1 ELT FORUM 5 (2) (2016) Journal of English Language Teaching http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HERRINGBONE TECHNIQUE TO TEACH READING OF NARRATIVE TEXT Andi Yusuf Kurniawan Dra. Indrawati, M. Hum. English Department. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State University of Semarang. Aticle Info ________________ Article History: Received in April 2016 Approved in April 2016 Published in May 2016 ________________ Keywords: Herringbone Technique, Teach Reading, Narrative Text. ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ This final project is based on the research which attempted to find out the effectiveness of Herringbone technique to teach reading of narrative text. The design of this study was experimental study. There were two groups used in the research; the experimental group and the control group. The two groups were given different treatments. The experimental group was taught by using Herringbone technique while the control group was taught using conventional technique. The population of this study was the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016. The number of the subjects was 64 students. The data were obtained by administering reading test to the VIII A as control group and VIII B as experimental group. The research was started by giving pre-test, treatments, and post-test to both experimental groups and control groups. The data of the test were analyzed by using t-test formula to know the difference of the students’ comprehension in reading narrative text between two groups. The data analysis in research ,some purpose can be drawn as follow. The first purpose of the study is to discuss the effectiveness of teaching reading using Herringbone technique to improve students’ reading of narrative text. The use of Herringbone technique in teaching reading makes the activity in class more interesting. The students are active and more enthusiastic following the teachers’ instruction and working in group. The second purpose of the study is to analyze the significant difference between teaching reading using Herringbone technique and the one using conventional technique. The difference in score of both test can be drawn as follow. The average score of pre-test of the experimental group was 67.75 and the control group was 65.59. The average score of post-test of the experimental group was 71.31 while the control one was 69.71. The result of the t-test of mean difference was 8.94 and t-table was 2.00. It means that t-value is higher than t-table (8.94>2.00). It can be concluded that there is a significant difference between teaching reading using Herringbone technique and the one using conventional technique. Based on the research conducted, it proved that the use of Herringbone technique is effective as a strategy to improve teaching reading comprehension of narrative text to the eighth year students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang. © 2016 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Correspondent Address: B3 Building FBS Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 E-mail: andiurnia@gmail.com ISSN 2252-6706 Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 2 INTRODUCTION Background of the Study English as a global language is used in almost all countries in the world as a means of international communication. Because of its significant role, English has been included in Indonesian educational curriculum. The English curriculum stipulates that English subject should include four skills, they are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Harris (1980: 53) states that reading is a form of communication. Information and ideas are exchanged between writer and reader in the act of communicating. This information will be a new knowledge or as an entertainment which is needed by the reader. Reading activity in English as a foreign language is not the same as reading activity in the students’ mother tongue such as Javanese and Indonesian, therefore reading causes students to face difficulties in vocabulary, structure, pronunciation, etc. In the process of learning English, especially reading a lot of students who are having difficulty. There are several kinds of difficulties experienced by students as a lack of material books, incomplete dictionary and a boring material. The students think that reading English is not interesting and boring since they do not know the meaning of the words and do not find an interesting book. The students need many kinds of interesting materials so that they will be more enthusiastic and active to learn English. Based on the background above, the writer will introduce English reading activity to the students by using a technique that is Herringbone technique. This technique is addressed to optimize teaching reading. In this study, the writer will apply technique using graphic organizer in fish diagram of Herringbone technique to teach reading of narrative text for the Eight Grade of Junior High School students. The problems stated in this study are: 1. How effective is teaching reading using Herringbone technique to teach students’ reading of narrative text? 2. What is the significant difference between of the students’ achievement