







































Microsoft Word - 3. Nudiya Afiya Farha


25

Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension of Report Text

Using KWL Strategy

Nudiya Afiya Farha, Rohani Rohani 

English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Article Info

________________
Article History:

Received in 8 May

2019

Approved in 29 July

2019

Published in 29 July

2019

________________
Keywords: quasi-experimental;
KWL Strategy; Reading
Comprehension; Report Text

____________________

Abstract

___________________________________________________________________
This research attempted to find out the translation techniques and grammatical

errors in students’ Indonesian-English text translation. The objectives of this

research were to describe the choice of translation techniques and grammatical

errors of the students’ translation of a narrative text. This research used descriptive

qualitative method. The translation techniques analysis was done by using Molina

and Albir's (2002) classification of translation techniques while grammatical errors of

the students’ translation were analyzed using the guide for correcting writing errors

by Betty Azar (1941). The translation technique analysis was done by comparing the

students’ translation work with the source text of a narrative entitled Lari Kepagian

then grammatical errors analysis was done to find out their errors in the use of

grammatical rules. The result of the study found that there were 3012 data of

translation techniques and 429 grammatical errors. The data showed that the most

used translation techniques were literal translation technique (30.1%) and

modulation technique (22.6%) and the most grammatical errors made were

capitalization (18.2%) and verb tense (16.6%). The most used translation technique

that resulted in most grammatical errors was modulation technique (17%) in the

translation done by 24 students.

© 2019 Universitas Negeri Semarang

 Correspondent Address: ISSN 2252-6706
B3 Building FBS Unnes

Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229

E-mail: nudiya.farha@gmail.com

ELT FORUM 8 (1) (2019)

Journal of English Language Teaching

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

26

INTRODUCTION

Reading is one of the essential skills for learning language. It is a receptive skill which is important

to be mastered in learning English as a second language. Reading is the process of connecting

written symbols with reader’s knowledge to comprehend the content of the text. So, the reader can

get the information of the text.

According to Spratt, Pulverness, and Williams (2003), reading is a relationship between the

writer and the reader through a text and a process to connect the text with the readers’ knowledge to

understand the whole-text (p.21). It is the process of gaining information from text by connecting

words, sentences, even paragraphs with meaning and information that are already known to

understand the text (Grabe and Stoller, 2002, p.9). This is supported by the definition from Clark

and Silberstein (as cited in Simanjutak, 1988) stating that “reading is an active cognitive process of

interacting with print and monitoring comprehension to establish meaning (p.15)”.

Furthermore, Reading comprehension is the process blending of the readers’ several kinds of

knowledge and the interaction of the reader and the text. In addition, Woolley (2011) also stated

that “reading comprehension is the process of making meaning from text.” There is text, reader’s

background knowledge, and reader’s language ability in the process of making meaning.

Based on The Structure of The Senior High School Curriculum in 2013 revised 2017, the total hours

of teaching and learning English for eleventh grade is 2 hours (2 x 45 minutes) a week. It means the

intensity of students in learning English is quite a bit, because students learn English in the

classroom activities only once in a week. It is undeniable that sometimes students do not enjoy in

joining English learning process especially in learning reading comprehension text. Therefore,

teacher should consider the important of finding the right method and strategy to make the material

easy to be accepted and understood by students.

According to Sabouri (2016) there are some effective strategies that can improve students’

reading skill especially in comprehending text those are (1) activating and using background

knowledge (2) generating (3) making inferences (4) predicting (5) summarizing (6) visualizing (7)

comprehension monitoring.

From the various of reading comprehension strategies above, Ercetin (2010) found in his

experimental research that activating and using background knowledge was one of the important

factor that affect students’ understand and use such text resources. Recht and Leslie (1988) confirm

the important of background knowledge. Likewise, Osman and Ali (2002), they support the result of

those two studies before. The result of their study said that topic familiarity and background

knowledge are effective in reading test for students. In addition, Al-Jahwari (2015) said that many

teachers realized prior knowledge can prepare students for reading.

