19 

 

THE EFFECT OF SUMMARIZING TECHNIQUE ON READING 

ACHIEVEMENT 

 

Siti Syafi‟atul Qomariyah (viamboice@gmail.com) 

Faculty of Language and Art Education (FPBS) 

Institute of Teacher Training and Education (IKIP) Mataram 

 

ABSTRACT 

 

This article is a report of experimental conducted at the second year 

students of SMA Kanjeng Sepuh Sidayu Gresik. This study was conducted 

to measure the effect of summarizing technique on reading achievement. 

The instrument used for collecting data was test.  The data analysis 

showed that mean of pretest was 37,94 in experimental group and 33,68 in 

control group. The result of t-test of pre-test was 2,444 and t-critical was 

1,684 in level of significant .05. And the mean of post-test was 74,52 in 

experimental group and 68,39 in control group. The difference between 

the two mean score is 6.13. The mean of the control group is lower than 

the experimental one. In which the highest score was 52 and the lowest 

score was 20 in control group and experimental group. From the data 

analysis, the writer got findings. The mean score of experimental group 

was 74.52 and the mean score of control group was 68.39. after applying 

the ANCOVA formula, it indicates that F-value was 4.117 and the critical 

value with the level of significance .05 was 4.00. The finding shows that 

students‟ achievement of reading in posttest (after treatment) of 

experimental group was higher than control group. It was found out that 

summarizing technique was effective in reading achievement. 

 

Key Words: Summarizing Technique, Reading 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mailto:viamboice@gmail.com


 

20 

 

INTRODUCTION 

English as the first foreign language in 

Indonesia has very important functions 

in some aspects of life. It is not only as 

a means of international commutation, 

but also as an informational vehicle in 

transferring and developing science 

and technology. In all levels education 

institutions, the use of English is 

unavoidable. That‟s why English 

needs to be learned in formal school. 

To learn English we need to work 

hard. But work hard only does not 

guarantee that learning will be 

successful. We will need some more 

important aspects such as motivation 

and strategy. 

As we know that our curriculum 

always change, so that is making 

students confuse and difficult to 

understand the lesson very well. The 

teachers must be having the techniques 

or strategies to improve their process 

of teaching learning. 

According to the 1994 English Basic 

Course Outline, teaching English as a 

foreign language covers the teaching 

of four basic skills, e.g. reading, 

speaking, listening, and writing. 

Among them, reading is first most 

important factor that can support the 

process of mastering the other skills 

and improving knowledge. In spite of 

the importance, the fact shows that not 

every individual learns it well.  

Learning English as foreign language 

can be boring for the students if the 

teachers do not know how to give the 

material or how to present their 

materials to their students, especially 

in reading skill. In presenting 

reading‟s material, the teacher should 

be creative and materials used should 

stimulate the student‟s interest because 

usually teaching reading the teacher 

only asks the students to read and read 

more without give time to the students 

to think what is the content of the text.  

We learn to read by reading a lot, yet 

reading a lot is not the emphasis of 

most reading curricula. There is now 

considerable evidence that the best 

way to learn to read (as opposed to 

translating, or studying) is by 

extensive reading. Many additional 

language learning benefits are created 

by reading extensively as well (Elley, 

1991; Krashen, 1993; West, Stanovich, 

&Mitchell, 1993).  

Yet extensive reading is not the central 

component of reading instruction in 

most L2 context. The dillima is not a 

simple one to respond to school 

administrators do not typically support 

daily silent reading in class; teachers 

do not feel that they are “teaching” 

when students are reading something 

enjoyable; and the students often are 

not motivated to read, because they 

have not yet experienced the pleasure 

of reading material that they want to 

read. Teaching students to use reading 

strategies is now recognized as 

important, but helping students to 

develop a large set of independently 

operating, efficient reading strategies 

that relevant to varying needs and 

context has proven to be extremely 

difficult. (Grabe, 2002).   

Reading fluency requires that the 

reader know 95% or more of the words 

encountered in a text for minimal 

comprehension ( Laufer, 1989) and 

these words need to be recognized 

automatically with minimal conscious 

effort. But that sort of vocabulary 

knowledge requires knowledge of 

12,000-20,000 different words ( 

Laufer, 1989; Nation, 1990). Students 

will only develop such a large 

automatically recognized vocabulary 

from consistent, extensive reading. 

