Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3308 7947 1 SM
3308 7947 1 SM
Abstract
The objective of this study was to find out the influence of TPS to teach reading comprehension to the
Tenth Grade Students at SMA Negeri 1 Sekayu. The subject of this study was the tenth-grade students at
SMA Negeri 1 Sekayu in academic year 2019/2020 which amounted to 64 students’ representatives of
193 populations. This study was a quantitative research. This study used quasi-experimental method. The
research design used two groups pretest posttest design. The test consisted 30 items in multiple choices.
The result of test was calculated by using SPSS Software22. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was
examined through the test. Based on the criteria of testing hypotheses, the alternative (Ha) 5%
significance level was t- obtained of the test. It means that teaching reading comprehension by using TPS
technique to the Eighth-Grade students of SMA Negeri 1 Sekayu in the academic year 2020 was
effective.
Keywords: think-pair-share, reading comprehension
.
©English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang
and learning process. They did not response before being asked to share
actively engage in the learning activities. ideas. By applying TPS strategy, the
One of the strategies to implement researchers expects the students would
cooperative learning is through Think- be able to acquire language easier based
Pair Share (TPS). It provokes students to on the material given. The researchers is
think about what they were going to interested in conducting research, and in
share then asked them to conduct a making students more active in
discussion. TPSis a cooperative comprehending the material. That is why
discussion strategy developed by Frank the researchers is interested in
Lyman and his collogues in Maryland. conducting this research. Therefore, the
TPS technique is one of the Cooperative problem of this study formulated, as
Learning Strategies. Sugiarto and follow “How is the influence of Think
Sumarsono (2014) explained the Pair Share to teach reading at the tenth
implementation of Think-Pair-Share grade of SMA Negeri 1 Sekayu?”
model to improve students’ ability in
reading narrative texts. Think-Pair-Share Literature Review
technique should develop the thinking of
cooperative learning in terms of 1. Definition of Teaching
knowledge, skills, and problem solving There are many various definitions
of each student. In most of the studies of teaching. According to Sulaiman
conducted by Bataineh (2015); Martha, (2017), teaching is such a verbal
Emmanuel, and Seraphim (2015); (Tint interaction among the teacher and the
and Nyunt, 2015); Bamiro (2015) has students in a good learning sequence or
found the significant effect of TPS on atmosphere. The teacher should have
achievement, self-esteem, to promote good skills and competencies in
active learning, to promote higher teaching, such as making interesting
quality cognitive skills and problem- lesson to the students. (p.1). While
solving skills in students. Deshpande and others regard teaching as educating and
Salman (2016); Raba, (2017); habit formatting to make good learners.
Mohmoud, (2013); Lee, C. et.al. (2018) Brown (2006), teaching is guiding and
TPS offers great potential to improve facilitating learning, enabling the learner
collaboration and communication to learn, setting the condition for
between peers. It can also be used to learning (p.19). Based on that theory, the
improve student engagement in the researchers thinks that teaching is the
learning process process of transfer and receive the
In other words, TPS is a group knowledge by doing the activity inside
discussion which students would listen, the room. It handled by the teacher and
or they would be given a question of followed by the students.
presentation. Then, they have time to
think individually, talk with each other 2. Reading
in pairs, and finally share responses with Reading is the one important skill
the larger group. TPS technique gives in English, and it helps the students get
the student time to think about an answer more information by reading activity.
and activates prior knowledge. TPS While reading not only read the text
technique enhances students’ without not knowing the meaning of the
communication skills as they discuss text, if it happens, the reader would get
their ideas with their classmates. hard to understand to catch the main
Students also had the opportunity to point of the text itself. According to
discuss with other students about their Trihoran (2012), reading is one of the
design was "two groups pretest posttest research, videos, where all of this
design". There were two variables in this data is relevant to the research.
