Linguistik Terapan 11 (2) (2014): 123-135 Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Pascasarjana Unimed Available online http://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2014/index.php/JLT-Unimed

The Effect of Students’ Learning Models and Style on Students’ Achievement in Reading Elisa P.N. Nainggolan Busmin Gurning Sumarsih Diterima Juli 2014; Disetujui September 2014; Dipublikasikan November 2014 Abstract The objectives of the research were to find out whether a) students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Jigsaw model was higher than taught by using Task-Based Learning (TBL) b) students’ achievement in reading comprehension with visual style was higher than that students with auditory style. The population was the students of SMA Budi Murni 2 Medan with 104 students. The samples were 3 parallel classes and two classes by applying cluster random sampling. The questionnaire was administered for classifying the students upon the visual and auditory learning style. The data were analyzed by applying two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the level of significance α= 0.05. The result proved that students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Jigsaw was higher than that taught by using TBL, students’ achievement in reading comprehension with visual learning style was higher than those with auditory learning style and there was interaction between models of learning and learning styles on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. Moreover, Tuckey-test result also showed that visual style students got higher achievement if they were taught by using Jigsaw model while auditory style students got higher achievement if they were taught by using TBL model.

Keywords: Effect; Models of Learning; Reading Comprehension; Students’ Learning Style; Students’ Achievement

How to Cite: Nainggolan, Elisa P.N. (2014). The Effect of Students’ Learning Models and Style on Students’ Achievement in Reading. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan Pascasarjana Unimed, 11 (2): 123-135 *Corresponding author.: E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0216-5139 123

INTRODUCTION Nowadays, reading comprehension is a complicated task to do by the students of Senior High School since Educational Unit Level Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: KTSP) requires them to know various text genres, For example; Recount, Narrative, Procedure, Descriptive, Repot, Exposition, Anecdote, Spoof, Explanation, Discussion, Review and News Item Genre. By knowing those genres, it is hoped that the students are being informational literate in terms of knowledge elevation in accordance with their needs in their lives as stated in Content Standard ( Standar Isi:SI, 2006) of KTSP. Reading comprehension for the students of SMA BUDI MURNI 2 MEDAN was still in a problem. Many students tend to translate word per word. They waste much time to understand the meaning of the text so that they get achievement low in Reading Comprehension. To achieve the aims of the learning, teacher as one source of the learning has a duty to prepare learning environment. Teacher design model of learning and prepares activities for the students in their learning. It is better for teacher to prepare some models of learning to vary the learning environment so that the students do not feel boring again. According to Shannon (2008), To get effective classrooms, teachers are responsible for helping students by incorporating active reflection throughout the learning process to get the inferential level, critical level, creative level, and literal level. That is why the models of learning are needed to involve the students’ learning style, because the students has their own characteristics in absorbing information in the process of

learning. Some students learn best by their seeing, and others learn best by their hearing. As DePorter, (2008) stated when the teacher involves the students’ learning styles in the models of learning that are chosen, at the same time the experience in learning will have meaning. Then, the learning will be efficient because the aim of the learning will be achieved. Relating to that explanation, this research wants to know the effect of models of learning and the students’ learning styles in teaching Reading Comprehension. Two models of learning are chosen to be applied in the reading comprehension classroom; they are Jigsaw and Task-Based Learning, these models are different. Jigsaw is the kind of cooperative learning and cooperative learning is the part of models of learning where students and teacher negotiated and shared each other. The emphasis of the Jigsaw to activate students’ prior knowledge in understanding the text is the students learn in a small group, they cooperate in the group and compete with another groups; while the Task-Based Learning focuses on three cycles in the learning that is pre-task, task cycle and language focus to activate students’ prior knowledge in understanding the text. There are also some types of Reading Comprehension material for Senior High School students; this research chooses only one type, it is Narrative text. Reading comprehension is a cognitive ability of someone to interpret the text based on their background knowledge in order to understand what the main point of the text and getting the information from the text, the interaction between reader and the author through a text in which the reader must be able to activate the previous 124

knowledge so that she/he will easily understand the meaning purpose by the author in the text. Reading comprehension is considered to occur at four levels of complexity namely; as literal level, inferential level, critical level and creative level (Smith,1969).

