making Lemonade. The more details of post-test 1 could be

seen in appendix 13.

As the researcher entered the class, the students greeted him. The students’

attendances were checked before conducting the test and it was found that no one

was absent at that time. The students were given explanations about the test and

the way how they should do it. When all of the students had understood the rules

of the test, the test was ready to be started.

The researcher kept monitoring while the students were doing the test,

there were 6 students seemed were not ready for the test. They tried to cheat.

However, it found that 100 % of the students did the test by themselves, since the

researcher and the teacher kept monitoring them. Then, the questionnaires were

distributed to the students and they had about 5 minutes to do it. Their worked

were collected when they had finished. They were asked several questions about

the test. Some of the students said that the test was not so difficult. The students

were asked to prepare for the next meeting and the class was ended by saying

“Good Bye”.

4.2.2.4The Result of Post-test 1

Post-test 1 was administered in order to know the students’ reading

comprehension after they were treated three times by using “Collaborative

Strategic Reading (CSR)”. The test was in the form of multiple choices, consisted

of 40 items in which 5 items for general information, 18 items for specific

 67

information, 7 items for the textual reference, and 10 items for the word meaning.

After post-test 1 was administered to the students, the students’ worksheet were

collected and analyzed until it was found the final score of the students. The result

of post-test 1 could be seen on the appendix 14.

Dealing with the students’ reading comprehension, they had to achieve the

indicators of reading which included finding out the general information (GI), the

specific information (SI), the textual reference (TR) and the word meaning (WM).

The result of post-test 1 is presented in the following table:

Table 4.3 The Result of Post-test 1.

1 Mean Score 71.05

2 Highest Score 88
3 Lowest Score 55
4 Number of students with score < 75 18 students
5 Number of students with score >= 75 20 students

No The Four Reading Sub-Skills Mean Score

1 Finding out the general information 67.17
2 Finding out the specific information 75.99
3 Finding out the textual references 74.81
4 Finding out the word meaning 66.23
Average Score 71.05

From the table above, it could be seen that the students’ mean score for

each indicator improved from pre test to post-test 1. The students mean score of

the general information increased 7.02% from 60.15% to 67.17%. Meanwhile, the

specific information increased 9.41% from 66.58% to 75.99%. Furthermore, the

textual reference, the mean score increased 16.22% from 58.59% to 74.81%. And
 68

the last for the word meaning, their mean score increased 4.83% from 61.40% to

66.23%.

From the result of cycle 1, it could be said that the students made several

improvements after they had been treated by using “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” compared with the result of pre-test. The mean score of the students

improved from 61.68 in pre-test to 71.05 in post-test 1. The highest score in post-

test 1 was 88 and the lowest score was 55. Then, from 38 students, there were 20

students could pass the minimum score required.

In post-test 1, the majority of students could pass the minimum score, but

there were still 18 students could not pass it. Then, from 18 students there were 16

students categorized as sufficient category and one of them stood in insufficient

category. The detail result of the students’ improvements in post-test 1 is

presented in appendix 17. Although the students had made improvement, their

mean score still could not reach the passing score currently required by the school

that was > 75. Besides, 85% of the total number of the students should stand in

good category.

4.2.2.5The Result of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire in Cycle 1 was administered at the end of post-test 1.

The questionnaire was designed on the purpose of knowing the students’ response

toward the application of the strategy. The questionnaire which was prepared by

the researcher consisted of 10 questions and was conducted after the test. It

consisted of 10 items of multiple choices.

 69

The result of the questionnaire showed that the students gave positive

response towards the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading”, the details

could be seen in appendix 18A.

Table 4.4 The Result of Questionnaire Post-test 1

No Students’ Answer
A B C D E
Num % Num % Num % Num % Num %
1 2 5.26% 30 78.95 6 15.79 0 36.84 0 0.00
% % % %
2 23 60.53 10 26.32 5 13.16 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %
3 6 15.79 10 26.32 22 60.53 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %
4 13 34.21 10 26.32 15 39.47 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %
5 25 65.79 13 34.21 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
6 25 65.79 13 34.21 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
7 25 65.79 10 26.32 3 7.89% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
8 35 92.11 3 7.89% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% %
9 0 0.00% 24 63.16 11 28.95 3 7.89% 0 0.00
% % %
10 10 26.32 19 50.00 9 23.68 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %

From the table above, it could be explained that:

 70

Item no. 1 dealt with the students’ feeling about reading with

“Collaborative Strategic Reading”. It showed that 2 (5.26%) of the students like

the strategy very much. Besides, 30 (78.95%) of the students stated that they like

the strategy. Meanwhile, 6 of the students or 15.79% chose that they like enough

the strategy. By seeing this result, most of the students like the application of

Collaborative Strategic Reading for reading activity.

Item no. 2 asked about the students’ opinion whether or not “Collaborative

Strategic Reading” helped them in comprehending the text. It indicated that 23

(60.53%) of the students stated that the application of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” was of great value for them to comprehend the text. Furthermore, 10

(26.32%) of the students indicated that the implementation of “Collaborative

Strategic Reading” helped them to comprehend the text. Besides, 5 (13.16%) of

the students responded that the use of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” was

helpful enough for them to comprehend the text. From this percentage, it could be

said that most of the students were in the position of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” had a great value to help them in comprehending the text.

Item number 3 dealt with the students’ opinion whether or not making

questions before reading would help them in understanding the texts. It showed

that 6 (15.79%) of the students stated it had a great value to help them in

understanding the texts. Meanwhile, 10 (26.32%) of the students stated that

making question about what would they read helped them to understand the texts.

However, 22 (60.53%) of the students said that they were enough helped to

understand the texts by making question about what they read. By seeing this
 71

result, it can be said that making question about what they read will enough

helped the students in understanding the texts.

Making prediction about the text that would be read by the students was

asked in item number 4. It showed that 13 (34.21%) of the students stated making

prediction before reading had a great value to help them in understanding the

texts. Besides, 10 (26.32%) of the students stated that making prediction about

what would they read helped them to understand the texts. However, 15 (39.47%)

of the students said that they were enough helped to understand the texts by

making prediction about the text. By seeing this result, it can be said that making

prediction about what they would read helped the students in understanding the

texts.

