THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PORPE STRATEGY IN TEACHING READING COMPREHENSION TO THE ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA YAYASAN BAKTI PRABUMULIH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v2i2.4823Keywords:
PORPE Strategy, Reading ComprehensionAbstract
Abstract: PORPE is a study strategy that can be used in any content area course that uses the essay exam to measure learning or any test format that encourages higher levels of thinking such as synthesis, application, and evaluation. This study was conducted as an attempt to find out the effectiveness of applying Predict, Organize, Rehearse, Practice, Evaluate (PORPE) strategy on students’ reading comprehension. This study used experimental design. The population of this studywas students of Grade XI, Senior High School Yayasan Bakti Prabumulih which consisted of 120 students. There were sixty students from the population taken as the sample in this study. The sample was divided into two randomized groups: experimental and control groups . The experimental group was taught by using PORPE strategy, while the control group was taught by using conventional method. To obtain the reliability of the test, the writer applied Kuder Richardson 21 formula (KR- 21) . The result of the reliability was 0.81. The data were analyzed by using t-test formula. The analysis showed that the scores of the students in the experimental group were significantly higher than the scores of the students in the control group at the level of significance 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) 58 , t -observed value 2.8 > t – table value 2.00. The findings indicated that using PORPE strategy significantly affected the students’ reading com prehension. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.
References
Ary, Donald. 1999. Introduction to research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. 2004. Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Best, J. W. & Khan, J. V. 2002. Research in Education 7. New Delhi : Prentice Hall. Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practice. New York :
Pearson Education.
Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2006. Syllabus KTSP untuk SMA. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Lee, J., Grigg, W.S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). The Nation’s Report Reading. New York: Pearson Education.
Simpson, M. L., Hayes, C.G. 1998. An Initial Validation of a Study Strategy System. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 20, 149-180 Available at: http://jlr.sagepub.com (Accessed on June 2014 )
Vincent Grenary. 2009. Education in Indonesia from crisis to recovery . Available at: http://www.libraryforall.blogspot.com (Accessed on, October, 2014)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
