




































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 =
𝑋1
̅̅ ̅ − 𝑋2

̅̅ ̅

√
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. 

 