Knowledge is one of the important factors that affect someone in understanding something.

Moreover in the process of reading text, because reading is activity of gaining information.

According to Mikulecky & Jeffries (2003), our brain looks for connection to our knowledge when

our brain notices new information (p,15). The connection of our knowledge and the new

information will become a part of long-term memory. Knowledge that readers’ have is usually called

as background knowledge or prior knowledge.

According to Fletcher (as cited in Woolley, 2011) in his book stated that background

knowledge is one of a top-down focus that need to be considered in the process of making meaning

or understanding text. The important of background knowledge also stated by Grabe and Stoller

(2002) in their book that there are somethings that have to be activated in reading processes when

someone read. Those are mentioned in the table below.



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

27

Table 1: Reading processes that are activated

Lower-level processes Higher-level processes
- Lexical access
- Syntactic parsing
- Semantic proposition

formation
- Working memory

activation

- Text model of
comprehension

- Situation model of
reader interpretation

- Background
knowledge use and
inferencing

- Executive control
processes

Ausubel (as cited in Hattan et al, 2015) stated that background knowledge is the existing

knowledge structure that used to assimilate new information by connecting it with the new material

in learning process. Therefore, from some studies above can be said that background knowledge is

good to use as strategy in teaching and learning comprehension text.

There are many strategies in reading that using knowledge as the best factors in improving

reading comprehension skill such as through answering questions, prediction, debate and discussion,

field experience, semantic mapping, advance organizers, previewing, brainstorming, and KWL

strategy. Fisher and Frey (2010) stated that KWL strategy is one of the most common reading

strategies.

The definition of KWL strategy according to Ogle (as cited in Riswanto et al, 2014) stated

that “KWL (Know, Want, Learned) strategy is one of teaching and learning strategies used mainly

for information text. KWL strategy is a teaching and learning strategy using three-column organizer,

those are What I Know, What I Want to know, and What I Learned.

According to Ogle (as cited in Strangman, Hall, & Meyer, 2004) stated that this learning

strategy is begun with discussion session. Based on the diagram above, in the discussion session the

teacher leads students to reflect their knowledge about a topic and brainstorming ideas and

information of the topic. Next, the students fill the first two-column. The students fill the first

column with statement they get after reflecting their knowledge about a topic. Whereas, they have to

fill the second column with some questions about a topic they want to answer. The next session is

reading session. Students read the text about a topic that has been told before. In this session,

students are expected to find the information that can answer their questions in the second column.

The answers of questions are written at the third column. Table 2 is the table of KWL strategy.

There are some previous studies wich applied this strategy. Fengjuan (2010) said that KWL

strategy becomes a very effective strategy to achieve goal in all-round development in learning

language skills. Dieu (2016) supported that study. He found in his study that KWL strategy

encourages students’ academic success because they can more connect their knowledge to class and

topics or subjects matter. In addition, Karang (2014) had applied KWL (Know-What-Learn)

strategy to activate students’ knowledge. She found that the KWL strategy improved the students’

ability in reading comprehension and increased students’ learning motivation, interest, and attitude

in their reading. It is supported by Sinambela, Manik, and Pangaribuan (2015) in their research.

They found that students’ who were taught with KWL strategy achieved higher score than those

who were taught without KWL strategy. In addition, the students’ were taught with KWL strategy

were more active in learning activities. Riswanto, Risnawati, and Lismayanti (2014) also agreed

with the results of that research, they also added that students who were taught with KWL strategy

were more enthusiastic, active and enjoy in reading activities. The results of those researches

showed that the implementation of KWL strategy was effective in teaching reading comprehension.

Thus, KWL strategy was effective strategy of teaching reading. This was supported by the statement



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

28

by The National School Improvement Network’s bulletin (2002) in the paper about effective

learning stated.