Item number 5 asked about students’ opinion whether or not the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help them to identify the

general information. It showed that 25 (65.79%) of the students said that the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help them identifying the

general information very much. Meanwhile, 13 (34.21%) of the students indicated

that the application of the “Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help them to

identify the general information. From this percentage, it can be said that the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help the students to

identify the general information of the text.

Item number 6 dealt with the students’ opinion whether or not they were

helped in finding the specific information in reading by using “Collaborative

Strategic Reading”. It showed that 25 (65.79%) of the students stated CSR had a
 72

great value to help them in finding the specific information in a text. Meanwhile,

13 (34.21%) of the students stated that the Collaborative Strategic Reading helped

them to find out the specific information of the text. By seeing this result, it can be

said that Collaborative Strategic Reading helped the students in finding the

specific information.

In terms of finding out the textual references, 25 or 65.79% of the students

stated that the Collaborative Strategic Reading helped them very well in finding

out the textual references. Besides, 10 (26.32%) of the students said the use of

Collaborative Strategic Reading could help them to find the textual references of

the text. However, 3 (7.89%) of the students believed that the Collaborative

Strategic Reading was enough to help them in finding the textual references. This

percentage could be seen in the item number 7.

Further, it was found that 35 students or (92.11%) of the students felt that

Collaborative Strategic Reading had a great value to help them in finding the

word meaning. Meanwhile, 3 (7.89%) of the students felt that Collaborative

Strategic Reading helped them to do that. Based on this percentage, it can be said

that the application of Collaborative Strategic Reading had a very great value to

help the students in finding out the word meaning and develop students’ English

vocabulary. This percentage could be seen in item number 8.

Item number 9 dealt with the students’ opinion whether or not their

achievement in reading comprehension could be improved by using

“Collaborative Strategic Reading”. It can be found that 24 (63.16%) of the

students said their achievement in reading comprehension had been improved by

 73

using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Meanwhile, 11 (28.95%) of the students

stated their achievement had been enough improved after getting treatment.

However, 3 students (7.89%) stated that their reading comprehension less

improved after the application of Collaborative Strategic Reading. These should

be something that made this students felt the application of Collaborative

Strategic Reading did not work well with them. These students would be given

more attention in the next cycle.

Besides, in terms of motivation, 10 (26.32%) of the students asserted that

they were really motivated to study reading, 19 (50.00%) of the students asserted

that they were motivated and 9 (23.68%) of the students stated that they were

quite motivated. This percentage which stated in item number 10 showed that the

Collaborative Strategic Reading could motivate the students, but it could be more

innovative activities in cycle 2 to make students become more motivated.

4.2.2.6 Reflection

Seeing the students score significantly increased in post-test 1 as shown in

the table in appendix 17, it could be said that the students of class 7 D SMP

Negeri 2 Singaraja experienced very good improvement in reading activity. The

improvement was seen in all criteria used to measure the students’

comprehension, such as finding general information, specific information, textual

references and word meaning. However, the improvement was not completely

satisfying yet, since the students’ mean score were not yet able to reach the

minimum score required by the school. Although, there were 20 students could
 74

pass the minimum score. It was happened due to some obstacles faced by the

students.

From the result of classroom observation in cycle 1, some obstacles were

found. Firstly, in the observation, it was seen that most of the students still not be

able in making a question in English. It made the activity must be changed, but

still on the steps of CSR strategy. Besides, students still got confused to imagine

abstract things by reading a text.

Secondly, the students did not show serious behavior during the process.

Some extreme students sat together in one group. They made too much noise and

did not pay attention to the activity. Then, most of the students did not bring the

dictionary. Dictionary was very useful in the activity, because it can help the

students to solve the problems in finding the word meaning.

Thirdly, they were bored with the monotone activity. As the follow up

activity, they were only asked to answer the question. It happened because they

could not make any questions and deliver them to other groups. They also felt

afraid to ask some questions. It made the time was not effective while the

treatment had being applied.

Meanwhile, from the result of the students’ answer analysis, it was found

several obstacles. Firstly, the students got the biggest problems in finding the

textual references. Then, the problems occurred in finding specific information of

the text.

Considering that all these obstacles prevented the students from gaining

the targeted score, then, it was really necessary to make an attempt to omit these
 75

obstacles. Therefore, some solutions were suggested to be included in the plan for

cycle 2. The solution that would be taken in the next cycle would be described as

follows.

1. More attention would be given to the students who did not pay close

attention to the activity.

2. In making group, the system must be changed to make one group will be

heterogeneity. It would use “Number Head Together” to make group for

the students.

3. Making a new follow up activity. It would use picture and students’

drawing. It would give more challenge and attractive activities. Besides,

they should answer several questions as their comprehension.

4. Giving more explanation and assignment for the four sub-skills of reading,

especially for finding textual reference. However, the activities must be

concerned on all reading sub-skill, such as: finding specific and general

information, textual references and word meaning.

As what has been stated previously in the previous chapter, this study would

be considered successful if the students’ passing score was 75% of the maximum

score could be reach by the students. However, after cycle 1 was conducted, the

students were just able to get 71.05% of the maximum score. Then it could be

concluded that another action was needed to be taken in order to improve the

students’ reading comprehension. A modification on the lesson plan of cycle 2

would be needed based on the solutions stated previously to omit the obstacles

that could prevent the students from gaining the targeted score. By this

modification, it was expected that after cycle 2 was conducted, the students’
 76

achievement score would increased significantly and all students would reach or

get the targeted score that was 75.

4.2.3 The Finding on Cycle 2

As in the previous cycle, all the things needed were planned and prepared

before giving treatment in cycle 2 such as lesson plans, the researcher’s diary,

teaching material and media, post-test 2 and the questionnaire. Cycle 2 of this

research carried out in four sessions. Three sessions were used for giving the

treatment and one session was used for giving post-test 2. The questionnaire was

administered after giving post-test 2. Data were presented in qualitative and

quantitative data. They were gained from the result of the questionnaire and post-

test 2. This cycle was also followed with the four basic steps in action based

research such as: planning, action, observation and reflection.