Jigsaw The jigsaw was first developed in the early 1970s by Elliot Aronson and his students at the University of Texas and the University of California. Since then, hundreds of schools have used the jigsaw classroom with great success. According to Aronson (2000), The Jigsaw model is an efficient way to learn the course material in a cooperative learning style. The jigsaw process encourages listening, engagement, and empathy by giving each member of the group an essential part to play in the academic activity. Group members must work together as a team to accomplish a common goal; each person depends on all the others. No student can succeed completely unless everyone works well together as a team. According to Johnson and Holubec (1993) there are five principles for jigsaw namely; Positive interdependence, Face-to-face promotive interaction, Individual and group accountability, Interpersonal skills and Group processing. The application of the Jigsaw model in the classroom uses the steps which are stated by Wena (2009) namely; (1) forming the home group; this group consists of three students which are heterogenic, (2) learning on the home group; each member of the group learns the sections of the material,

then do their own duty individually, (3) forming the expert group; the students who has the same material from the different home group form a new group as their expert group (4) discuss in the expert group, the members of the expert group discuss their section, (5) discuss in home group; after mastering their section the members of the expert group go back to their home group. Then, each member takes turn to explain their section to the other members, (6) class discussion; the teacher guides the class to share what they get and makes correction of misunderstanding, (7) giving quiz; the quiz is done individually, the score of the each home group member are summed in order to get the score of the home group, (8) giving reward to the group, the group which get highest score will be given a reward. The reward can be a bonus score. According to Bafile (2008), in using Jigsaw, we can find some strength and also weakness. The strength of the jigsaw in reading are (1) Each person in the group has responsibility, (2) The shyer and weaker students have as much responsibility as stronger students which means no students get "pushed to the back" (3) Each student has a chance to contribute meaningfully to a discussion, something that is difficult to achieve in large-group discussion. (4) Each student develops an expertise and has something important to contribute. (5) Students have the opportunity to teach themselves, instead of having material presented to them. The technique fosters depth of understanding. (6) Moreover the students are active participants in the learning process and the teacher is not the sole provider of knowledge.

125

The weakness of Jigsaw in reading are (1) If in a group has a member or some members that are poor readers or slow thinkers and have trouble creating a good report for their friends, will make a difficulty for their group in understanding the whole text. (2) Boredom can be a problem in any classroom, regardless of learning technique being used. Task-Based Learning Task Based Learning is the approach of learning that puts the task to be completed at the centre of the learning session. In language learning, Nunan (1989) stated that task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. According to Willis (1996), a task is an activity where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome in which the emphasis is on exchanging meanings not producing specific language forms. Wilis (1996) stated the framework of task based learning that is useful in classroom and language teaching. The framework concludes pre-task, task cycle and language focus. Learner begins by carrying out a communicative on task, using the language they have learnt from previous lesson or from other sources. Then, teacher talks about how they do the task and compare findings. At some point they might listening to recording of other people doing the same task or read something related to the theme of the task The Pre-Task is the beginning of the lesson that is usually stated as an

introduction to topic and task. Willis suggests that teacher explores the topic with the class, highlights useful words and phrases, helps students understand task instruction and prepare to the next task. In preparing for the task fulfillment, the teacher will need to consider how the chosen piece of material will be exploited by exploring the material comparing idea and sharing experiences; activating language by electing and providing vocabulary The Task-Cycle consists of task preparation which is separated from the PreTask phase used by Willis. This phase is to highlight the importance of preparing students thoroughly, where necessary rehearsing the task in order to recycle the language and familiarize students with the context as much as possible. If the previous stage involved brainstorming words connected with the topic, this stage involves the students preparing their arguments for a debate. Students prepare own input for task such as practicing role-play, thinking of issues in a debate, brainstorming necessary language. The next is the task realizations where students perform, produce, present their tasks. The Language Focus in the framework consist of analyzing the specific features of the text or transcript of recording, and practicing of new words, phrases, and pattern occuring in the data, either during or after the analysis. After the task has been completed, students may wish to look at the material again to gain a better understanding of the language to look at structures, difficult or unusual vocabulary. According to Simpson (2004) there are some weaknesses and strength of Task Based Learning. The Strength of Task126