“The effective learning involves outcomes such as more connected knowledge, wider range of
strategies, greater complexity of understanding, enhanced action appropriate to goals and
context, increased engagement and self-direction, more reflecting approach, more positive
emotions and affiliation to learning, more developed vision of future self as a learner, greater
facility in learning with others, and more sense of participation in a knowledge community.”

In other researches, Hamdan (2014) conducted a research about KWL strategy in two

different schools (public and private school). He found that although private school that became the

control group adopts an international curriculum where English is used as instruction in learning

process, the students from public school who were taught with KWL –Plus strategy achieved a

higher performance in reading than the students in control group. Therefore from the previous

studies which have been mentioned above it can be concluded that KWL strategy is the good ways

to improve students’ reading comprehension.

Table 2 KWL instructional scheme

K
(What I Know)

W
(What I Want
to Know)

L
(What I Learnt)

Students are
brainstorming
everything they
know about
the topic of
study. The
students list
what have they
got when they
are
brainstorming.

Students tell
what they want
to know about
the topic.

After students
finished their
reading, they list
what they have
learned about the
topic. They can
see K column to
connect what
have they known
and what have
they learned.
Then, they can
also check the W
column to see
which questions
were answered
and which were
left unanswered.

Reading is one of the important language skills in learning English. Two mainly language

skills in the national examination of English subject are listening and reading. The reading section

has more questions than the listening section. In addition, report text is the kind of text which

commonly became the questions in the national examination.

Report text is the kind of text which presents information about something in general. It is as

a result of systematic observation and analysis. Sometimes, students are difficult in understanding

report text because the language used in this kind of text is not always in the elementary level. Thus,

students should have good ability in comprehending text. Therefore, teaching reading is not only

providing the text and then asking students to translate word by word, but also asking students to

understand the content of the text.



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

29

Based on the background above, the writer is interested to conduct an experimental study

entitled “Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension of Report Text with KWL Strategy (A

Quasi-experimental Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 1 Bae Kudus).

The research questions of the study were formulated in the following:

1. How is the implementation of KWL strategy in improving students’ reading comprehension of

report text at the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year

2018/2019?

2. Is there any significant achievement difference of students taught with and without KWL

strategy in reading comprehension of report text?

METHODS

The writer used quantitative research with description in this study. Based on Creswell (2014),

quantitative research was an approach for testing objective theories by examining the relationship

among variables.

This was experimental research which has purpose to know the effectiveness of the method or

technique that the teacher used in teaching and learning process. In this study, the writer used quasi-

experimental research design in the type of nonequivalent (pre-test and post-test) control-group

design to analyze the data.

The population of this study was the eleventh grade students in Mathematic and Natural

Science of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year 2018/2019. There were 7 classes. Each class

consisted of 36 students. Therefore, the total number of the students was 252 students. While in this

study the writer choose two groups of class randomly to be the subject of the study. One was as an

experimental class (XI MIPA 6). The other one was as a control class (XI MIPA 5). Therefore, the

total subjects of this study were 72 students.

The instruments of this study were lesson plans, observation list, and reading comprehension

test. The lesson plans used to observe the implementation of KWL strategy in learning reading

comprehension text. The writer used multiple-choice reading comprehension test to check the

effectiveness of KWL strategy and to measure the significant achievement difference between

experimental and control group. The observation list has been prepared to be the teacher orientation

in observing the classroom learning process using KWL strategy. Meanwhile, the observation was

used to find out the progress of students’ characters during the learning process. The content of the

observation list uses guideline which is made by me based on Permendikbud 104 (2014). It will be

analyzed using Likert Scales as scaling technique.

One reading comprehension test would be given in the first week as a pre-test. And the other

would be given as the post-test after the both groups getting treatments. The reading comprehension

test consisted of reading passage with the length of the text was about 250 words. The test consisted

of 20 multiple-choice comprehension questions.

The data collection of this study was obtained from the eleventh grade students of SMA N 1

Bae Kudus. The data of the study was quantitative data. There were some processes that have to be

done by the writer to make sure that the instrument was good, those were try out, validity,

reliability, item difficulty, discriminating power, pretest, treatment and posttest.