Fluency, then is closely tied to a large 

reading vocabulary and extensive 

reading. (Grabe, 2002).  



 

21 

 

When we pay attention seriously, we 

can see that the perspective of reading 

and characteristics of skill reader 

stresses that the most important thing 

in reading process, comprehends the 

message. It probably involves the 

readers‟ previous knowledge and 

intellectual abilities combined with 

important visual, syntactic, and 

semantic to interpret the meaning.  

To teach students to read, a teacher 

often finds some problems. Factors 

such as inability and low interest may 

account for some aspects of the 

problem. Many teachers, believing that 

the problem is inability, have tried 

diligently to use instructional 

strategies that help students improve 

their ability to read expository text.       

The teachers need good technique to 

support their teaching learning 

process. The writer wants to have an 

experiment about the effectiveness of 

summarizing technique in teaching 

reading on students‟ achievement at 

the second year students of SMA 

Kanjeng Sepuh Sidayu Gresik. 

Reading is very complex process while 

someone getting the meaning. 

According to Burns, Roe and Ross ( 

1984:11) reading is more than merely 

recognizing the words for which 

certain combinations of letters bring 

about a correct recall. It includes the 

whole gamut of thinking responses: 

feeling and defining some need, 

identifying a solution for meeting the 

need, selecting from alternative means, 

experimenting with choice, rejecting 

or retaining the chosen route, and 

devising some means of evaluating the 

result.  

Reading is highly complex act. It 

includes two major components a 

process and product-each of which is 

also complicated. Teachers need to be 

aware of these components and their 

different aspects in order to respond 

effectively to their student‟s reading 

need (Burns, Roe and Ross 1994:5).  

Harris and Smith (1986) define it as 

the intellectual and emotional 

perception of the printed message. 

They further clarify the key terms of 

their definition that message implies 

communication, intentionality and 

organization, printed means the use of 

alphabetical code that is, the use of 

sound spelling patterns and the 

conventions of punctuation to 

approximate spoken language; 

perception indicates the role of 

personal construction of the message 

which may vary from reader to reader, 

emotional shows a recognition of the 

fact that feeling and connotations 

prompted by the topic and the author‟s 

formulation of the message will color 

the reader‟s perceptions; and 

intellectual identifies the activity as 

cognitive, rational, and meaning 

driven. 

According to Weaver and Shonkof 

(1978, in Heilman, Blair & Rupley 

1984:4) three basic theories of reading 

model; bottom-up, top-down, and 

interactive theories. Eskey in 

Simanjuntak (1988) denotes that the 

bottom-up model reading process is 

that “ reading is a process involving 

exact, detailed, sequential perceptions 

and identification of letters, words, 

spelling patterns, and larger language 

units”. The top-down model of reading 

focuses on what the readers bring to 

the process (Goodman, 1967; Smith, 

1971, 1982). (Rumelhart,1977; 

Stanovich,1980)the interactive model 

stresses both what is on the written 

page and what a reader brings to it 

using both top-down and bottom-up 

skill.  

Summarizing technique means 

condensing and paraphrasing a reading 

selection into a brief statement that 

expresses the purpose of the passage, 



 

22 

 

its overall main idea, some important 

secondary ideas, and some of the 

major types of evidence used in 

support of the main idea (s). ( Gregg, 

1985). 

Mikulecky and Jeffries, 1996 states 

that summarizing is the retelling of the 

important parts of passage in much 

shorter form. The purpose of 

summarizing is (1) to make sure you 

have understood something, (2) to 

explain the sense of passage to 

someone else, (3) to review texts for 

examination. A good summary include 

the main ideas and the major 

supporting points, and does not 

include minor details, or the reader‟s 

opinion.  

Gregg (1985) mentions some 

characteristics of good summary. They 

are (1) it is written ordinary paragraph 

essay form, (2) it begins with the 

identification material, (3) it clearly 

states the overall main idea of the 

original work, (4) it discusses the 

author‟s main points and their 

supporting details in the order 

followed in the original, (5) it is 

written in the reader‟s own words, 

which filter and condense the author‟s 

thought, (6) it does not include large 

pieces of direct quotation from the 

original, and (7) it does not contain the 

readers‟ reaction to or opinions about 

the piece. Mikulecky and Jeffries state 

that steps of summarizing short 

passages, (1) read the passage all the 

way through, (2) go back to the 

beginning and underline the topic 

sentence in each paragraph. If cannot a 

find topic sentence, write a short 

summary of paragraph, (3) put the 

sentences from the paragraphs 

together. 

