Using KWL Chart to Improve Students’ Reading Comprehension

ABSTRAK USING KWL CHART TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION Yunita Purnama Sari1 Utari Praba Astuti2 Ali Saukah3 State University of Malang E-mail: yunitaps94@gmail.com ABSTRACT: This research aimed to find out how KWL chart can be used to improve reading comprehension of hortatory text on the eleventh graders of MA Unggulan Wahab Hasbulloh Tambakberas, Jombang. The research design is classroom action research. The data used are students’ observation checklist and students’ worksheet. They are analyzed using qualitative and quantitative technique. The result of this research shows that KWL chart can improve the students’ reading comprehension score because of several reasons: (1) KWL chart includes activating students’ background knowledge in the pre-reading activity, (2) KWL chart gives the opportunity to the students to predict what the text is about, (3) KWL chart requires the students to monitor their reading, (4) there is a discussion activity in pairs after completing KWL chart, (5) the topics of hortatory texts used are interesting enough for the students. Keywords: KWL Chart, Reading Comprehension There are four skills for students to master in English: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Reading has an essential role in teaching and learning success at all education stages. It is due to the fact that there are many materials provided in the written form that requires students to improve their reading skills to understand it. Therefore, the students will gain a lot of information and knowledge through the reading process. Based on the standard competence of curriculum 2006 for Senior High School in reading, students are expected to be able to comprehend some text types such as explanatory, hortatory, discussion, descriptive, procedure, narrative, report, and review in the context of daily life. Comprehending or reading for meaning is the ultimate goal for every reading activity. 1 Yunita Purnama Sari is an English Department student in the State University of Malang. This Article is based on the thesis for the degree of Sarjana in English Language Education, 2016. 2Utari Praba Astuti is an English Department lecturer in the State University of Malang. 3Ali Saukah is an English Department lecturer in the State University of Malang. There are many definitions of reading comprehension that are proposed by the experts. According to Otto, Rude, & Spiegel (1979:151), reading comprehension is an interaction between thought and language. In addition, Snow (2002:11) explains that reading comprehension is a process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction with the written language. Another definition of reading comprehension comes from Turner (1988:160) who views reading comprehension as a process in which the readers interpret a text by building a bridge between prior knowledge and new information. In brief, the overall idea of comprehension is that intentional meaning and thoughtful thinking process of readers through interaction with text when they read. Regarding to the complexity of comprehension process, a suitable strategy is needed for teaching reading. The role of the teacher is also very important in creating effective teaching procedures to make students master in reading. The teacher must provide suitable texts and activities that will focus the students’ attention on the text, and make the students aware of what they are doing, and interested in doing it better (Simajuntak, 1988:36). In a preliminary study administered in XI IIA class of MA Unggulan Wahab Hasbulloh Tambakberas Jombang, the researcher found some problems related to the students learning. According to the result of the questionnaires completed by 29 students of XI IIA, 12 out of 29 students had difficulties in reading due to the limited knowledge of vocabulary. Furthermore, 4 students stated they could not comprehend the sentence structure easily and 3 other students stated that the provided topics were unfamiliar for them. There were only 29 students filling the questionnaires because 7 students were not in the class. The researcher also observed the learning process and interviewed the English teacher in the next day to validate the information which was already gained from the questionnaire result. During the observation and interview, the researcher found some students did not participate actively during English class. They were not so curious. They were afraid to make mistakes when they answered the questions. The teacher said that the students’ reading scores were below the passing standard score. Furthermore, the students were not exposed to learn more through interactive teaching strategies. They also did not encounter meaningful and varied materials. Simanjuntak (1998:2) mentions some factors that contribute to the students’ success in reading, such as students’ motivation, students’ confidence, and students’ own skills. Furthermore, tapping into background knowledge is also determined the students’ achievement. It becomes an important thing in the learning process. It is based on Tileston (2011:36) who states that when the teacher teaches new information, the brain will make sense of it sooner if there is a prior connection with it. The more the students are helped to make connections between what they already know and the new knowledge, the more they get positive learning experiences. In line with