The data from reading comprehension test then can be analyzed to find if there is any

significant achievement difference between experimental and control group by using Independent

Sample Test in SPSS 22.0 program. In addition, the Paired-Sample T-test is also used to analyze if

there is any improvement from pre-test to post-test in both group or not.



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

30

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The Implementation of KWL Strategy

This quasi-experimental study implemented KWL (Known-Want-Learn) strategy in learning reading

comprehension. The purpose was to prove its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension of

report text of the eleventh graders of SMA N 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year of 2018/2019. The

experimental study was conducted in class XI MIPA 6 as the experimental group and class XI

MIPA 5 as the control group.

The experimental group was given treatments by using KWL strategy in learning reading

comprehension, while the control group was given treatments by brainstorming strategy. Both

experimental and control groups got three meetings for the treatments. The material of report text

which given to both groups was same. In addition, the students of both groups learned the same

topic of report text.

Both experimental and control groups got the first treatment after carrying out the pre-test.

They learned the same material of report text with the different strategies. The first treatment was

conducted on Monday, 11th February 2019 both in the experimental and control group. According

to the schedule, I came to class XI MIPA 5 as the control group and then after that I came to class

XI MIPA 6 as the experimental group.

In the first treatment, I gave the students of both groups know about the purpose of the

material which would be learned. After that, I explained the classroom activities in that day briefly.

In the experimental group I also explained about KWL strategy as the strategy which would be

implemented during the learning process. The classroom activities during treatment were presented

in Appendix 19.

The students of the experimental group were enthusiast when I explained about KWL

strategy, because that was the first time KWL strategy in their classroom learning process. They

learned the definition, generic structure, and the language feature of report text. In the treatment,

students of both groups made small groups consisted of 6 students. Then, they tried to comprehend

the report text and answer the following questions with their group. The topic of report text which

was discussed in both groups was same. The experimental group answered the questions following

the text and comprehended the text using KWL strategy, while the control group answered the

questions and comprehended the text by brainstorming and translating the text into Indonesian.

The second meeting, both groups still learned a text of report with the new topic. The

students of experimental group made a small group consisted of six students. They make a

discussion with their group by using KWL strategy to answer and comprehend the text. In the other

side, the control group also made a small group consisted of six students. Each group discussed the

text by brainstorming strategy. In the end of the learning activities, both the students experimental

and control groups made a summary about the information they had learned from the text.

In the second treatment, the differences between experimental and control groups could be

seen from the participation of the students of both groups and their summary of the text. The

students’ participation of experimental group was higher than the students’ participation of the

control group. Almost all the students of the experimental group were more interested to follow the

learning activities in KWL strategy. While, there were only a few students of the control group who

actively participate during learning activities. In the other hand, the summary of the students in

experimental group were more complete than the summary of the control group. In addition they

could present the information that they got clearly.

The third meeting, both groups still practiced to comprehend the report text with the new

topic. Both experimental and control groups discussed the text in a small group which consisted of

six students. In addition, they also answered the quizzes related to the text they had discussed by



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

31

playing number had together. In the end of the learning activities the students of both groups also

told about the information they had learned from the text.

To support the explanation of the treatments, I also collected the data using observation list

which I have made based on the criterion of Permendikbud 104 (2014). The students attitudes

during the learning process which observed are the students are enthusiast when the teacher explains

about KWL strategy, the students are not afraid to share their ideas or opinions to their friends, the

students do not bother or even judge their friends false or true, Each student has at least one

question about what they want to know related to the topic being discussed, the students are

enthusiast to share what they want to know about the topic to their friends, the students keep on

reading the text to understand the content of the text and to answer the questions they have made,

the students learn something from the text after they had read the passage, the students are not

afraid in telling their comprehension of the text, the other students keep on listening when their

friends are telling their comprehension of the text being studied, and the students are motivated and

interested in reading text from other sources.