4.2.3.1 Planning

Planning referred to the researcher’s action to prepare everything that was

needed to conduct the treatment such as: the teaching material, the lesson plans,

the researcher’s diary, the questionnaire and post-test 2. The components of

planning as mention above would be clarified as follows:

1. Selecting Materials

The material that was given to the students should be based on the

institutional curriculum for seventh grade students of SMP Negeri 2

Singaraja. Two different texts were given for each session. One text was
 77

used for group activity and another for individual assignment. The media,

such as: clunk cards, CSR log, picture, glue, and color pencils were

prepared before the treatment.

2. The Lesson Plan

The lesson plan, as a plan about how the class would be managed during

the action was prepared before conducting action. The lesson plan

consisted of all of the activities in each session. The details lesson plans

for cycle 2 were provided in appendix 19-21.

3. The researcher’s Diary

The researcher’s diary was used to record how the class was going on. It

was also to note the researcher’s activity, the students’ activity, the

students’ response and classroom situation during the reading class. The

detail is presented in appendix 22-25.

4. The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was given at the end of cycle 2 in order to know the

students’ response toward the implementation of the strategy. The details

of the questionnaire on cycle 2 could be seen in appendix 29.

5. Post-test 2

Post-test 2 was administered at the end of cycle 2 in order to know the

result of learning after the implementation of the strategy in reading class.

4.2.3.2 Action
 78

In cycle 2, three sessions were conducted for giving treatment. On the first

session, it was about procedure text. Then, for two remaining sessions were used

for descriptive texts. It based on the time allotment for reading class that provided

by the school. For the action steps, several modifications were made in each

session, such as: making group by using Number Head Together, and using

picture for the follow up activity.

4.2.3.3 Observation

All the activities in each session were recorded and written in the form of

the researcher’s diary. Besides that, the questionnaire and result of post-test 2

were observed and analyzed. The result of researcher’s diary, questionnaire and

post-test 2 would be used for the reflection to draw the conclusion.

4.2.3.3.1The Result of the Researcher’s Diary

A. the Result of the Researcher’s Diary on Cycle 2 Session 1

The first session in cycle 2 was conducted on Monday, 9th April 2012 in 3rd

-4th period. The students greeted the researcher. The researcher replied them by

saying “Good Afternoon”. The students’ attendances were checked before

conducting the lesson. In this session, one student was not present. The teaching

and learning process took 80 minutes, but there was a first break after 3 rd period.

The students were told that they were going to have a reading class and they were
 79

told what they would to do. The students listened to the researcher’s explanation

attentively.

The class was begun by asking the students whether or not they still

remembered their previous lesson. The researcher reminded about “Collaborative

Strategic Reading”. Then, several questions about procedure test were delivered

to the students. The activity seemed success since the students answered the

questions in chorus and sometimes individually. After that, the students were

asked to make group, but in this cycle the class was divided by using “Number

Head Together”. Most of the students did not want it, but they followed the

researcher’s instruction. They sat with different previous group. It made the

students got more experience to work with other people.

Researcher gave two procedure texts entitled: “How to Make Soup” and

“How to Make Omelet”. Previewing text was the first activity. Students were still

difficult to divide themselves in group. Then, they tried to solve the problems

about difficult words. In this stage, all students worked to open the dictionary and

found the word meaning while the researcher helping them. The next activity was

collecting pictures and glue. One representative of each group came in front of the

class to find the picture. They backed to the group. They re-arranged and then

stick the picture on the paper based on their understanding of the text. As last

group’s assignment, students were asked to answer 10 questions in their group.

As individual assignment, students were asked to answer ten questions

about “How to Make Soup”. At last, the researcher and the students checked the

group’s work together. The students looked very happy because they had a new
 80

challenge to arrange the pictures. When they were making conclusion, the

students were very active in answering the questions. The students were gotten

some presents. Finally, the session was closed by saying “Good Bye”.

B. The Result of the Observation on Cycle 2 Session 2

The second treatment of cycle 2 was done on Thursday, April 12 th, 2012 at

6th to 7th period or 4.40 p.m. until 06.00 p.m. As usual, when researcher entered

the class, the students greeted the researcher. Their greeting was replied by saying

“Good Afternoon” and the students’ attendances were checked. It was found that

none of the students was absent. In this meeting, all students were already in the

classroom and ready by their tools for learning. The class was began by telling the

students that they would have a reading class. After that, they were told what they

would do during the session.

The class was started by asking whether or not students still remembered

the strategy that was discussed on the previous meeting. Most of the students said

that they still remembered and understand about the strategy. So, some questions

were delivered to make it sure. Then, the students were told that for this session

they would have descriptive text. Some questions were delivered to the students

about descriptive text. All students gave their idea and expressed it well. From

their answer, it could be said that that they still remembered the material about

descriptive text. They decided to move to next activity.

Before giving the text, the class was divided into some groups. The groups

were still in Number Head Together, but no students were complaining. They sat
 81

with new group’s members. Two descriptive texts entitled “Mr. Browns’ Family”

and “My House” were given to the students. The students were asked to preview

the whole of the texts given. They guessed the contents by reading the title and

whole the texts, then they wrote the prediction. After that, they should find out

some difficult words and discussed them. Almost all of the students already

brought dictionary, except 3 students, but they sat in different group so they could

borrow with their friend’s. Some students wrote the meaning on the text directly.

They did it well, and they were ready to move to the next activity.

For the follow up activity, each group was asked to draw a picture about

family’s tree of Mr. Browns. They did the assignment well, besides some of the

students answered 10 questions were provided about “Juny’s Family Trees”. The

students answered them and collected their group’s work. As usual, for another

text’s questions must be answered individually. Besides, students are asked to

complete some blank parts about word referring. They backed to their own seat

and answer the questions well. The researcher helped them by remembering them

some difficult words. It was about 15 minutes they did their individual assignment

and they collected them. The class became a little bit noisy again. The students

talked when collecting their work.

Before making conclusion together, both the researcher and the students

discussed about the group’s work. It was started by checking group’s assignment.

There was no question, but some students looked so active to conclude the lesson.