this, Sousa (in Tileston, 2011:37) explains that the connection between new information which is introduced to working memory and information in long-term memory for past learning will make great achievement. In addition, Marzano (in Tileston, 2011:39) says that building connections prior to the learning had a high effect size on the student learning. Simanjuntak (1988:12) assumes that students’ reading skills can be trained. Due to the fact that activating students’ background knowledge is very important, the researcher believes that one of the strategies that can be used to overcome the students’ problem in reading is using KWL chart. By using KWL chart, students have the opportunity to develop their reading skills. Moreover, they will have a good reading strategy to improve their reading comprehension. KWL chart is an instructional scheme that develops an active reading of texts by activating students’ background knowledge (Ogle, 1986:570). It consists of three columns that help to capture before, during, and after reading a text. KWL stands for determining what I Know, what I Want to know, and what I Learned. The first column is K which tells what students know about the topic before reading the text. In this part, the teacher tries to activate students’ background knowledge before they go to the text further. The next column is W in which the students write down some questions that they want to know about the topic they will read. As they generate questions for W column, they learn to set their own purposes for reading. Further, because they are reading to answer their own questions, students are more likely active to monitor their comprehension. The third column is L in which the students states everything that they learned after reading the text by matching columns what they know in advance, what they want to know. Some previous researches show that KWL chart strategy can enhance students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, the present researcher applies KWL chart strategy to improve students’ reading comprehension of hortatory text. The hortatory text is chosen due to several reasons. First, the KWL chart strategy is not used yet in comprehending hortatory text which presents opinions about certain things. Second, the text being learned while the researcher did the implementation of KWL chart strategy is hortatory text. It is based on standard competence of Curriculum 2006 for the eleventh graders. This research aimed to find out how KWL chart can be used to improve reading comprehension of the eleventh graders of MA Unggulan Wahab Hasbulloh Tambakberas, Jombang. The result of the study is expected to give practical contributions. It will be significant to enrich teachers with a useful learning strategy to improve the quality of teaching-learning process in the classroom. For students, this strategy hopefully can help students to have better reading comprehension by providing them a way to exploit their reading skill and strategy. Moreover, the findings of this study can be used as a reference for future researchers to conduct further studies in improving English reading comprehension. METHOD This is a collaborative action research consisting of one cycle. The cycle contains four stages: planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting. The subjects of this research are the students on XI IIA class of MA Unggulan Wahab Hasbulloh (MAUWH) Tambakberas Jombang in Academic Year 2015/2016 which consists of 36 students. The data sources used in obtaining the data in this research are students’ observation checklists and students’ worksheet. The data collected are qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative data is taken from students’ observation checklists during the implementation of the strategy. Besides, the quantitative data is taken from students’ score in evaluation test. There are 3 tests conducted in the second, third, and fourth meeting. The criterion of success is that all students should achieve improvement on their reading comprehension score. The students’ reading comprehension scores got from the second, third, and fourth worksheet were compared. It is aimed to see the students’ gain after being given the KWL chart strategy. If there is improvement on the students’ score, it can be considered that the KWL chart strategy can be used to improve the students’ reading comprehension of hortatory text. RESEARCH FINDINGS The results of the data in the observation stage were used to the basis of the reflection on cycle 1. Each student’s worksheet consisted of ten questions that require short answer. The answers were scored based on the total of correct answers. There were three reading comprehension scores that got from the first, second, and third students’ worksheet. Based on the calculation of the students’ worksheet scores, it could be seen that the students’ reading comprehension score was improved. It was shown by the increasing the students’ mean score in the class. Moreover, every student’s scores from the first, second, and third worksheet was improved. The improvement of students’ reading comprehension score through the use of KWL chart could be seen in the table 3.5. Table 3.5 Students’ Reading Comprehension Improvement Worksheet 1 Worksheet 2 Worksheet 3 Mean 76.29 94.19 94.24 Improvement 17.9 0.05 Based on table 3.5, it can be seen that there was improvement of students’ reading comprehension score from worksheet 1, 2, and 3. The