The observation used likert scale to analyze the data. So, it used some number to give the

value. Those numbers are 4 which means very high, 3 means high, 2 means low, and 1 means very

low. Based on finding of the observation and the meaning of numbers above, the number of ideal

scores (criteria) for all items is 4 x 10 = 40. The number of scores obtained from observation is 37.

Therefore, based on the data, the level of students participation in the learning process using KWL

strategy is (37 : 40) x 100% = 92,5 % than expected (100%).

After the treatments, both groups carried out the post-test to know if there was any difference

achievement of the students after getting the treatments.

The result of the study showed that the implementation of KWL (Known-Want-Learned)

strategy is effective in teaching reading comprehension of report text.

The Difference of Students’ Achievement

Result of Pre-test

The pre-test was given to the experimental and control group. The results of the experimental group

showed that the average pre-test score was 74.58. While, the average pre-test score of the control

group was 72.77. The Independent Sample Test in SPSS 22.0 program was used to analyze the data.

According to the analysis, the value of Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.470. It was higher than 0.050. It

could be said that both the experimental and control group had the equal level of ability. Therefore,

Ho was accepted, in short, the students’ reading comprehension level of both groups was equal.

Result of Post-test

The post-test was given after the students of both groups getting the treatments. The average post-

test score of the experimental group was 90.97. While, the average post-test score of the control

group was 87.77. The average of both groups had a higher increase than the pre-test.

The analysis showed that the value of Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.076. Ho was accepted because the

significant value was higher than 0.050. It could be concluded that there was no significant

achievement difference between the experimental and control group in post-test.

The difference of pre-test and post-test between experimental and control group

The analysis of pre-test and post-test between two groups was done to know whether there was

improvement after getting the treatments or not by using The Paired-Sample T-test.

The analysis of Paired-Sample T-test of the experimental group showed that the pre-test mean

was 74.58, while the post-test mean was 90.97. In the other side, the analysis of the control group

showed that the pre-test mean was 72.77, while the post-test mean was 87.77. The average value of

the experimental group had a higher increase than the control group. In addition, Paired-Sample T-

test of the experimental group showed that the significance value, Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.000. It was



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

32

lower than 0.05. While, the analysis also showed that the significance value, Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.000.

It was higher than 0.05 (Sig.(2-tailed) < 0.05). It meant that both the experimental and control group

had improved their score after getting the treatments. Therefore, Ha was accepted, in short, there

was significant achievement difference between pre-test and post-test for both groups.

Discussion

This study was to elaborate whether the implementation of KWL strategy was effective to improve

students’ reading comprehension report text or not and to know the significant achievement

difference between the students who were taught using KWL strategy and those who were taught

using brainstorming strategy. After holding three times of reading comprehension text treatments in

the experimental and control group, I found the differences between the students of those groups.

The students of experimental group who taught using KWL strategy were more active than the

students of control group. The activities of KWL strategy made the students enjoy the learning

process. Students’ participation, motivation and interest in reading learning process increased.

Therefore, the atmosphere of the classroom became more fun.

The results of the implementation of KWL strategy in teaching reading and learning process

in experimental group showed that students were more active. Their participation, motivation, and

interest in reading learning process increased. It was similar with several previous studies. Dieu

(2016) supported this study. He found in his study that KWL strategy encourages students’

academic success because they can more connect their knowledge to class and topics or subjects

matter. In addition, Karang (2014) had applied KWL (Know-What-Learn) strategy to activate

students’ knowledge. She found that the KWL strategy improved the students’ ability in reading

comprehension and increased students’ learning motivation, interest, and attitude in their reading. It

is supported by Sinambela, Manik, and Pangaribuan (2015) in their research. They found that the

students’ who were taught with KWL strategy were more active in learning activities. Riswanto,

Risnawati, and Lismayanti (2014) also agreed with the results of that research, they also added that

students who were taught using KWL strategy were more enthusiastic, active and enjoy in reading

activities. Moreover, it was supported by the result of observation showed that students’

participation was very high during the learning process. The study conducted by Cholifah (2015)

supported this result.