taught by Herringbone technique and those who are taught by conventional technique? Deegan (2006) states that the Herringbone technique develops comprehension of the main idea by plotting the who, what, when, where, how, and why questions on a visual diagram of a fish skeleton. Herringbone Technique consists of a short graphic organizer and it is a concrete way of helping English learners to find the comprehensive idea in a paragraph or passage. The students can use this graphic organizer when taking notes for assigned reading as a way to organize and classify new information. The students answer the questions listed in the fish skeleton graphic organizer. This leads to the synthesis of all the information in one newly created sentence, which becomes the main idea statement. Graphic organizer is important and effective pedagogical tools for organizing content, ideas, and facilitating learners’ comprehension of newly acquired information (McKnight, 2010: 1). It is an effective teaching and learning tool for all types of learners. Edwards (2003:32) mentioned that the procedures of Herringbone technique are: 1. Select reading material at the students’ level. 2. Construct the Herringbone technique outline with the 5W+1H (Who? When? Where? Why? What? How?) and the main idea. (See following diagram or graphic). 3. Students read, brainstorm and write important information about the story in their book. 4. After discussion, the students write answers on the Herringbone technique outline. 5. Students discuss answers (5W+1H+main idea). 6. The Herringbone technique outline is used for the revision of the story. METHOD OF STUDY In this research, I used experimental study. Arikunto (2010:207) stated that experimental research is a research which has a purpose to investigate whether there is an effect of something that is treated to the subject of research. In other words, an experimental research tends to observe whether there is the cause and effect relation or not. The research can be conducted by comparing Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 3 one or more experimental groups which are given treatment with one or more control groups which do not get any treatment. The population in this study was the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang, Kota Semarang in the academic year 2015/2016. The eight grade in SMP Negeri 24 Semarang consisted of eight classes. The samples were divided into two groups. The first group is the experimental group and the second one is the control group. The sample of this research was the students of eight graders of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang in the academic year 2015/2016. The total sample is 64 students. The first group was class VIII A as the experimental group consist of 32 students, and the second one was class VIII B as the control group consist of 32 students. Best (1981: 93) mentioned that independent variables are the conditions or characteristics that the experimenter manipulates, control, or observes. The independent variables are the conditions or characteristics that the experimenter manipulates in her attempt to ascertain their relationship to observed phenomena. The dependent variables are the conditions or characteristics that appear, disappear, or change as the experimenter introduces, removes, or changes independent variables (Best, 1981: 66). From those definitions, it can be said that the independent variable of this study is Herringbone technique and the dependent variable of this study is students’ achievement score in reading narrative texts. The writer conducted the research to find out the effectiveness of Herringbone technique to teach reading of narrative text. The students’ reading result of pre-test, treatments and post-test were administered to know whether the use of Herringbone technique is effective or not to improve students’ reading of narrative text. At the beginning of the research, the writer determines the experimental and control group. Pre-test and post-test would given to both groups. Pre-test would administered before giving the treatment in order to know the students’ prior knowledge. The Herringbone technique as treatment would given to the experimental group, whereas the control group would taught by using conventional technique. At the end of the research, post-test would given to get the final result. DISCUSSION Analysis of the Try out Test The analysis was to get a good instrument for investigation. The try out test was conducted on 12 January 2015. It was given to the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang consisting of 32 respondents. The VIII E was chosen as the try out group. The try out test is in form of multiple choices items which consist of 35 questions. The following are the data analysis of the try out test to know whether the instrument that used in the research fulfill the requirements a good instrument or not. Validity A good test has to be valid. Validity refers to the precise measurements of the test. The validity computation is consulted with the r table of Product Moment by determining the significant level of 5% and N which is according to the data. If the rxy > r table so the instrument is valid. For