As the researcher’s promise, all students got presents. They clapped their hand for

that. Before closing the class, the researcher asked the students to learn more

about description for people. The bell rang. The students and the researcher
 82

prayed together to close the school day. Before ending the class, they were asked

whether they enjoyed the class or not. The students were given a chance for

asking questions as well. There was no question, so the class was ended by saying

“Good Bye”.

C. The Result of the Observation on Cycle 2 Session 3

The third treatment of cycle 1 was done on Monday, April 16 th, 2012 at 3rd

to 4th period. As usual, when researcher entered the class, the students greeted the

researcher. All students were already in the classroom. Their greeting was replied

by saying “Good Afternoon”. The students’ attendances were checked and it was

found that one student was absent because she was sick. The class was begun by

telling the students that they would have the same activity with previous session.

In this session, it was emphasized on descriptive text’s features of person or

people.

The students were asked to make group. Their group should be same as

previous meeting. The students were given two descriptive texts entitled

“Aiswarya Rai” and “Yuta is My Classmate”. Without any commands, students

previewed the text and wrote the prediction. Some of group’s members checked

the dictionary to find out the meaning of some difficult words and wrote down on

the CSR log. Then they translate those texts together in the group. For the next

activity, students were asked to draw a picture based on their understanding of the

text. Some students looked laughing when they saw their friends’ picture. Then,

they were asked to answer 10 questions as group’s assignment. For individual

 83

assignment, they should answer 10 questions. So, the students backed to their own

seat to answer the questions. The bell rang just few minutes after the students

started to answer the questions.

After having first break, all students came to class to continue answering

the questions. About 10 minutes later, some students collected their assignments.

The researcher and students discussed the answer and the picture together. They

laughed together when they saw a strange picture about “Aiswarya Rai” and then,

they made conclusion together by previewing descriptive and procedure texts. All

of students were looked very active in this activity.

Before ending the class, a chance was given to the students for asking

questions, but there was no question occurred. At that time, all of the students got

presents. They looked so happy for getting the presents. At last, they were told

thus they would have a test for the next meeting and they were asked to prepare

themselves for the test on the next meeting. The class was ended by saying “Good

Bye”.

D. The Result of the Observation on Post-Test 2 Cycle 2

Post-test 2 on cycle 2 was conducted on Thursday, April 19 th, 2012 from

04.45 p.m. – 05.55 p.m. (the time allotment is 60 minutes). In this session, the

students were given the post-test in the form of multiple choices. The test

consisted of 40 items in which 7 items for finding general information, 17 items

for finding specific information, 9 items for the textual reference, and 7 items for

the word meaning. There were eight reading texts given in the test. They were:
 84

Michael Jordan, Mr. Clark, Gracia, How to make a Cup of Coffee, My New

Backpack, Brownie, Using Battery radio, and How to Make Potato Chips

Sandwich. The more details of post-test 2 could be seen in appendix 27.

As usual, the students greeted the researcher. Their greeting was replied.

The students’ attendances were checked and it was found that no one of the

students were absent at that time. All of the students looked ready for the test. The

students were given explanations about the test and the way how they should do

it. When all of the students had understood the rules of the test, the test was ready

to be started.

The monitoring was done while the students were doing the test. There

were 3 students tried to cheat. They looked so confused, but because the rule was

too strict, they could not cheat the other friends. As the result, it was found that

100 % of the students did the test by themselves, since they could not look another

friend’s answer. After that, the questionnaires were distributed to the students.

They had 10 minutes to do it. Their worked were collected when they had finished

their work. The students were told that it was the last meeting with the researcher.

A lot of thanks were delivered for the students. They got some presents from the

researcher. Finally, the class was ended by saying “Good Bye”.

4.2.3.4 The Result of Post-Test 2

Post-test 2 was administered in order to know the students’ reading

comprehension after they were treated three times by using “Collaborative

Strategic Reading (CSR) with modifications”. The test was in the form of multiple
 85

choices, consisted of 40 items in which 6 items for general information, 18 items

for specific information, 9 items for the textual reference, and 7 items for the word

meaning. There were eight reading texts given in the test. They were: Michael

Jordan, Mr. Clark, Gracia, How to make a Cup of Coffee, My New Backpack,

Brownie, Using Battery radio, and How to Make Potato Chips Sandwich. After

post-test 2 was administered to the students, the researcher collected the

worksheet and analyzed the data until the researcher found the final score of the

students. The result of post-test 2 could be seen on the appendix 28.

Dealing with the students’ reading comprehension, they had to achieve the

indicators of reading which included to be able to find out the general information

(GI), the specific information (SI), the textual reference (TR) and the word

meaning (WM). The result of post-test 2 is presented in the following table:

Table 4.5 The Result of Post-Test 2.

1 Mean Score 77.45

2 Highest Score 85
3 Lowest Score 70
4 Number of students with score < 75 4 students
5 Number of students with score >= 75 34 students

No The Four Reading Sub-Skills Mean Score

1 Finding out the general information 76.01
2 Finding out the specific information 80.13
3 Finding out the textual references 75.94
4 Finding out the word meaning 77.72
Average Score 77.45

From the table above, the majority of the students got equal or higher than

75, only 4 students got less than 75 but they did not stood under 70, it made all of
 86

the students were categorized as good until excellent category. 34 (89.47%) of the

students could pass the standard minimum score, but there were still 4 students

under the passing score. Besides, the highest score was decrease from 88 in post-

test 1 became 85 in post-test 2. In other hands, the lowest score was increased

from 55 became 70. So, it made all students stood in good level of reading

comprehension.

Meanwhile, it could be seen that the students’ mean score for each

indicator improved from post-test 1 to post-test 2. The students mean score of the

general information increased 8.84% from 67.17% to 76.01%. Meanwhile, the

specific information increased 4.14% from 75.99% to 80.13%. Furthermore, the

textual reference, the mean score just increased 1.13% from 74.81% to 75.94.

Finally, for the word meaning, the mean score increased 11.49% from 66.23%

became 77.72%.