In the learning process of the experimental group which implemented KWL strategy, the

goals of reading learning stated by Appleget & Appleget (as cited in Kaya 2014) were reached. The

teacher had explained the material and guided the students to follow the activities of learning

process well.

According to Ogle (as cited in Strangman, Hall, & Meyer, 2004) there were three sessions in

implementing KWL strategy in reading learning process, those were reflecting, brainstorming, and

reading. The students’ interest had growth since the process of reflecting and brainstorming students’

knowledge about the topic that was being discussed. In this session, the report text was not given to

the students yet. Therefore, when the teacher guided them to reflecting their knowledge about the

topic of report text such as ‘Giraffe’, they discussed it with their small group. Then, they participated

in filling out the first column. The students alternately represented the group mentioning what they

have known about the topic with great enthusiasm. Moreover, in the second session they began to

enjoy the learning process. The teacher guided the students to make questions related to the topic

being discussed. The students’ curiosity arises in this session. They could share knowledge about the

topic with members of their group. It was one of the effective learning outcomes stated in the

National School Improvement Network’s bulletin (2002), namely participation in a knowledge

community. In the last session, the teacher gave the report text to each group. The students were

eager to read and understand the text to prove their knowledge and look for answers to the questions



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

33

they had made. Not all questions that they had made had answers in the text. This case made

students looked for answers from other sources such as reading books and articles from the internet.

It also related to the second goals of effective reading teacher stated by Appleget & Appleget (as

cited in Kaya 2014) namely to foster a love of reading. Therefore, it was showed that the

implementation of KWL strategy was effective in reading learning process.

In addition, I also conducted the pre-test and post-test to prove how effective is the KWL

strategy in improving students’ reading comprehension of report text statistically. The result of the

data analysis showed that the students’ reading comprehension of report text has improved

significantly. The pre-test results of the experimental group showed that the mean score was 74.58.

While, the pre-test mean score of the control group was 72.77. In addition, the T-test analysis by

using Independent Sample T-test in SPSS 22.0 program was done to know the significant achievement

difference. According to the analysis, the value of Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.470. It was higher than 0.050. It

could be said that both the experimental and control group had the equal level of ability.

The post-test was given after the students of both groups getting the treatments. The post-test

mean score of the experimental group was 90.97. While, the post-test mean score of the control

group was 87.77. The post-test mean score of both groups had a higher increase than the pre-test. In

addition, the analysis of Independent Sample T-Test found that the value of Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.076. It

could be concluded that there was no significant achievement difference between the experimental

and control group in post-test. The result was same with the previous study conducted by Hana,

Warsono, and Faridi (2015). The absence of significant achievement difference can be caused by

several things, such as situation and time ineffectiveness. The students of experimental group

worked on the post-test together with the socialization for the eleventh graders, therefore their focus

might not be entirely on the post-test.

The analysis of Paired-Sample T-test which used to know whether both the experimental and

control group improved their score after getting the treatments or not found that the significant value

of the experimental group, Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.000. It was lower than 0.05. While, the analysis of the

control group also showed that the significance value, Sig. (2-tailed) was 0.000. It was lower than

0.05 (Sig.(2-tailed) < 0.05). It meant that there was a significant achievement difference between pre-

test and post-test for both groups. In short, both the experimental and control group had improved

their score after getting the treatments.

In the correlation of the mean score, the experimental group showed that the pre-test mean

was 74.58, while the post-test mean was 90.97. In the other side, the analysis of the control group

showed that the pre-test mean was 72.77, while the post-test mean was 87.77. Although both groups

improve their mean score after getting treatments, but the mean score of the experimental group was

higher than the control group. It meant that KWL strategy was better in improving students’ reading

comprehension to report text.