study, namely the independent variable
and the dependent variable. The Technique for Analyzing the Data
independent variable was the TPS and To analyze the data of this study,
the dependent variable was the student’s researcherss conducted several stages;
ability in comprehending reading text. first, data from the pre-test and post-test
In this study, researcherss used results were analyzed to find averages
pre-test and post-test for the control obtained from the control and
group without doing special treatment, experimental group. Second, the data
while for the experimental group using obtained by the control and experimental
pre-test and post-test coupled with group were compared statistically to
special treatment using the TPS. For determine differences in the results
more details, see Table 1 below: between the two groups using paired
sample tests. Third, the data obtained
Table 1. Research Subject from the second step, were compared
Subject Pretest Treatment Posttest statistically to find out the significant
X.IPA 6 O1 O2
differences in the results between the
X.IPA 5 O1 X O2
Remarks: two groups using paired sample t-tests;
S : Research Subject (S Control / to find significant differences from each
S Experiment) criterion measured from the value of the
X : Treatment test results obtained by each group, and
O1 : Giving Pretest in order to find out which criteria affect
O2 : Giving Posttest
the achievement of understanding of
Technique for Collecting the Data reading comprehension using paired
Test sample t-tests. The last step taken by the
The test used by researcherss is to researcherss was to find a significant
contain student learning achievements difference from the results obtained by
tests, while the form of the test is a each group using paired sample t-test, in
multiple-choice question, which are used order to prove how significant, the
to find out the progress of the students’ difference is and whether the difference
reading comprehension scores before was caused by the treatment given. All
and after treatment. The researchers used calculations were analyzed using SPSS
recount texts for reading comprehension 22.0 for windows.
test, which covers four options, namely In this study, researcherss used the
(a,b,c,d). t-test statistical procedure. This t-test
Non-Test formula was used to prove the
a. Observation hypothesis in this study, to find out
Observation is the direct observation whether there was a significant increase
of an activity carried out in order to between the pre-test scores and post-test
find out the condition or a condition students.
that would be observed.
b. Documentation Result and Discussion
The documentation used to obtain The statistical result given is
data, directly from the research site, categorized into two parts:
discusses the teaching material used,
the class learning process before the Description of the Score Pretest and
study, photographs during the Posttest of the Experimental Group
Pretest Posttest
Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent Percent
50 11 34.4 34.4 63 1 3.1 3.1
53 5 15.6 50.0 70 4 12.5 15.6
60 8 25.0 75.0 73 1 3.1 18.8
63 2 6.3 81.3 76 9 28.1 46.9
66 2 6.3 87.5 80 7 21.9 68.8
Valid
Valid 70 1 3.1 90.6 83 4 12.5 81.3
73 2 6.3 96.9 86 3 9.4 90.6
76 1 3.1 100.0 90 1 3.1 93.8
93 1 3.1 96.9
96 1 3.1 100.0
Total 32 100.0 Total 32 100.0 100.0
Source: Research Data of 2020
Based on the table above, it was students (28.1%) who got 76, one
known that the result of pretest in student (3.1%) who got 73, and four
experimental group of highest score was students (12.5%) who got 70. It showed
76 and the lowest score was 50. There the reading comprehension learning by
were two students (6.3%) who got 73, using the TPS technique can affect
one student (3.1%) who got 70, two learning achievements.
students (6.3%) who got 66, two
students (6.3%) who got 63, eight Description of the Score Pretest and
students (25.0%) who got 60, and five Posttest of the Control Group
students (15.6%) who got53. Then, it Statistical result with regards to the
was known that the result of Posttest in value of the original test (pretest) of
experimental group of highest score was student in the control class, which is the
96 and the lowest score was 63. There class that is not given treatment in the
was one student (3.1%) who got 93, form of the implementation of TPS
which was considered as the highest technique and the value of student
score, one student (3.1%) who got 90, learning result after being given
three students (9.4%) who got 86, four treatment (posttest) can be seen in the
students (12.5%) who got 83, seven following table 3:
students (21.9%) who got 80, nine
Table 3. Description of the Score Pretest and Posttest Student Learning Achievements of the Control
Group
Pretest Posttest
Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent Percent
46 3 9.4 9.4 50 6 18.8 18.8
50 10 31.3 40.6 53 1 3.1 21.9
53 8 25.0 65.6 60 9 28.1 50.0
60 4 12.5 78.1 63 5 15.6 65.6
Valid Valid
63 2 6.3 84.4 66 2 6.3 71.9
66 3 9.4 93.8 70 2 6.3 78.1
70 1 3.1 96.9 73 2 6.3 84.4
73 1 3.1 100.0 76 4 12.5 96.9
Pretest Posttest
Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent Percent
80 1 3.1 100.0
From the table above, it was known The table above showed a very
that the result of pretest in control group significant difference in student reading
of the highest score was 73 and the comprehension. It could be seen that the
lowest score was 46. There was one acquisition for the experimental group
student (3.1%) who got 70, three students was 12,096 with a significance level of
(9.4%) who got 66, two students (6.3%) 0,000. Because t-obtained is higher than
who got 63, four students (12.5%) who t-table (tobtained 12.096 > ttable 1.684) with
got 60, eight students (25.0%) who got a significance level of p <0.05,
53, ten students (31.3%) who got 50. Therefore, it showed that H0 was
Then, it was known that result of Posttest rejected. It means that there was
in Control Group of the highest score was significant influence in student reading
80 and the lowest score was 53. There comprehension before treatment and
four students (12.5%) who got 76, two after treatment using the TPS technique.