improvement from worksheet 1 to worksheet 2 is 17.9. The improvement is quite much because the second students’ worksheet was made simpler than the first worksheet. The text used in the second worksheet is shorter than the first one. Then, the vocabulary used in the second worksheet is quite easy and familiar for the students. Moreover, the researcher showed the students’ mistakes from the first worksheet and explained what they have not understood yet about the previous lesson in the review stage. The researcher simplified the second worksheet to suit the students’ reading level. Meanwhile, the improvement from the second to the third worksheet is little because the text used is quite similar with the second worksheet. The vocabulary used in the text is not difficult enough for the students. The researcher made the third worksheet in such way to confirm that the students’ reading is on that level. The students’ improvement during the research can be seen in the chart 3.1. Chart 3.1 Chart of Students’ Mean Score Improvement Besides showing improvement on the students’ reading comprehension score, there was also improvement on the students’ participation in the classroom. It was based on the students’ observation checklist. Most of the students actively participated in all reading activity and showed positive response in its process. It was known from the situation of the class that became more active in comparison from the first, second, and third meeting. Based on the implementation result, it was found that there was an improvement on the students’ reading comprehension after the implementation of KWL chart strategy. Therefore, after having discussion with the English teacher and the advisor, the researcher decided to stop the actions. DISCUSSION Based on the research findings, the KWL chart strategy had successfully improved the students’ comprehension in reading hortatory text. The success of KWL chart strategy in improving the students’ reading comprehension was due to some factors as follows. First, during the implementation process, the researcher tried to activate the students’ prior knowledge about a certain topic before they were given the text. The activating students’ prior knowledge process were started from raising questions related to the topic, asking the students to write information they already know, and asking the students to generate some questions related to the topic. Those activities were done in the pre-reading activity and were done in the second and third meeting. The process of activating the students’ background knowledge took an important role in the learning process. It is beneficial in helping the students become more aware of what they know and do not know so they pay attention to contradictory and new information in the material they read (Afflerbach, 1990:14). In line with this, Anderson and Pearson (as cited in Afflerbach, 1990:10) state that prior knowledge is extremely important in influencing how the readers interpret what they read and what they learn from their reading. The students will get the idea about the text they will read when their prior knowledge was activated. Second, KWL chart strategy allowed the students to predict what the text is about. After completing K (What I know Column), the students were assigned to generate questions that they were most interested in having answered through reading the text. In this phase, the students set the purpose of their reading. This activity helps the students develop their own reason for reading (Ogle, 1986:566). The students will read the text to find answers for their questions that written in the W (what I want to know) column of their chart. Making prediction is an important part in reading which is used to monitor comprehension as the text is read (Collins, Brown, Newman, 1987:7). Moreover, Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman (2011:56) states that good readers frequently make predictions about what is to come. As in the process of reading, the students will discover that their predictions were correct if they found the answer from the text. Third, KWL chart strategy required the students to monitor their reading. After reading the text, the students were directed to write down what they learned from their reading in the L (what I learned) column. They were asked to check their questions that written in their W (what I want to know) column to determine if the article dealt with their concern or not. Each student has the opportunity of having his/her question answered or at least addressed. This activity helps the students to develop more critical awareness of the limitation of all author-reader interactions (Ogle, 1986:567). Fourth, the improvement on students’ reading comprehension was also influenced by the discussion activity. This activity was done after the students completed their KWL chart. The students were assigned to discuss their chart result in pair. This activity enabled the students to share the information that they got from their reading and they wrote down on the KWL chart. It gave a chance to the students to compare information that they got with their friends and complete their own with the information that they already know. Thus, it made them understand more about the text they already read. Moreover, the discussion activity gave a chance to explore their ideas about the text they just read. Sulistyo (2011:48) states that discussion provides a chance to the readers