Finally, the research findings revealed that the alternative hypothesis (H1) which stated that

“KWL strategy is effective to improve students reading comprehension of report text” was accepted

and the null hypothesis (H2) was rejected. however, the second alternative hypothesis (H3) which

stated that “There is a significant difference of the students’ achievement between those who taught

with and without KWL strategy” was rejected and the null hypothesis (H4) was accepted, because

the result of Independent-Sample Test of post-test was higher than 0.05.

CONCLUSION

The objectives of this study were to measure the effectiveness of the implementation of KWL

strategy to improve students’ reading comprehension of report text of the eleventh graders of SMA

Negeri 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year of 2018/2019, and to know significant achievement



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

34

difference of the students who were taught using KWL strategy and those who were taught using

brainstorming strategy.

According to the research findings and discussion in the previous chapter, the implementation

of KWL strategy was effective in teaching reading comprehension of report text. The observation

showed that students who were taught using KWL strategy were more active and participative

during the learning process. Almost all the students of experimental group participate in every steps

of learning activities. They had more motivation to read the text after the teacher guided them to

reflecting their knowledge and brainstorming what they had already known and what they wanted

to know. In addition, they also could recall the information they got from the text more complete

than the control group.

The data analysis showed that the result of pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

experimental group increased (from 74.58 to 90.97), than the control group (from 72.77 to 87.77). It

could be concluded that the experimental group had a higher increase than the control group.

In addition, the pre-test and post-test mean scores of both groups also analyzed by using

Paired-Sample T-test to know if there was improvement after getting the treatments. The result of

Paired-Sample T-test showed that the value of Sig.(2-tailed) of experimental group was 0.000, then the

value of Sig.(2-tailed) of the control group was 0.000. Those significances were less than ߙ =

5% (0.05). It could be concluded that there was improvement from pre-test and post-test of both

groups.

However, according to the analysis of Independent Sample Test of both groups, there was no

significant achievement difference in post-test between the experimental and control group. The

Independent Sample Tets of post-test experimental and control group showed that the significant value

of Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.76. It was higher than ߙ = 5% (0.05). Therefore, H3 was rejected, while H4

was accepted. The absence of significant achievement difference can be caused by several things,

such as situation and time ineffectiveness.

Finally, I concluded that prior knowledge is important in reading comprehension text, and

the implementation of KWL strategy in eleventh graders of SMA Negeri 1 Bae Kudus is effective for

teaching reading comprehension of report text. Moreover, it gives a good effect to improve students’

reading comprehension of report text.

REFFERENCES

Al-Jahwari, Y. (2014). Prior Knowledge in EFL Reading Comprehension: Omani Teachers’
Perspective & Classroom Strategies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English
Literature ISSN 2200-3592 (Print), ISSN 2200-3452 (Online). Vol. 4 No. 1; January 2015
doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.1p.169

Anderson. (1997). Text Type in English 2. Australia. Macmillan Education Australia PTY LTD.

Building and Activating Background Knowledge. Online at
https://www.google.co.id/search?source=hp&ei=LbsZW96NLMX2vgTjtKlI&q=Building+
and+Activating+Background+Knowledge&oq=Building+and+Activating+Background+Kn
owledge&gs_l=psyab.3..0j0i22i30k1.1949.1949.0.3280.3.2.0.0.0.0.121.121.0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.6
4.psyab..1.2.261.6..35i39k1.143.E27gMvFrIWU [accessed 08/06/18]

Cholifah, F. (2015). Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension through KWL (Know, Want, Learned)
Strategy: A Classroom Action Research at Eight Grade Students of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Jember.
Unpublished Thesis. Muhammadiyah University of Jember.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage
Publisher.



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

35

Dieu, T. T. T. (2016). Trying K-W-L Strategy on Teaching Reading Comprehension to Passive
Students in Vietnam. In International Journal of Language and Linguistics 2015; 3(6): 481-492 doi:
10.11648/j.ijll.20150306.33.