Carnine at a.(1990) propose six steps 

of teaching reading through 

summarizing technique (1) the teacher 

tell the students a rule for writing a 

main idea sentence, (2) the students 

read the passage, (3) the teacher asks 

the students to figure out main idea 

sentences, (4) the teacher calls on a 

students to say the sentence (he make 

correction if the sentence is wrong), 

(5) the teacher repeats the procedures 

with the remaining passages, and (6) 

the teacher has the students write the 

main idea sentence for each paragraph.  

Sheinker and Sheinker (1989) also 

describe the procedures of teaching 

reading through summarizing activity. 

The steps they are proposing are that 

the teacher (1) introduce the purpose 

of summarizing, situation in which 

summarizing would be helpful, and a 

model of summary, (2) explains the 

steps required in summarizing, 

rationale for each steps, (3) provides 

drills on steps of summarizing, (4) 

asks the students to write a summary 

of a reading selection following the 

prescribed steps, (5) asks all class 

members to brainstorming through the 

steps, creating a group summary, (6) 

asks the students to compare their 

summary to that generated by the 

group.  

Based on the teaching procedures as 

proposed by some expert above, it can 

be concluded that basically the 

teaching steps are as follows: (1) the 

teacher gets the students ready for an 

instruction, (2) the teacher asks the 

students to read either silently or loud, 

(3) the teacher asks the students the 

general idea of the text, (4) the teacher 

asks the students to reread the text in 

order to find or invent the main idea of 

each paragraph of the text, (5) the 

teacher leads the students to determine 

the important supporting details of 

each main idea of the paragraph, (6) 

the teacher leads the students to 

construct an outline of the text by 

including only the main idea and 

important supporting details, (7) the 



 

23 

 

teacher leads the students to covert an 

outline into a prose summary, and (8) 

the teacher corrects the students work 

and gives the students feedback.  

Moreover, it should be emphasized 

that in the phase of getting the students 

ready for the instruction especially 

during the early use of this teaching 

technique, the teacher must clearly 

explain the rules of summarizing texts. 

In addition, an example of an original 

text, its model of an outline containing 

main ideas and important supporting 

ideas, and its prose summary 

constructed based on the outline must 

be introduce.   

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

The experiment which is used is a 

quasi-experimental design applying a 

non-randomized pretest-posttest control 

group design. This design is chosen on 

the basis of consideration that this 

study is conducted in the organized 

classroom setting in which the 

researcher is not permitted to change 

the class. Each group is measured at the 

same time with the equivalent materials 

before treatment and after treatment 

applied. Then to measure whether the 

independent variable affect the 

dependent variable, a post-test was 

administered to both experimental and 

control groups. The researcher takes XI 

(Language) class for experimental 

group and XI (Science) class for 

control group as sample.  

The type of instrument used was 

reading test. The type of reading test 

was in the form of reading text. In this 

test the students make good summary 

from the text. The teaching material 

used for this study was taken from 

reading text related with the students‟ 

subject, and based on KTSP.  

The first step conducted research was 

giving pre-test. If there are no 

significant differences on pretest, the 

researcher can eliminate as a threat to 

internal validity and proceed with the 

study.   

The teaching activity used in this 

treatment activity is two different 

techniques of teaching reading 

comprehension. One reading passage 

was discussed in each teaching session 

so that 6 reading passages were used 

for the experimental and 6 sessions for 

control group.  

The last activity in collecting data is 

administering a post-test which is held 

when the subjects of the two groups 

have been learning reading 

comprehension through different 

techniques for 3 weeks.  

The technique used for data analysis 

was ANCOVA because the number of 

the experiment class was the same as 

the number of the control class and 

there are some differences between two 

means. The researcher compared mean 

score of pre-test and post-test score 

after given treatment.  