Referring to the result of post-test 2, it can be seen that the main score of

the students could pass the minimum score required by the school. Although there

were still 4 students could not pass the minimum score, they could pass the good

level of reading comprehension mastery level. As indicator success, 85% of

students should be in good level of reading comprehension. The detail result of

the students’ improvements in post-test 2 is presented in appendix 28.

4.2.3.5 The Result of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire in cycle 2 was administered at the end of post-test 2.

The questionnaire was designed with the purpose of knowing the students
 87

response toward the application of the strategy. The questionnaire which was

prepared by the researcher consisted of 10 questions and conducted after the test.

It consisted of 10 items of multiple choices. The more details of the questionnaire

on reading in post-test 2 could be seen in appendix 29A. .In short, the result of the

questionnaire in post-test 2 could be seen in this following table.

Table 4.6 The result of Questionnaire on Post-test 2

No Students’ Answer
A B C D E
Num % Num % Num % Num % Num %
1 29 76.32 9 23.68 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
2 28 73.68 8 21.05 2 5.26% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
3 7 18.42 31 81.58 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
4 28 73.68 5 13.16 5 13.16 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % % %
5 30 78.95 8 21.05 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
6 32 84.21 6 15.79 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
7 20 52.63 18 47.37 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
8 30 78.95 7 18.42 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
9 0 0.00% 34 89.47 4 10.53 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
10 33 86.84 5 13.16 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00
% % %
 88

The result of the questionnaire showed that the students gave positive

respond towards the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” strategy.

The result of questionnaire on reading in post-test 2 could be seen in appendix

29B. From the table, it could be explained that.

The first item asked about the students’ feeling toward the implementation

of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” in teaching reading. It responded that 29

(76.32%) of the students stated that they really liked the application of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” in teaching reading. Meanwhile, 9 (23.68%) of

the students answered that they liked the application of the technique in teaching

reading. There were no students stating they rather liked the application of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” in teaching reading and also none of them

answered that they did not like the application of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” in teaching reading. From this percentage, it could be seen that most of

the students were in the position of “very liked” the application of “Collaborative

Strategic Reading” in teaching reading.

Item no. 2 asked about the students’ opinion whether or not “Number

Head Together” helped them in doing collaborative activity become effective. It

indicated that 28 (73.68%) of the students stated that the grouping system had a

great value for them to do collaborative. Furthermore, 8 (21.05%) of the students

indicated that the implementation of NHT helped them to do collaborative.

Besides, 2 (5.26%) of the students responded that the use NHT helped them to do

collaborative. From this percentage, it could be said that most of the students were

in the position of Number Head Together gave benefits for doing collaborative

activity.
 89

Item number 3 asked about the students’ opinion about using picture

whether or not helped the students to understand the texts. It indicated that 7

(18.42%) of the students said that picture had a great value to help them in

understanding the texts. Meanwhile, 31 (81.58%) of the students responded that

they were helped to understand the text by using pictures. From this percentage, it

could be seen that most of the students were in the position of “helped” by using

picture to understand the text.

Item 4 tapped information about the students’ interest whether the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped them to comprehend the

reading text wholly. It indicated that 28 (73.68%) of the students said that the use

of strategy was very helpful for them in comprehending the reading texts wholly.

Meanwhile, 5 (13.16%) of the students responded that the implementation of

technique could help them to comprehend the reading text wholly. Moreover, 5

(13.16%) of the students showed that the application of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” was helpful enough for them in comprehending the reading text wholly.

From this percentage, it could be seen that most of the students said that the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” were in the position of “very

helped” them in comprehending the reading text wholly.

Item no 5 related with the four sub-skills in reading which asked whether

or not the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped the students to

identify the general information. It indicated that 30 (78.95%) of the students said

that the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” was very helpful for

them in finding the general information. Moreover, 8 (21.05%) of the students

stated that the implementation of the strategy could help them to find out the
 90

general information. There were no students who stated that the implementation

of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” did not help for them in finding the general

information. From this percentage, it could be said that most of the students were

in the position of Collaborative Strategic Reading “really helped” them in finding

general information.

Item number 6 tapped information whether the implementation of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped them to find out the specific

information. It showed that 32 (84.21%) of the students stated that the application

of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” was of great value for them in finding the

specific information. Furthermore, 6 (15.79%) of the students indicated that the

use of strategy was helpful for them in finding the specific information. It could

be seen that most of the students were in the position of the implementation of

Collaborative Strategic Reading was “very helpful” to find out specific

information.

Item 7 asked about the students’ opinion whether or not the application of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help them in finding the textual

reference. It responded that 20 (52.63%) of the students said that the use of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” really helped them in finding the textual

reference. Besides, 18 (47.37%) of the students said that the implementation of

strategy could help them in identifying the textual reference. There were no

students who stated that the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” did

not help for them in finding the textual reference. From this percentage, it could

be said that most of the students were in the position of the use of Collaborative

Strategic Reading “helped” them in identifying the textual reference.

 91

Related about the students’ opinion whether or not the application of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped them in finding the word meaning was

provided in the item number 8. It indicated that 30 (78.95%) of the students stated

that use of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” was great value for them in finding

the word meaning. Besides, 7 (18.42%) of the students responded that the

implementation of strategy could help them in identifying the word meaning.

Moreover, 1 (2.63%) of the students said that the application of technique helped

them enough to find out the word meaning. It can be said that most of the students

were in the position of the implementation of Collaborative Strategic Reading

“really helped” them in identifying the word meaning.

Item number 9 dealt with the students’ opinion whether or not their

achievement in reading comprehension could be improved by using

“Collaborative Strategic Reading”. It can be found that 34 (89.47%) of the

students said their achievement in reading comprehension had been improved by

using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Meanwhile, 4 (10.53%) of the students

stated their achievement had been enough improved after getting treatment.

Besides, in terms of motivation, 33 (86.84%) of the students asserted that

they were really motivated to study reading, 5 (13.16%) of the students asserted

that they were motivated reading by using the steps of Collaborative Strategic

Reading. This percentage which stated in item number 10 showed that the

Collaborative Strategic Reading could motivate the students, but it can be another

innovative follow-up activity could be developed in the classroom.