α = 5% and N = 32, r table = 0.349. In order to find the validity of the test, the writer used the following formula: 𝑟𝑥𝑦 = 32(732) − (28)(814) √{(32)(28) − 282}{(32)(21604) − (736)2} 𝑟𝑥𝑦 = 0.42 The item number 2 of the try out test was valid since its rxy = 0.42. After all the item numbers were analyzed, there were 27 valid items from 35 items and the test were 8 invalid. From the distribution above, it can be concluded that the try out instrument had 27 valid items and 8 invalid items. Reliability Reliability of the test shows the stability or consistency of the test scores when the test is used. The following is the computation of the reliability of the instrument. The formula is: 𝑟11 = ( 35 35 − 1 ) ( − 540.89 − 6.7 − 540.89 ) 𝑟11 = 1.04 Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 4 The result of computation reliability of the try out test instruments was 1.04. For α = 5% with N = 32, and r table = 0.349. Since the result of r₁₁ was higher than r table, it was concluded that the try out test instrument was reliable and could be used as the instrument to get the data. Discriminating Power Heaton (1975: 174) said that the discriminating power measured how well the test items arranged to identify the differences in the students’ competence. After the trial test was carried out, an analysis was made to find out the discriminating power of each item. To calculate the discriminating power of each item, the writer used the following formula: 𝐷 = 𝐵𝐴 𝐽𝐴 − 𝐵𝐵 𝐽𝐵 𝐷 = 16 16 − 12 16 = 0,25 The computation of discriminating power of the try out test instruments of item number 2: Upper Group Lower Group No. Code Score No. Code Score 1 R-16 1 1 R-29 1 2 R-1 1 2 R-2 1 3 R-14 1 3 R-6 1 4 R-19 1 4 R-12 1 5 R-25 1 5 R-24 1 6 R-32 1 6 R-27 0 7 R-3 1 7 R-31 1 8 R-4 1 8 R-20 1 9 R-7 1 9 R-21 0 10 R-8 1 10 R-26 1 11 R-28 1 11 R-13 1 12 R-30 1 12 R-15 1 13 R-9 1 13 R-5 0 14 R-10 1 14 R-11 1 15 R-18 1 15 R-17 1 16 R-22 1 16 R-23 0 Sum 16 Sum 12 According to the criteria, the item number 2 is satisfactory so this item can be used. From the table above, it was found that 8 items were said to be poor, 19 items were said to be satisfactory, 8 items were said to be good, and no item was said to be excellent. Difficulty Level A good test is a test which is not too easy and difficult. The formula that was used to count the difficulty level of each item was: 𝑃 = 𝐵 𝐽𝑆 𝑃 = 16 + 12 35 = 28 35 = 0.80 The computation of the difficulty level of the try out test instruments of item number 2 is easy. It means that the item was not too easy and too difficult for the students to do. After computing the overall 35 items of try out test, it was found that 21 items were classified to be easy, 13 items were classified to be medium and 1 item were classified to be difficult. The Different Result between Students’ Score in Experimental and Control Group From the calculation of the students’ score, it showed the significant difference between students’ score in the experimental and control group. Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 5 The pre-test and post-test score of the experimental group NO Experimental Group Student Code Pre Test Post Test 1 E-01 60 72 2 E-02 62 76 3 E-03 66 82 4 E-04 56 69 5 E-05 55 68 6 E-06 62 72 7 E-07 54 72 8 E-08 67 72 9 E-09 56 76 10 E-10 65 76 11 E-11 70 80 12 E-12 64 80 13 E-13 72 76 14 E-14 76 81 15 E-15 68 76 16 E-16 64 72 17 E-17 66 72 18 E-18 74 80 19 E-19 56 72 20 E-20 52 72 21 E-21 70 80 22 E-22 66 76 23 E-23 74 80 24 E-24 66 76 25 E-25 70 76 26 E-26 74 80 27 E-27 62 76 28 E-28 61 80 29 E-29 76 80 30 E-30 60 72 31 E-31 65 75 32 E-32 65 78 Total 2168 2282 N 32 32 Highest score 76 82 Lowest score 52 69 Mean 67.75 71.3125 Varian 78.823 62.5471 Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 6 The pre-test and post-test score of the control group NO CONTROL GROUP STUDENT CODE PRETEST POSTTEST 1 C-01 64 72 2 C-02 68 76 3 C-03 64 64 4 C-04 54 64 5 C-05 64 72 6 C-06 68 72 7 C-07 72 76 8 C-08 56 72 9 C-9 64 72 10 C-10 54 68 11 C-11 56 76 12 C-12 64 80 13 C-13 54 72 14 C-14 64 68 15 C-15 56 72 16 C-16 64 72 17 C-17 54 68 18 C-18 56 64 19 C-19 54 76 20 C-20 72 72 21 C-21 56 80 22 C-22 56 76 23 C-23 64 68 24 C-24 56 70 25 C-25 68 72 26 C-26 54 72 27 C-27 68 72 28 C-28 54 68 29 C-29 68 72 30 C-30 58 72 31 C-31 55 75 32 C-32 54 75 TOTAL 2099 2231 N 32 32 HIGHEST SCORE 72 80 LOWEST SCORE 54 64 MEAN 65.59 69.7187 VARIAN 64.5851 29.9264 After analyzing the two results between the pre-test and post-test, it was found that the mean of the pre-test achieved by the students in experimental group using Herringbone technique was 67.75. Meanwhile, the mean of the post-test of the same group was 71.31. In a rather simpler observation, it can be concluded that there was a significant improvement between the pre-test and the post- test scores achieved by the students of experimental group. The control group using conventional technique showed the Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 7 improvement. The mean score of the control group was 65.59 for the pretest and 69.71 for the posttest. The Average Scores of the Experimental and the Control Group After getting all the scores, the computation was made. The first way to know the significant difference