 

RESEARCH FINDING 

This analysis was intended to find out 

the mean of pre-test and post-test. After 

distributing the test of pre-test to the 

students and known the result of pre-

test, the researcher began to give 

treatment (summarizing technique) to 

the experimental group. Before giving 

the treatment, the researcher gave 

evaluation about the pre-test because 

some of the students have difficult in 

English learning. 

After distributing the test of pre-test to 

the students and known the result of 

pre-test, the researcher began to give 

treatment (summarizing technique) to 

the experimental group. Before giving 

the treatment, the researcher gave 

evaluation about the pre-test because 



 

24 

 

some of the students have difficult in 

English learning. 

In the process of treatment the 

researcher helped the students to make 

easier to understand what the 

summarizing technique is, because 

some of the students felt difficult to 

understand and made summary. 

After giving the treatment in six 

meeting, the researcher known that the 

treatment was success or fail based on 

the exercises that giving in process of 

treatment and the result of post-test.  

After distributing the test to the 

students, the data collected and 

analyzed based on procedure of 

scoring. The mean of pretest was 37,94 

in experimental group and 33,68 in 

control group. The result of t-test of 

pre-test was 2,444 and t-critical was 

1,684 in level of significant .05. And 

the mean of post-test was 74,52 in 

experimental group and 68,39 in 

control group. The difference between 

the two mean score is 6.13. the mean of 

the control group is lower than the 

experimental one. In which the highest 

score was 52 and the lowest score was 

20 in control group and experimental 

group.  

The application of ANCOVA was 

intended to find out whether the 

students taught with summarizing 

technique has a significantly better 

achievement than the students taught 

with non-summarizing technique. The 

result of computation of students‟ score 

of ANCOVA are presented in table 1.

 
N=31 

∑X = 1044 

∑Y = 2310 

∑X
2
 = 37008 

∑Y
2
= 175300 

¯X1 = 33,68 

Ȳ1 = 74,52 

r1 = 0,491 

N=31 

∑X = 1176 

∑Y = 2135 

∑X
2
 = 45584 

∑Y
2
= 150675 

¯X2 = 37,94 

Ȳ2 = 68,87 

r2= 0,291 

N= 62 

∑X = 2220 

∑Y = 4445 

∑X
2
 = 825975 

∑Y
2
= 325975 

¯X= 35,81 

Ȳ= 71,69 

Rt = 0,419 

F = 4.117 

Table 1. the summary of computing of ANCOVA 

On the basis of the result obtained 

from the data analysis, the working 

hypothesis was then tested. To make it 

easier in testing them, however the 

null hypothesis was formulated. To 

test the hypothesis, the null hypothesis 

was stated that the students taught with 

summarizing technique is not 

significantly better than the students 

taught with non-summarizing 

technique in reading achievement. 

Meanwhile, the alternative hypothesis 

of this research of this study is that 

mean score of group that is taught by 

summarizing technique is significantly 

higher than before taught by 

summarizing technique. 

However, the researcher consult the 

ANCOVA obtained with the score for 

ANCOVA table. For interpretation, 

the following procedure is used.  

If the probably > .05; H0 is rejected 

If the probably > .05; H1 is rejected 

After the whole score were computed 

on basis of the above, it was found that 

the result of the ANCOVA analysis 

shows that there is significant 

difference between students taught 

with summarizing technique and non-

summarizing technique in reading 

achievement. Because there is enough 

evidence to reject the null hypothesis 

and the alternative hypothesis is 

accepted. That summarizing technique 

was more effective in increasing 

reading skill than non-summarizing 

technique.



 

25 

 

  

 

DISCUSSION 

Considering the result of the students‟ 

performance during the treatment and 

post-test, it can be concluded that 

summarizing technique could improve 

the students reading skill. It has given 

the answer to the research question of 

the present study. It means that the 

application of summarizing technique 

is effective.  

The summarizing technique could be 

applied in teaching reading. The 

implementation of this technique 

could be adjusted based on the 

students‟ proficiency after the 

treatment. 

The important function of 

summarizing technique was to give 

more chance to the students to 

increase their reading skill. According 

to the writers‟ observation during the 

teaching learning process of reading, 

most of the students didn‟t know how 

to write summary. Thus, they really 

needed a lot of practice in their 

reading skills especially using 

summarizing technique. 

In line with the result of pre -test post-

test toward implementation of 

summarizing technique, it could be 

said that there were number of 

improvements.  