Based Learning are (1) Task-based learning is widely applicable as it is suitable for learners of all ages and backgrounds. (2) During the task the learners are allowed to use whatever language they want, freeing them to focus entirely on the meaning of their message. (3) TBL provides clear objectives in terms of what participants will gain from the tasks. (4) Tasks contribute to progress by encouraging students to plan and be more ambitious in the language they use. The weakness of Task-Based Lerning are (1) requires a high level of creativity and initiative on the part of the teacher. (2)

requires resources beyond the textbooks and related materials usually found in language classrooms. (3) Task-based instruction is not teacher-centered. (4) Some learners revert to mother tongue when things get difficult or if the group feels impatient. (5) Some learners tend to get caught up in trying to find the right word, and do not worry over much about how it fits into the discourse. (6) There is a risk for learners to achieve fluency at the expense of accuracy. (7) Evaluation of task-based learning can be difficult. The nature of task-based learning prevents it from being measurable by some of the more restricted and traditional tests.

Table. The characteristics of Visual and Auditory Learning Style (DePorter, 2005)

                

Visual Learner Regular and natty Talk fastly A good planner A good speller Can see words in mind Remember what that was seen than heard Use visual materials such as pictures, charts, maps, graphs to remember thing Memorizing with visual association Have problem to follow spoken direction Easy to remember written information Tend to ask someone to review utterance Prefer to read than to be read Need to have a clear view of the teachers when they are speaking Tend to use their body language and facial Use colour to highlight important points in text Take notes or ask the teacher to provide handouts Illustrate their ideas as a picture or 127

                

Auditory Learner Tend to talk to self when work Easy to be annoyed by noisy Move lip when reading Like to read loudly Can imitate tone or change of voice Hard to write Easy to tell story A fluent speaker Like music than art Learn by hearing Considering by discussing Participate in class discussion/debate Using tape recorder during lectures instead of taking notes Read the text out aloud Create musical jingles to aid memorisation Create nemonic to aid memorisation Dictate someone while they write

 

brainstorming bubble before writing them down  Write a story and illustrate it Visualise information as a picture to aid memorisation

down their thoughts Use verbal analogies, and story telling to demonstrate their point of view.

namely Visual and Auditory Learning style. So, there are some variables that would be found in this research design namely independent variables, moderator and dependent variable. The independent variables are the models of learning, (jigsaw and task-based learning) while the moderator variables are the learning styles of students whether visual or auditory style. Then the students’ achievement in reading comprehension is the dependent variable. The research design model is as follows.

RESEARCH METHOD Quantitative experimental study was applied in this research because this research would like to establish the comparison (different effect of models of learning on learning styles) required by the hypothesis in this experiment so that a meaningful interpretation of the results in this research would be obtained. It conducted by using factorial design 2x2, which compare models of learning; Jigsaw and Task-Based Learning and students’ learning styles

The Design of the Study Models of Learning (A) Jigsaw Students’ Learning styles (B) Visual (B1)

(A1)

Auditory (B2)

The population of this study was 11 year of social class students of senior high school in Medan, SMA Katolik Budi Murni 2 in academic year 2012/2013. It is located on Jl. Kapiten Purba, Medan which chosen two classes from three classes. The total numbers of the students were 104 students. The sample was chosen by using cluster random sampling technique. Cluster random sampling is the sample group of subjects that are selected by chance, without bias. It was used only to consider 2 from 3 classes in the grade XI social class selected as the representative of the

Task Based Learning (A2)

A1B1

A2B1

A1B2

A2B2

population. The steps of sampling were: (1) wrote the name of the each class in a small piece of paper, (2) put the small pieces of paper into a small box, (3) took two pieces of the paper. The two choosen of paper became the two experiment classes, where the first selected paper was XI Social 3 that was taught by using Jigsaw and the second paper was XI Social 2 that was taught by using Task-Based Learning. Then, after the two classes selected, the researcher gave questionare to all the students from the two classes and classify them into two groups in each class, the students with visual learning 128

style and auditory learning style. The samples were 68 students and divided into 2 classes which each class consists of 34 students. The instruments of this research are reading comprehension test and learning styles questionnaire. The treatment, there were 12 meetings in 6 weeks. It was held twice a week and it takes 90 minutes for each treatment.In analyzing the data, the researcher used descriptive statistic and inferential statistic technique. Descriptive statistic technique was used to describe the data such as Mean, Median, Mode, Standard Deviation, and Variance while inferential statistic technique was used to test research hypotheses by applying two ways ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with the level of significance 5% or 0.05. Before two ways Anova was applied, there were two requirements for the analysis; they are normality test by using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test and homogeneity test by using F test and Barlett test through computer system called SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). After the requirements for the analysis were completed, the interaction between both independent variables toward dependent variable based on the result of the F- observed analysis. Thus, the further test was done to verify the accurateness of the effect of models of learning and students’ learning style on students’ achievement in reading comprehension by using Tuckey test since the number of sample in each cell is the same.