 92

From the result of the questionnaire on post-test 2 showed that the students

gave positive respond towards the application of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading”. Moreover the result of post-test 2 also determined that the students had

passed the target score required by the school institution, since the mean score

was 81.48. the treatment was stopped because the standard score had been

achieved by the students.

4.2.3.6 Reflection

After all activities on cycle 2 were accomplished, the process and the

result of cycle 2 were analyzed and reflected. Based on the result of post-test 2, it

could be seen that there was an improvement in terms of the students’ mean score.

There were some points that could be analyzed and reflected on cycle 2 as

follows:

Analyzing the result of post-test 2, it could be stated that the students’

problems in achieving indicators in reading was successfully solved. Based on the

result of the researcher’s diary during the teaching learning process, post-test 2

and the questionnaire, it was found there was an improvement on the students’

reading competency, including finding out the general information, the specific

information, the textual reference, and the word meaning. The students’ mean

score in finding the general information improved from 67.17 on post-test 1

became 76.01 on post-test 2. The students’ mean score in finding the specific

information improved from 75.99 on post-test 1 became 80.13 on post-test 2. It

could be seen from the improvement score of the students from 71.05 (post-test 1)

which was categorized as good to 77.45 (post-test 2) could be categorized as good

 93

in the level of mastery. It increased 6.40 points compared to the result of post-test

1. The students’ improvement in cycle 2 could be seen in the following table:

Table 4.7 The Comparative Result of post-test 1 and Post-test 2

N The Four Reading Sub-Skills Mean Score in Mean Score in

o Post-test 1 Post-test 2
1. Finding out general 67.17 76.01
information
2. Finding out specific 75.99 80.13
information
3. Finding out textual reference 74.81 75.94
4. Finding out word meaning 66.23 77.72
Mean Score 71.05 77.45
Level of Mastery Good Good

The result of post-test 2 showed that the highest score was 85 which was

categorized as excellent. Meanwhile, the lowest score was 70, which was

categorized as good. The rest of the students obtained good category. From

overall the students’ mean score in post-test 2, there was 1 (2.63%) of the students

getting “excellent” result and 37 (97.37%) students got “good” result.

Based on the general observation, the teaching and learning process during

cycle 2 was run smoothly. The problems encountered by the students in this cycle

were less than the previous cycle. They became more familiar with the strategy

and more enthusiastic in reading the text in order to find the information as well

as comprehending the texts. They tried to break down the problems together or

using dictionary. Besides, the discussion session during the class seemed more

effective than before, since they worked in heterogeneity group. In this case they

had more chance to communicate with their friend as well as shared their ideas.
 94

The improvement on the students’ reading competency was caused by the

implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading”, especially for getting the

meaning of some words. The students became more confident to get involved in

the activity. Each step in the implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading”

helped the students to understand the text deeply. The questions related to the text

given to the student after they read the text also helped the students to understand

the whole of the text. There were almost 100% of the students who actively

answering the researcher’s questions in class discussion. The researcher could see

that the students more active compared to cycle 1. The students became more

confident and comfortable sharing their ideas. The students’ active participation

could be seen when they worked in group. In turn, each student in the group told

the new information that they found and confirmed the information together in

group.

4.3 Discussion

As mentioned before in chapter 1, the purpose of this study was to

improve the students’ reading comprehension, specifically in finding out the

general information, the specific information, the textual reference, and the word

meaning through the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading”. It could be

seen that the aim successfully achieved after conducting two cycles. The result of

the researcher’s diaries, the questionnaires, pre-test post-test 1, and the post-test 2

had indicated that the students gained significant improvement in reading

comprehension. The discussions covered two aspects such as the students’ reading
 95

improvement and the students’ response to the “Collaborative Strategic Reading”

in each cycle.

4.3.1 The Improvement of the Students’ Achievement

The success of the treatment could be seen from the students’ result of the

tests. The following graph showed the students’ improvement during the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” in reading class.

The summary of the students’ improvement could be seen on the following table.

Table 4.8 The Students’ Mean Score in Each Cycle

Test Mean Score Category

Pre-Test 61.68 Sufficient
Post-test 1 71.05 Good
Post-test 2 77.45 Good

The students’ gradual improvement could be seen on the following graph:

 96

Students' Mean Score

80 77.11
71.05
70 61.68
60
50
Students' Mean Score
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-Test
Post-Test I
Post Test II

Graph 4.1 The Improvement in Reading English texts

The data on the table 4.8 and graph 4.1 show the gradual improvements

from pre-test, post-test 1 to post-test 2. From the data above, it could be seen that

the main score obtained from pre-test was 61.68 which was catagorized as

sufficient. It improve 9.37 points to 71.05 (good) in post-test 1. Since there were

only (20) 52.63% of the students’ score reached the passing grade that was 75, the

reasearcher continued giving the treatment to post-test 2. In this cycle the mean

score increased 6.40 points to the 77.46 (good) from post-test 1. The students’

mean score in post-test 2 had already reached the passing grade but there were 4

students could not reach the passing grade. The improvement was caused by the

application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” which helped the students to

comprehend the reading text.

The improvement of the students in pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 was

depicted clearly in the graph above. The students’ mean score in pre-test was
 97

61.68, which means that this belonged to ‘sufficient’ category from 38 students

taking the test, 12 students (31.58%) achieved insufficient level of mastery,18

students (47.37%) achieved sufficient level of mastery, and 8 students (21.05%)

achieved good level of mastery, but there were only 6 (15.79%) of the students

could pass the passing score.

In cycle 1, the mean score of the students was 71.05. In this cycle, the

students’ mean score increased 9.37 points to 71.05 from pre-test. From 38

students followed the test, 1 students (2.63%) achieved insufficient level of

mastery, 15 students (39.47%) achieved sufficient level mastery, and there were

21 students (55.26%) achieved good level of mastery and 1 students (2.63%)

achieved very good level of mastery. but there were only 20 (52.63%) students

could pass the passing score.

The action was continued to cycle 2, since the students’ mean score did

not reach the passing grade, which was 75. In this cycle, the students’ mean score

increased 6.40 points to 77.45 from cycle 1. From 38 students following test, all

students (100%) achieved good level of mastery, but there were 4 (10.53%)

students could not the passing score. The students’ mean score in cycle 2 had

already reached the passing grade then the action was stopped. For individual

score of the students, could be seen in appendix 30.