between the experimental group and control group is to see through the difference of the means of the two groups. The following formula was used to get the means: a. the mean of the pretest of the experimental group: 𝑀𝑥 = 2168 32 𝑀 𝑥 = 67.75 b. the mean of the pretest of the control group: 𝑀𝑦 = 2099 32 𝑀𝑦 = 65.59 c. the mean of the posttest of the experimental group: 𝑀𝑥 = 2282 32 𝑀𝑥 = 71.31 d. the mean of the posttest of the control group: 𝑀𝑦 = 2108 32 𝑀𝑦 = 69.71 The average scores of students in the experimental group and control group before the treatment were almost the same. After the writer gave the treatment to the experimental group, the post-test result showed that the average score of the students improved until 71.31 from the previous average of pre-test 67.75. On the other hand, the control group got 69.71 as the average of post-test. In the pre-test the control group got 65.59. From the result, it can be concluded that the treatment which was given in experimental group achieved the better result. Discussion of Students’ Mastery level In order to show the students’ mastery level in reading comprehension, the writer classified the students’ score in five grades, namely A, B, C, D, and E. The students’ score was transformed into percentage. The students’ level of achievement can be displayed as follows: The Achievement of the Experimental Group Grade Frequency Percentage Pre-Test Post Test Pre-Test Post Test A 1 2 3.3% 6.6% B 4 18 13.3% 60% C 14 8 46.6% 26.6% D 8 2 26.6% 6.6% E 3 0 10% 0% The table showed that the pre-test percentage of grade A was 3.3%. The following was the example of percentage computation for grade A, and the other items would use the same formula: Percentage pre-test for grade A = (pretest frequency of grade A: total frequency pretest) x 100%. = (1 : 30) x 100% = 3.3 % The achievement level of the experimental group can be shown in the form of polygon below: Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 8 Graphic 1 The polygon showed that the percentage of students’ achievement in grade A and B increased significantly for the post-test. It can be concluded that the students’ mastery level of the experimental group had been improved significantly after the treatment was given. Analysis of the Pre-test and Post-Test Score The writer collected the data from the students’ scores achievement of the reading comprehension test. The students’ scores of pre- test and post-test from the experimental and the control group were obtained. The followings are the simple table for the mean of pre-test and post- test of students’ scores: The mean of pre-test and post-test of students’ scores Group The mean score of the pre-test The mean score of the post-test The experimental group 67.75 71.31 The control group 65.59 69.71 The table shows that the average of post- test scores in experimental group were higher than the average of post-test scores in control group. From the comparison, it can be conclude that the treatment was effective. Homogeneity The homogeneity test was conducted to find out whether the groups’ were similar in their English reading achievement or not. Homogeneity was to know that both two classes are homogeneous. It was important because the similarity of both objects would influence the test result. If both classes are not homogenous, the treatment also cannot be conducted because both classes do not have similar ability in reading narrative text achievement. In order to calculate the homogeneity of post-test from experimental and control group, the writer used the following formula: 𝐹 = 𝑉𝑒 𝑉𝑐 𝐹 = 78.823 64.5851 𝐹 = 1.2205 = 1.22 The result was consulted with the value of F table with dk numerator Ve = n₁ - 1 = 32 - 1 = 31, the dk numerator Vc = n₂ - 1 = 32 -1 =31, and α=5%, squared to Ve= 32 and Vc = 32 was 1.85. The result of the homogeneity test showed that there was homogeny. It was concluded based on 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% A B C D E Post-test Pre-test Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 9 the students’ reading ability between the experimental group and the control group on the pre-test where the F value was lower than the F table that was 1.22 compared to 1.85 as the F table. By knowing the result of homogeneity test the writer concluded that the two groups were homogeneity so that the research could be continued on those two groups as the objects of the study. Normality The normality of the data was analyzed as well as the homogeneity. After finishing the process of the pre-test data gathering, the normality should be checked in order to know if the data could be analyzed. Normality was counted to know that all scores are normal. Normality of the Experimental Group Based on the data of pre-test of the experimental group, the normality was analyzed. The computation, X²hitung was 3.08 and X²(α)(dk)=X2(5%)(2) = 5.99. The result showed that the data was normal because X²hitung 3.08< 5.99 then pre-test score for the experimental group was said to be normally distributed. Normality of the Control Group Based on the computation, X²hitung was 2.84. Then, the pre-test results of the control group were consulted with critical value of X²(α)(dk) with α = 0.05 and dk=2, whose result