students (6.3%) who got 73, two students Based on the data analysis in the
(6.3%) who got 70, two students (6.3%) previous section it could be concluded
who got 66, five students (15.6%) who that the TPS strategy was effective in
got 63, nine students (28.1%) who got 60 teaching reading comprehension by
and one student (3.1%) who got 53. It using TPS strategy to the Tenth-Grade
showed that reading comprehension students of SMA Negeri 1 Sekayu. The
without special treatment (without using result of the research showed that the
the TPS technique) then the results were students who were taught reading
very little difference or in other words the comprehension through the TPS strategy
pre-test and post-test values were almost got better achievement than who were
the same. not taught in experimental class, when
To find out whether learning by the mean in the experimental group of
using the TPS technique can contribute to pretests was lower score, while the mean
student reading comprehension learning of posttest the higher score. The result of
achievements can be seen in table 4 mean of posttest the higher score. It
below this: could be concluded that there were
differences between students’ scores in
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Variables Based the pretest and the students score in the
on Pretest and Posttest results
posttest of experimental class.
THINK-PAIR-SHARE TECHNIQUE
In additional, the mean result from
(TPS) pretest and posttest in the control group
Experimental Control Group revealed that there were differences
Group between the students pretest score and
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest posttest score but not significance as the
Mean 57.66 79.03 55.28 62.81
SD. 7.938 7.005 7.323 8.935 experimental group. Based on the
Df 31 31 statistics analysis of independent sample
t-table 1.684 1.684 t-test, the result of the students’ scores in
t-obtained 12.096 4.390
Significance 0.000 0.000 experimental group and control group
that the value of t-obtained 6.148.
Kagan, S. and Kagan, M. (1994). The Millis, B.J., and Cottell, P.G., (1998).
Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning for Higher
Cooperative Learning. In Handbook of Education Faculty. Phoenix Ariz:
cooperative learning methods, ed. S. American Council on Education
Sharan, 115-133. and the Oryx Press.
Raba, A. A. A. (2017). The Influence
of TPSon Improving Students’
Lee, C., Li, H., & Shahrill, M. (2018).
Oral Communication Skills in
Utilising the think-pair-share technique
EFL Classrooms. Scientific
in the learning of probability.
Research Publishing, 8, 12-23.
International Journal on Emerging
Mathematics Education, 2(1), 49- Smith, Richard J. and Johnson, Dale
64.http://dx.doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v2i D. (1980). Teaching Children to
1.8218. Read. Second Edition. USA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Lyman, F.T. (1981). The Responsive
Classroom Discussion: The Inclusion Sugiarto, D & Sumarsono, P. (2014).
of All Students. College Park: The Implementation of Think-
University of Maryland Press, pp. 109 Pair-Share Model to Improve
– 113. Students’ Ability in Reading
Narrative Texts. International
Mahmoud, K. (2013). Think-Pair-Share: A
Journal of English and
Teaching Learning Strategy to Enhance
Education, 3(3), 206-215.
Students’ Critical Thinking.
Educational Research Quarterly, Sulaiman M. (2017). Teach the
36(4). Students Not the Books (A
Handbook Of TEFL) (1st ed).
Martha, M. I., Emmanue, l. & Seraphina,
Palembang.
M. (2015). Effect of think- pair –share
strategy on secondary school Tint, S. S. & Nyuut. E. E. (2015).
mathematics students‟ achievement Collaborative learning with
and academic selfesteem in fractions. Think-pair-share Technique.
American International Journal of Computer Applications: An
Contemporary Scientific Research International Journal (CAIJ),
(AIJCSR), 2(2), 141-147. 2(1), 1-11.
Tighe, J., & Lyman Jr, F. T. (1988). Cueing Trihoran. (2012). Reading 1 Basic
thinking in the classroom: The promise Reading Skill. Serang: Loquen
of theory-embedded tools. Educational Press.
Leadership, 45(7), 18-24.
Wallace. (1966). Reading. New York:
Medina, S. L. (2011). Effect of strategy Cambridge University Press.
instruction in a EFL reading
comprehension course. A Case
Research. Profile journal 14(1): p.79-
89.