Furthermore, the students’ mean score for each reading sub-skill was also

improved. He following table and graph would present the improvement gained

by the students for the reading sub skills:

Table 4.9 The Improvement of the Four Reading Sub-Skills in Each Cycle
 98

The Four Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

Reading Sub-
Skills
General 60.15(sufficient) 67.17(sufficient) 76.01(Good)
information
Specific 66.58(sufficient) 75.99(Good) 80.13(Good)
Information
Textual 58.59(sufficient) 74.81(Good) 75.94(Good)
Reference
Word Meaning 61.40(sufficient) 66.23(sufficient) 77.72(Good)
Mean Score 61.68 (sufficient) 71.05 (Good) 77.45 (Good)

From the table, it can be transferred into the following graph

90
80
70
60
50
40
30 Pre-Test
20 Post-Test I
Post-Test II
10
0
on on ce ng
ati ati r en ani
m rm e e
fr o fo ef M
Il n In lR d
c a or
ra ifi stu W
ene p ec Te
G S

Graph 4.2 The Improvement of the Four Reading Sub-Skills in Each Cycle

The table and graph above also reveal significant improvement toward the

students’ reading comprehension in the four sub-skills of reading.

The first improvement was in finding the general information.

Furthermore, in finding the general information, the students’ mean score was
 99

60.15 (sufficient) in pre-test. It increased 7.02 points to 67.17 (sufficient) in cycle

1 and increased 8.84 points to 76.01 (good) in cycle 2.

The second improvement was in finding the specific information. In

finding specific information, the students’ mean score was 66.58 (sufficient) in

pre-test. It increased 9.41 points to 75.99 (good) in cycle 1 and increased 8.84

points to 80.13 (good) in cycle 2.

The third improvement was in finding the textual reference. In finding

textual reference, the students’ mean score was 58.59 (sufficient) in pre-test. It

improved 16.22 points to 75.94 (good) in cycle 1 and increased 1.13 points to

75.94 (good) in cycle 2.

The last improvement was in finding the word meaning. In finding word

meaning, the students’ mean score was 61.40 (sufficient) in pre-test. It improved

4.83 points to 66.23 (Good) in cycle 1 and increased 11.49 points to 77.72 (Good)

in cycle 2.

With regard to the students’ mean score it could be said that the

implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” in teaching reading could

improve the students’ reading comprehension as well as in four sub skills of

reading. The students’ mean score at the end of cycle 2 was 77.45 (Good). It

passed the standard score that applied by the researcher which were 75.

According to the result of the tests in each cycle, it was found that there

were a number of students who had insufficient achievement in reading

comprehension. The number of the students were said to have insufficient

achievement if their score were stood under than 55. Then, the number and the
 100

percentages of the students who reached and did not passing score in each cycle

are explained in the following table:

Table 4.10 The Percentages of the Students Who Reached and Did Not Reach

the Passing Score in Each Cycle

Type of Test The Students who reached the The Students who did
passing Score not reach the passing
score
Pre-test 6 (15.79%) 32 (84.21%)
Post-test 1 20 (52.63%) 18 (47.37%)
Post-test 2 34 (89.47%) 4 (10.53%)

From the table, it can be transferred into the following graph:

40

35

30

25
The Students who reached
20 the passing Score
The Students who did not
15 reach the passing score

10

0
Pre-test Post-test I Post-test II

Graph 4.3 The Percentages of the Students Who Reached and Did Not

Reach the Passing Score in Each Cycle

 101

From the table 4.10 and the graph 4.3, it is clear that the number of the

students who obtained the passing score increased in every test. In the preliminary

test the number of the students who reached the passing score was (15.79%) of

students. After conducting cycle 1, it improved to (52.63%) 20 students, and at the

end of cycle 2, it improved to (89.47%) 34 students. This result was satisfying

because (89.47%) 34 students reached the passing score at the end of cycle 2.

While the number of the students who did not get the passing score decreased in

every test. In pre-test the number of the students who did not reach the passing

score was (84.21%) 32 students. After conducting cycle 1, it decreased to

(47.37%) 18 students, and at the end of cycle 2, it was only 4 (10.53%) of the

students did not reach the passing score. This result was really satisfying because

at the end of cycle 2, the students’ mean score was 77.45 and also all of the

students could get good mastery level of reading comprehension

The result of the students’ score after being given the action indicated that

the application of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped the students gained

some improvements in reading comprehension specifically in finding out the

general information, the specific information, the textual reference, and the word

meaning. In this study, the result of the students after being given an action was

different from pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2.

Based on the table above, the success of the teaching and learning process

was also mainly indicated by the result of the test obtained by the students,

especially, in reading the four-skills. From the result of pre-test, post-test 1, and

post-test 2, all of the students had made significant improvement in reading

comprehension.
 102

However, there were four students still could not reach the passing score.

After doing an analysis of their answer, they did not write their answer for several

questions although they knew the answer. Besides, three of them were the extreme

students and sometimes in the session, they were late to get the lesson. Referring

to this fact, it must be decided that they must be given special attention about their

activity in the classroom. However, from pre-test to post-test, they showed their

improvements although they could not pass the passing score.

4.3.2 The Students’ Responses toward the Implementation of “Collaborative

Strategic Reading” in reading English Texts.

According to the result of the researcher’s diary and the questionnaire, it

was found that the students’ responses toward the implementation of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” in reading English texts changed positively

through each cycle. The used of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” were very

effective to motivate the students during the teaching and learning process. The

students became active and enjoy the reading activities. The combination of group

discussion and drawing picture on cycle 2 gave positive impact. The students who

passively delivering their ideas in English seemed to be more enthusiasts and

challenged to the reading activity after they put in group discussion.

The implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” in teaching

reading was positively responded by the students. From the results of the

questionnaire, the students’ responses toward their problems in finding the general

information, the specific information, the word meaning and the textual reference
 103

changed in each cycle. There was an improvement of students’ responses who

stated that the implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” could help

them in finding the four reading sub-skills from the result of cycle 1 to the result

of cycle 2.