was 7.82. Since the value of X²(α)(dk) of pre-test of the control group were lower than 7.82, the data were considered to be normally distributed. Test of Significance After getting the pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental and control group, the results were formulated with t-test formula. The t-test formula is: The computation of t-test was: 𝑠 = √ (32 − 1)34.9655 + (32 − 1)79.8889 32 + 32 − 2 𝑠 = 7.59 And to find the t-value, I used the formula: 𝑡 = 𝑋1̅̅ ̅ − 𝑋2̅̅ ̅ √ 1 𝑛1 + 1 𝑛2 𝑠 𝑡 = 77.00 − 70.27 √ 1 32 + 1 32 7.578074 𝑡 = 3.44 The value of the t-table with dk = 32+32 - 2 = 62 and significant level (α) =5% was 2.00. As the value (3.44) > 2.00, it could be concluded that there was significant difference on post-test between experimental group and control group. T-T for Reading Achievement’s Gain Difference The result of the t-test became the quantitative proof whether the difference of the pretest and posttest means of both group was significant or not. From the known data, then we could calculate the gain of pretest and posttest from the experimental and control group was as follows: 𝑠 = √ [32 − 1][54.40] + [32 − 1][75.57] 32 + 32 − 2 = 8.03 𝑠 = 8.03 And to find the t-value, I used the formula t(0.95)(62) = 2 𝑡 = 24.80 − 6.27 8.03√ 1 32 + 1 32 = 8.94 The value of the t-table with dk = 32 + 32 - 2 = 62 and significance level (α) = 5% was 2.00. As the value (8.94) > 2.00. The result of pre-test and post test From the result of the pre-test, it can be found that the mean score of the pre-test of experimental group was 67.75 and the control group was 65.59. The result of post test of experimental group was 71.31 while the control group gained 69.71. Based on the score, it can be seen that the score of experimental group was higher than the control group. The result of the t- test of mean difference was 8.94 and t- table was 2.00. Based on the computation above, it could be seen that t- value > t- table. The hypothesis that “there is significant difference in the teaching Andi Yusuf Kurniawan / Journal of English Language Teaching 5 (2) (2016) 10 reading of narrative text using Herringbone technique” was accepted. Based on the tests conducted, it was proved that the use of Herringbone technique is effective as a strategy in teaching narrative text to the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang. The use of Herringbone technique made the reading and learning activity more effective. The students of experimental group who were taught using Herringbone technique looked more interested and enthusiastic during the treatment given by the writer than the control group which were taught using conventional technique. The result of their post-test was higher than their pre-test. Finally, Herringbone technique makes the students more interested in learning. It is easier to learn the lesson. It can be concluded that in this study, the use of Herringbone technique as a strategy in teaching reading of narrative text was effective for the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 24 Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016. CONCLUSIONS The first purpose of the study is to discuss the effectiveness of teaching reading using Herringbone technique to teach students’ reading of narrative text. The use of Herringbone technique in teaching reading makes the activity in class more interesting. The students are active and very enthusiastic following the teachers’ instruction and working in group. This strategy allows students to explore ideas while they read the passage in group. Finally, the Herringbone technique makes the students more enthusiastic in learning and easier to understand the lesson. The second purpose of the study is to analyze the significant difference between of the students’ achievement taught by Herringbone technique and those who are taught by conventional technique. The difference in score of the post-test test can be drawn as follow. In the score average between experimental group of 71.31 and control group of 69.71. It can be concluded that the experimental group got higher score than the control group. The result of t value > t table (3.44 >2.00) which means that there is a significant difference between teaching reading using Herringbone technique and the one using conventional technique. REFERENCES Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Manajemen Penelitian (Revised Edition). Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Best, John.W. 1981. Research in Education (Revised Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Deegan. J. 2006. Herringbone Technique. Available at http://www.teacherweb.com/PA/NazarethA reaMiddleSchool/TheSpecialistTeam/Herring boneTechnique.doc. [Accessed 2/8/2014] Edwards, Peter. 2003. Literacy Techniques: For Teachers and Parents (3rd Edition). Victoria: Trafford. Harris, K. 1980. Reading in Content Areas .Strategies for Reading to Learn. Semantic Maps. University of Virginia. Heaton, J. B. 1975. English Language Tests. England: Longman. McKnight, Katherine S. 2010. The Teacher’s Big Book of Graphic Organizers: 100 Reproducible Organizers that Help Kids with Reading, Writing, and the Content Areas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.