Ercetin, G. (2010). Effects of Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on Text Recall and Annotation
Use in Reading a Hypermedia Text in the L2. In European Association for Computer Assisted
Language Learning. ReCALL 22(2): 228–246. 2010 r doi:10.1017/S0958344010000091

Fengjuan, Z. (2010). The Integration of the Know-Want-Learn (KWL) Strategy into English
Language Teaching of Non-English Majors. In Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly)
Vol. 33 No. 4 Aug, 2010.

Grabe, W., & Stroller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Pearson Education.

Hattan, C. et al. (2015). Prior Knowledge Activation in Design and in Practice. In Literacy Research:
Theory, Method, and Practice 2015, Vol. 64, 478-497.

Hamdan, M. H. (2014). KWL-Plus Effectiveness on Improving Reading Comprehension of Tenth
Graders of Jordanian Male Students. In Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 4, No. 11,
pp. 2278-2288, November 2014.

Hana, A. M., Warsono., & Faridi, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of GIST (Generating Interactions
between Schemata and Text) and KWL (Know, Want, and Learned) Strategies to Improve
Reading Achievement of Male and Female Students. In English Education Journal EEJ 5 (2)
(2015)

Harrys & Valette. (2003). Principle Language Testing. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Karang, A.A.A P. (2014). Improving Reading Comprehension Through KWL Strategy at The Eight Grade
Students of SMP N 1 Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014. Unpublished thesis, Universitas
Mahasaraswati Denpasar.

Kaya, M. (2014). The Qualities of Effective Literacy Teachers: The Dynamics of Effective Teachers’
Beliefs, Their Practices and Students’ Responses. In Journal of Education and Human
Development 2014, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 41-57 DOI: 10.15640/jehd.v3n3a4 URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n3a4

Mickulecky, B. S., & Jeffries, L. (2003). More Reading Power: Reading for Pleasure, Comprehension Skills,
Thinking Skills, Reading Faster Second Edition. New Yourk: Pearson Education.

Osman, A., & Ali, M. (2002). The Effect of Background Knowledge, Interest and Topic Familiarity on
Reading. Author Confirmed-Publication Date: 2005 (pyb 8.06.07)

Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of Prior Knowledge on Good and Poor Readers’ Memory
of Text. In Journal of Educational Psychology 1988, Vol. 80, No. 1, 16-20.

Riswanto, Risnawati, & Lismayanti, D. (2014). The Effect of Using KWL (Know, Want, Learned)
Strategy on EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement. In International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4, No. 7 (1); may 2014.

Sabouri, N. B. (2016). How Can Students Improve Their Reading Comprehension Skill?. In Journal
of Studies in Education ISSN 2062-6952 2016, Vol. 6, No. 2.

Simanjuntak, E. G. (1988). Developing Reading Skills for ELF Students. Jakarta: Proyek Pengembangan
Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan.



Nudiya Afiya Farha & Rohani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

36

Sinambela, E., Manik, S., & Pangaribuan, R. E. (2015). Improving Students’ Reading
Comprehension Achievement by Using K-W-L Strategy. In English Linguistics Research Vol. 4,
N0. 3; 2015.

Spratt, Pulverness, & Williams. (2005). The TKT Teaching Knowledge Test Course. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Strangman, N., Hal, T., & Meyer, A. (2004). Background Knowledge Intruction and the Implication for
UDL Implementation. Wakafield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
(Links updated 2009). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2004/ncac-
background-knowledge-udl.html

Sugiyono. (2012). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung:
Alfabeta.

The National Association of Secondary School Principal’s bulletin. (2010, December). Building and
Activating Background Knowledge. Principal Leadership: 1904 Association dr., reston, VA
20191-1537.

The National School Improvement Network’s bulletin. (2002). Effective Learning. Institute of
Education University of London. London: Author.

Woolley, G. (2011). Reading Comprehension: Assisting Children with Learning Difficulties. DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7_2, © Springer Science +Business Media B.V. 2011