The result of the students’ score after being given the treatment was

interpreted as the results of the psychological and the academic factors. The

psychological factors involved the students’ attitude and the students’ response

(feeling and motivation) during the teaching learning process. From psychological

factors, it was known that there were changes in the students’ attitude during

teaching and learning process. The students were more motivated to read. This

could be seen from the students’ responses in the questionnaires that had been

administered in pre-test, post-test 1, and he post-test 2.

The academic factors involved the nature of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” strategy able to attract the students to learn more and gave more chances

to share their knowledge with other students. Dealing with the nature of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading”, the students’ responses were generally

positive, in which most of the students thought that “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” could really useful in helping them in reading English texts. These facts

were in line with the nature of technique, in which “Collaborative Strategic

Reading” is the strategy which can help the students’ reading comprehension.

In terms of the psychological factors, it was seen form the students’

response toward the questionnaire. The result of the questionnaire in cycle 1

showed that the students’ improvement in reading English texts was also in line
 104

with their positive responses toward the application of “Collaborative Strategic

Reading”.

In line with the result off the questionnaires, the researcher’s diaries also

showed that there were changes in the student’s attitude during the teaching

learning process. In cycle 1, there were about 47.37% of the students who actively

involved answering the researcher’s questions in pre-reading actively. In addition,

the students could get involved actively in teaching learning process by answering

the researcher’s questions. However, there were about 76.32% of the students who

actively involved in the group discussion.

Besides the result of the questionnaires, the diary also showed that there

were changes in the students’ attitude during the teaching and learning process. In

cycle 1, most of the students’ were passive, only some students got involved in the

activity. Most of them just kept silent when the researcher asked them some

questions and some acted extremely. They did not feel confident in sharing their

ideas and were so worried about making mistakes. From the finding in cycle 1, the

researcher had modify the activities in cycle 2 in the form of “Number Head

Together” group work, re-arranged and also drew picture after reading the text. It

make the learning activity became more enjoyable. In addition, it could minimize

their anxiety of making mistakes because they had a group that could support

them. As a result, the teaching and learning process ran well as more, the students

got involved in the activity.

From the researcher’s diaries, it was known that there were changes in the

students’ behavior during the teaching and learning process. In cycle 1, most of
 105

the students were passive. Only some of them actively got involved the activity.

Most of them unconfident to give answer and were so worried about making

mistakes although the topic that was discussed at that time was familiar to them.

They had tendency to wait for their friends’ answer and just agreed the answer. In

cycle 2, the researcher had modified the activity. This was to give them a chance

to discuss their ideas so they could be more confident in giving answer. The result

of the questionnaire also showed that they responded positively toward the

application of the “Collaborative Strategic Reading”.

In terms of the academic factors, from the result of the discussion above, it

could be seen that here was an improvement in terms of the result of the test and

the process of teaching and learning related closely with the implementation of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” and its steps as below:

1. Previewing (brain storming and making prediction)

- Questioning for the background knowledge to make prediction

- Making groups.

- Previewing the whole text before they read.

2. Click and Clunk

- Re-reading sentence without the word and look for key ideas to help in

understanding the words

- Helping students to break the word apart and look for the smaller words.

a. Asking the students to find out key words that make them difficult in

comprehending the text.

 106

b. Asking the students to discuss problem and opening the dictionary.

This activity seemed to force the students to open the dictionary. They

want to open the dictionary for getting the meaning and winning the

activity. They do not recognize that this activity will build their

vocabulary.

3. Get the Gist

Focusing on the passage and then finding out the most important detailed

information.

- Reading the whole text

- Identifying the most important ideas about topic in a section of passage

- Restating the most important point by using their own words.

4. Wrap up

Do discussion. One should give question and other must answer.

- Asking each group to make question in form 5W and 1 H.

- Asking the students to deliver question

- Asking the students to write the most important ideas.

(It can be changed by answering several questions about the text and another

activity to show students’ reading comprehension)

5. Student’s personal work.

- Giving students some short questions about the text they have read.

- Asking them to write down the answer individually

 107

In the class, the students were taught by using “Collaborative Strategic

Reading (CSR)”. Furthermore, CSR is a tool to help the students making

prediction, break-down the problems about vocabulary to master it then

comprehending the texts. It represented the relationship among vocabulary and

terms in the text. Moreover, Collaborative Strategic Reading was effective

because the students will have some collaboration with the teacher and the other

friend. Besides those “Collaborative Strategic Reading” also brings benefit for

the students before and after reading. The students became aware of the major

themes of a text before they began to read and activate their prior knowledge

about the topic before reading. Nevertheless, the students’ misconception about

the topic would be changed after reading and discussing the new material.

The improvement of the process could be seen through the students’

response toward the application “Collaborative Strategic Reading”. There was

an improvement in the quality of their answer from cycle 1 to cycle 2. In cycle 1,

some of the students only copied their friends’ answers. The students’

improvement in cycle 2 was also caused by the implementation of

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” and its modification. In cycle 2, the students

did not work on homogeneity group, but they worked with other level of

students. Besides, the follow up activity made the students enjoy the reading

class. Furthermore, the group were able to help the students became more

confident with their answers so that they were more active in the teaching and

learning process. Again, students benefit from the verbalization, and the peer

coaching helps both the high and the low achievers. Class time is usually better

spent because less time is wasted on inappropriate responses and because all
 108

students become actively involved with the material. Students discuss the

question, making certain that every group member knows the agreed upon

answer.

Moreover, the students’ attitude toward the application of the strategy also

improved. In cycle 1, the students seemed less motivated during the process of

teaching and learning. They spent their time to talk more than followed the

process of teaching and learning process. However, in cycle 2 they work better.

They became serious in following the activity and more motivated to read the

text and do the activities given.

In short, the implementation of “Collaborative Strategic Reading” helped

the students’ reading comprehension including finding out the general

information, the specific information, the textual reference, and the word

meaning. From the explanation above, it could be concluded that the

“Collaborative Strategic Reading” did not only bring improvement in the result

of the test, but also in terms of process of teaching and learning.