A Comparative Study between TPS and LRD Strategy to Enhance Students’ Reading Comprehension

Acuity Pub Date : 2019-07-31 DOI:10.35974/ACUITY.V4I2.1041
Apricia Tampubolon, N. Panjaitan
{"title":"A Comparative Study between TPS and LRD Strategy to Enhance Students’ Reading Comprehension","authors":"Apricia Tampubolon, N. Panjaitan","doi":"10.35974/ACUITY.V4I2.1041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to find out if there is any significant difference in students’ reading comprehension enhancement between those who were taught using Listen-Read-Discuss strategy and those who were taught using Think-Pair-Share strategy. This study is a quantitative research method using comparative design by using pre-test and post-test. This study was designed to find out the answer to the following question: Is there any significant difference in students’ reading comprehension enhancement between those who were taught by Think-Pair-Share strategy and those who were taught by Listen-Read-Discuss strategy. The sample of this study was two classes of grade VIII SMPN 10 Cimahi, Bandung. Grade VIII F was taught using Think-Pair-Share and grade VIII was taught using Listen-Read-Discuss. The instrument used for this study was a reading comprehension test, which contained 39 multiple-choice questions. The result of this study showed from the mean score that both classes had an enhancement in their reading comprehension. In addition, there was no significant difference between those who were taught using TPS and those who were taught using LRD strategy. However, it meant that both strategies were efficient in enhancing students’ reading comprehension.","PeriodicalId":33744,"journal":{"name":"Acuity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acuity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35974/ACUITY.V4I2.1041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out if there is any significant difference in students’ reading comprehension enhancement between those who were taught using Listen-Read-Discuss strategy and those who were taught using Think-Pair-Share strategy. This study is a quantitative research method using comparative design by using pre-test and post-test. This study was designed to find out the answer to the following question: Is there any significant difference in students’ reading comprehension enhancement between those who were taught by Think-Pair-Share strategy and those who were taught by Listen-Read-Discuss strategy. The sample of this study was two classes of grade VIII SMPN 10 Cimahi, Bandung. Grade VIII F was taught using Think-Pair-Share and grade VIII was taught using Listen-Read-Discuss. The instrument used for this study was a reading comprehension test, which contained 39 multiple-choice questions. The result of this study showed from the mean score that both classes had an enhancement in their reading comprehension. In addition, there was no significant difference between those who were taught using TPS and those who were taught using LRD strategy. However, it meant that both strategies were efficient in enhancing students’ reading comprehension.
TPS与LRD策略提高学生阅读理解能力的比较研究
本研究的目的是找出使用听读讨论策略和使用思考-配对-分享策略的学生在阅读理解增强方面是否存在显著差异。本研究采用比较设计,采用前测和后测相结合的定量研究方法。本研究旨在找出以下问题的答案:采用“思考-配对-分享”策略和采用“听-读-讨论”策略的学生在阅读理解增强方面是否存在显著差异。本研究的样本为两个班的八级SMPN 10 Cimahi,万隆。八年级F采用思维配对分享法,八年级采用听读讨论法。这项研究使用的工具是阅读理解测试,其中包含39道选择题。这项研究的结果表明,从平均分来看,两个班的阅读理解能力都有所提高。此外,使用TPS教学的学生和使用LRD策略教学的学生之间没有显著差异。然而,这意味着这两种策略在提高学生的阅读理解方面都是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信