a. The first finding of this research shows that the students with visual learning style have higher achievement in reading comprehension when they were taught by using Jigsaw model. It implies that English teacher should try to apply this model for it can activate students’ prior knowledge, retrieve information from the text, interpret it, and reflect their understanding by creating their personal knowledge. This model really helps the students become active readers. Moreover, Jigsaw model also can make English teachers become easier in managing learning activity because they just function as facilitator. At the end of Jigsaw session, the teachers clarify the findings of the students during reading process. Therefore, this model can be a good choice for English teacher in teaching reading comprehension. b. The second finding of this research showed that reading comprehension achievement of students with visual learning style is higher than those with auditory learning style. It gives implications for English teacher that before teaching reading comprehension, the teacher should identify their students’ learning style. The identification of students’ learning style can determine the teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different learning style is the key to success in teaching reading comprehension since the teachers

FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS Findings 129

c.

can choose which strategy is more suitable to apply in the classroom. The third finding of this research reveals that there is significant interaction between models of learning and learning style on students’ achievement in reading comprehension. It implies that any models of learning applied by the teachers should be related to the levels of students’ learning style. The way the teachers provoke students’ learning style determine the attitude of the students in learning reading comprehension.

interdependence and the responsibility of each students to achieve the goal of learning made the Jigsaw is as the more effective one. Jigsaw is more suitable in improving students’ achievement in reading comprehension than TaskBased Learning model. However, both models, Jigsaw and task-Based Learning, significantly affect students’ achievement in reading comprehension. b. Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Visual Learning Style is higher than with Auditory Learning Style. Based on the second hypothesis stated that the Visual learning style is higher than the Auditory learning styles in reading comprehension. This can be occured because as DePorter (2008) stated that the visual learning style easy to remember written information. This also support the research of Mazaimi (2008), he stated in his research that the students will get higher achievement when they learn using their dominant learning style. The visual style will be easier to absorb information from written information. The students with visual learning style are able to understand the concept when they are reading. It is because they do not only think about what they are reading but also how to make the information become one concept so that they can understand the whole information easily. The students with visual learning style are able to comprehend the text accurately. In contrast, the students with auditory

Discussion a. Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension taught by using Jigsaw Model is higher than taught by using Task-Based Learning Model. Based on the first hypothesis stated that the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Jigsaw is higher than taught by using TaskBased Learning. This can be occured because the Jigsaw model is usually use text material asthe source of learning. Jigsaw also emphasize the interdependence of the students to get the goal of learning, each students have responsible one another. In the end of the study time, the students were given quiz to see whether they understand the whole material because in the process of learning students are separated to different sections. The score of individually will be affect the score of the group. This is also support the research of Elisa (2009) that the Jigsaw is suitable to increase the students’ achievement, she concluded that the 130

learning style can also gather the essential information but they do not know the concept so that what they know is sometimes in grey area. That is why empirically the students with visual learning style have higher achievement that students with auditory learning style.

auditory learning style in teaching reading comprehension, because in using this model, the teacher guides the students by asking questions relate to the topic of the text. From the beginning of the lesson as stated as the pre-cylcle of the Task-Based Learning and prereading in the Reading Comprehension lesson, the teacher activate the students’ mind to the topic of the text.

c. The Interaction between Models of Learning and Learning Style on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. The third hypothesis stated that there is interaction between Model of Learning and Learning Style on the Reading Comprehension. The students with visual learning style taught by Jigsaw model have better achievement in reading comprehension than students with visual learning style taught by task-based learning. In other words, students with visual learning style have better achievement in reading comprehension if they are taught by using jigsaw model while students with auditory learning style have better achievement if they are taught by using task-based learning. The Visual learning style is effective taught by using Jigsaw which usually uses text as material to be discussed because it will help them to increase their achievement in reading comprehension. In jigsaw model, the students read their section, then share what they know with their friend in expert group, when they discuss in the expert group, they write and conclude the discussion because after that they meet back to their own group to teach each other. The Task-Based Learning is effective for the students who have the