The increase of the average score of 

experimental group before and after 

treatment is 36,58, much better than 

the increase of the average score of 

control group which is 35,19. 

It could be included that there is 

significant difference between 

students taught with summarizing 

technique and non-summarizing 

technique in reading achievement, 

where summarizing technique is more 

effective in increasing reading skill 

than non-summarizing technique. 

Based on data analysis, the writer 

concluded some points concerning 

with the advantages of the 

implementation of summarizing 

technique based on Murrel and Surber 

in Carnine et al (1990). It was proved 

that summary technique could 

improve the students‟ reading skill. 

The students can find or determine 

main idea and critical concept in the 

selection.  

Summarizing can help the students to 

understand the organization of text 

material. Summarizing provides 

students practice in expressive writing. 

Finally, the effort to identify critical 

content during the summarizing 

process can help students remember 

those idea. 

The result of the data analysis shows 

that there is significant difference 

between the uses of summarizing 

technique. The writer also finds there 

is change of atmosphere in the English 

lesson after treatment. 

The differences atmosphere in 

learning process before and after 

treatment are as follows: before 

treatment most of the students didn‟t 

know what the summary is. However, 

after treatment more than 75% 

students in the class know how to 

summary. Before treatment most of 

the students felt difficult to find the 

main ideas, but after treatment the 

students felt easier to find main ideas 

and the message of the paragraph. 

Carnine et. Al (1990) mention that the 

summarizing not only allows students 

to identify the key ideas from the 

passage, but also reduces the 

information in the passage to key 

ideas that students can remember. 

Flood and Lap (1990) mention “ 

summary writing in its various forms 

still seems to be one of the best 



 

26 

 

vehicles available for implementing a 

constructivist, process oriented 

approach to teaching reading 

comprehension”. 

Carrel (1984) for example, 

investigates whether explicit teaching 

of text structure will facilitate ESL 

reading comprehension. For her 

research she classifies the instructional 

units into categories such as 

introduction, to-level, high-level, 

middle-level, and lo-level. Using an 

experimental design, she implements 

explicit practice of searching the top-

level idea in the text and use the idea 

to aid comprehension and recall. The 

study shows that ideas in the text 

facilitate comprehension as measure 

by amount of recalled information. In 

addition, it is also found that such an 

instruction helps readers‟ recall 

supporting details, major topics, and 

major subtopics of the text.  

Lam and Wong (2000) investigate 

how training in interaction strategies 

might be pertinent to the development 

of oral competence in the ESL 

secondary classroom. The main focus 

was to implement and evaluate 

strategy training in group discussion. 

The small scale pilot study also aimed 

to examine the quantity (frequency) 

and quality (effectiveness) of strategy 

use after training. 

The study shows that in order to help 

learners use interaction strategies 

effectively, strategy training had to be 

complemented by linguistic support. 

Non proficient learners who are given 

language help will be able to use 

interaction strategies more effectively 

than those who are not. This is 

particularly true when learners need 

language support to clarify 

themselves, since strategy training 

alone would not be adequate. Strategy 

training should emphasize team work, 

so that when learners recognize the 

need for clarification and cooperation, 

they would be motivated to use 

clarification strategies. 

The teaching procedures as 

experimented by Carrel, Lam and 

Wong above are also employed in 

teaching reading with summarizing 

technique as experimented in the 

present study.  

The finding of the present study 

indicate that summarizing technique 

ones in increasing students‟ reading 

achievement. To hold such an 

interpretation, however, several 

similar studies need to be conducted. 

On the other hand, it may also be 

interpreted that actually the 

summarizing technique is better to 

improve students‟ reading 

achievement than non-summarizing 

technique, but some limitation of the 

study affect its effectiveness. The 

second one seems to be more 

reasonable especially when it is 

related to experts‟ opinion such as 

Murrel and Surber in Carnine et al. 

(1990), they state that the effort to 

determine ideas and critical content 

during the summarizing process can 

help the students remember those 

ideas. 

Following the second interpretation 

the possible causes may lead to such a 

finding. As stated earlier that the 

treatment process lasts for only six 

meetings. This length of time might be 

too short for detecting real learning 

effects. This suspicion may be proved 

by referring to the mean scores of the 

two groups of the students. 