with a challenge to see the issue in the text from different angles and learn to defend their ideas. During the discussion activity, the students shared the idea about the details of content in the text. Finally, the topics of hortatory texts used also influenced the students’ reading comprehension. The researcher provided some hortatory texts that were used in this research. The texts chosen were easy and interesting enough for the students. The texts were considered easy as the texts did not use many difficult words and the content was suitable with the students’ comprehension level, and interesting as the content of the text was various and close to the students’ daily life. By given the easy and interesting topic, the students will motivate to read the text. It suited with Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman (2011:62) who state that motivation is highly correlated with learning in general and reading comprehension in particular. Based on the implementation process, the KWL chart strategy also had a weakness. It was quite time consuming. When the students were assigned to complete their chart, they need much time to think about information they had. In addition, some students needed much time to create better sentences and questions. They might be confused to translate information they know into English and write it down correctly. Furthermore, if the text used was long and the vocabulary were unfamiliar for the students, they would need much time to understand the content of the text. Furthermore, based on the students’ observation checklist, it was found that KWL chart strategy increased not only students’ reading comprehension score, but also the students’ participation in reading hortatory text. The implementation of KWL chart strategy received positive responses from the students. The students followed all the activities actively and enthusiastically. More students were not reluctant anymore to ask questions when they found difficulties in comprehending the text and complete the KWL chart. The students were already familiar with the KWL chart and its usage. They were not confused anymore and enjoy reading and completing KWL chart. Then, most of them also actively discussed the content of the text. The students showed good involvement and responsibility in pair discussion as well as in their own worksheet. Moreover, the students’ mistakes in creating sentences and questions were less. The students were shown their mistake made in the previous meeting. They were also taught how to fix it. Thus, they could learn from their own mistake and did not do the same mistake in the next meeting. It suited the constructivism theory which believes that the students construct their own understanding and knowledge through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS The result of this research shows that KWL chart can improve the students’ reading comprehension score because of several reasons: (1) KWL chart includes activating students’ background knowledge in the pre-reading activity, (2) KWL chart gives the opportunity to the students to predict what the text is about, (3) KWL chart requires the students to monitor their reading comprehension, (4) there is a discussion activity in pairs after completing KWL chart, (5) the topics of hortatory texts used are interesting enough for the students. During the implementation of KWL chart strategy, it reveals that the strategy is time consuming. Thus, it is suggested to English teachers to be careful in choosing the materials and considering the time allocation when applying KWL chart strategy. Moreover, other researchers are expected to conduct the similar study in teaching other text types not only to improve students’ reading comprehension but also students’ vocabulary mastery. REFERENCES Afflerbach, P. 1990. The Influence of Prior Knowledge and Text Genre on Readers' Prediction Strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, (Online), 22(2): 131-148, (http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/131.full.pdf), retrieved on May 10, 2016. Collin, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. 1987. Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Massachusetts: Palo Alto Research Center. Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. 2011. What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction (S. Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup, Ed.). US: International Reading Association. Ogle, D. M. 1986. K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text. International Reading Association, (Online), 39(6): 564-570, (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199156), retrieved on October 20, 2015. Otto, W., Rude R., & Spiegel D.L. 1979. How to Teach Reading. America: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Simanjuntak, E.G. 1988. Developing Reading Skills for EFL Students. Jakarta: Dirjen DIKTI Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Snow, C. E. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education. Sulistyo, G. H. 2011. Reading for Meaning: Theories, Teaching Strategies, and Assessment. Malang: Pustaka Kaiswaran in cooperation with Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang. Tileston, D. W. 2011. Ten Best Teaching Practices: How Brain Research and Learning Styles Define Teaching. US: Corwin A SAGE Company. Turner, T. N. 1987. Teaching Reading Third Edition (Alexander, J. Estill, Ed.) London: Scott, Foresman