It can be seen that those taught with 

the former technique make higher 

achievement than those taught with 

the latter technique. Therefore, if 

longer experimentation is held, a 

significant difference might be 

obtained. 



 

27 

 

Some implications drawn from the 

research finding could be applied into 

teaching of English as foreign 

language. Referring back to the 

situational background for conducting 

research, the research set up the 

research to obtain some empirical data 

on the effectiveness of summarizing 

technique in teaching reading skill. 

The underlying reason for getting the 

data was that the teaching reading skill 

had not been satisfactory. The 

experiment had an effort to get some 

improvement in teaching reading skill. 

Some practical implications can be 

formulated as follows, (1) teaching 

reading by summarizing technique 

was the solution to improve reading 

skill. It was a fact that the score of 

post-test was higher than pre-test 

score, even though the different was 

significant and (2) whatever teaching 

strategies were adopted or adapted, it 

remained necessary to give much 

emphasis on teaching reading. 

 

CONCLUSION 
When we begin to read, we actually 

have number of initial decisions to 

make, and we usually make these 

decisions very quickly, almost 

unconsciously in most cases. For 

example, when we pick up a 

magazine, newspaper, we usually read 

the front of page with some 

combination of search processing, 

general reading comprehension and 

skimming. We read partly for 

information, but we also read with a 

goal to finish the magazine and 

newspaper fairly rapidly, since few 

people try to read every line of a 

newspaper. We may initially search 

the front page for a particular story 

that we expect to be there. If the 

headlines cue us in the right way, we 

may check quickly for the length of 

the article, and we may then read 

through a number of paragraphs for 

comprehension (appropriately 

influenced by the magazine and 

newspaper story genre, a reporting of 

what, who, when, where, why, and 

how). At that point, we will decide that 

we have enough information and will 

either stop reading the article or skim 

the remainder to be sure that we do not 

miss some surprisingly informative 

part.  

As has been stated before, the research 

was conducted to get some empirical 

data concerning the effectiveness of 

summarizing technique on reading 

achievement. 

The application of using summarizing 

technique in teaching English to the 

class is then expected to improve the 

result of the teaching reading in that 

school. Hence, the writer conducted 

and experiment in the classroom 

setting involving one class only. In the 

treatment meeting the writer applied 

teaching English by using 

summarizing technique. 

From the data analysis, the writer got 

findings. The mean score of 

experimental group was 74.52 and the 

mean score of control group was 

68.39. after applying the ANCOVA 

formula, it indicates that F-value was 

4.117 and the critical value with the 

level of significance .05 was 4.00.  

The result of data analysis shows that 

the students who are taught with 

summarizing technique tend to have 

better reading achievement than those 

who are taught with the non-

summarizing one. In other words, the 

former technique facilitates learning 

more than the letter.  

The summarizing technique can 

improve teaching strategies in reading 

comprehension. And also it is very 



 

28 

 

helpful for them during the reading 

class. 

Since this study results showed or 

indicated that the summarizing 

technique was effective for students in 

reading, the English teachers 

especially reading teacher at SMA 

level may use this model in order to 

improve the students‟ reading 

comprehension ability. The teacher 

who wants to apply this technique 

should be known the capability of the 

students about reading skill in order to 

the teacher can apply the summarizing 

technique as well as possible. 

The teacher may develop learning 

materials based on the technique and 

their creativity in order to enrich the 

topic of reading texts as well as the 

exercises in that technique.  

This study investigates the application 

of summarizing technique, as one of 

text strategies in teaching reading. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

29 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Ary, Donald. Jacobs, Lucy C. And Razavieh, Asghar. 2002. Introduction 

Research in Education Sixth Edition. United States of America. 

 

Burns, Paul. Roe, Betty D. Ross, Elinor P. 1994. Teaching reading in Today’s 

Elementary Schools. Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 

 

Carrell, P.1991. Strategic Reading. In J.E Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and Language 

Pedagogy: The State of The Art.  Georgetown University Round Table on 

Language and Linguistics 1991. Washington. DC: Georgetown University 

Press 

 

Grabe, William and Stoller, Fredrika L. 2002. Teaching and Researching 

Reading. Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow, Essex 

CM202JE England 

 

Harris, David P.1969. Testing English as a Second Language. Georgetown 

University