CONCLUSION Based on data analysis, hypotheses testing, research findings and discussion, it can be concluded that : 1) Reading comprehension achievement of students taught by using Jigsaw model is significantly higher than those taught by using Task-Based Learning model. It can be concluded that both models Jigsaw and Task-Based Learning significantly affect Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. 2) Reading comprehension achievement of students with Visual learning style is significantly higher than those students with auditory learning style. It can be concluded that Learning Style significantly affect Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. 3) Students with Visual learning style showed significant effect in their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using Jigsaw model while students with auditory learning style showed significant effect in their reading comprehension if they were taught by using Task-Based Learning. It can be concluded that there is significant interaction between models of learning 131

and learning styles on Achievement in Comprehension.

Students’ Reading

REFERENCES Aini. 2011. The effect of teaching methods and vocabulary mastery on students achievement in reading comprehension. Medan. Unpublished Thesis. Alexander, M. J.1974. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in Reading. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Allington, R. 2000. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research based Programs. Colombus, OH: Allyn & Bacon Al-Makhzoomi, Khalaf and Freihat Saleh. 2012. The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) on Enhancing EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Behavior in a University Setting. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 (5), pp 280-291 Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Rineka Cipta Arnheim, R. 1969. Visual Thinking. Barkley: University of california press Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research Education (Eight Edition). USA: Wadsworth Birsh, J. R.1999. Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills. Baltimore: Brookes Blair, H and Ruplay, H. 1981. Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading. 5th Edition Colombus: A Bell & Howell Bafile, C. 2008. The “Jigsaw” Approach Brings Lessons to Life.

http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr324.shtml. Accessed on March 10th 2013 Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mc Kay Bond, G.L. 1984. Reading Difficulties (Their Diagnosis and Correction). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Boyle, J.R and Yeager, N. 1997. Blueprints for Learning: Using cognitive frameworks for understanding. Teaching Exceptional Children. Vol 29(4), pp 26-31 Brassel, D and Rasingky, T. 2008. Comprehension That works. California: Huntington Beach Brown, H.D. 2000. Participles of languange learning and teachingm, fourth edition. New york: addison wesely longman Brown, H.D and Pellinscar. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive Approach to languange pedogogy. White Plains: Pearson Education Brown, H.D. 2008. Prinsip pembelajaran dan pengajaran bahasa. Penerjemah: Nooe Cholis dan Yusi Avianto Pareanom Buss, L.M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7 Cain, K and Oakhill, J. 2006. Profiles of children with specifi c reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psycology, 76.4.683-696

132

Campbell, D.T and Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally Candlin, C. N and David R. H. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. White Plains: Pearson Education Carver, R. P. 2000. The cause of high and low reading achievemnt. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chafe, A. 1998. Cooperative Learning and The Second Language Classroom in http://www.cdli.ca/achafe/cooplang.ht ml. Accessed on March 10th 2013 Charles, A. J. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Clark, H.H. and Clark, E.V. 1997. Psychology and Language; An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New Jersey: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Cook, T.D and Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasiexperimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cunningham, P.M.S and Cunningham, J & Moore, D. 2000. Reading and writing in Elementary classrooms (4th edition). New York: Longman. Day, R. R and Park Jeong-suk. 2005. Developing Reading Comprehension Questions. Journal of Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 17 (1) pp 60-73 DePorter, B. 2005. Quantum Learning, Membiasakan Belajar Nyaman dan Menyenangkan. Terj. Alwiyah Abdurrahman. Bandung: Kaifa Djaramah. 1996. Strategy Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT RINEKA CIPTA. Elisa. 2006. Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Hasi Belajar IPS.Thesis. Medan; Unimed

Ellis, E. and Gable, R. A and Gregg, M & Rock, M. L. 2008. REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentia ted_instruction. Accessed on July 10th 2013. Entwinstle, N.J. 1998. Improving teaching through research on the student learning in jj forrest (ed).University Teaching: International Perspective. New york: Garland Fleming, N and Baume, D. 2006. Learning Style Again: VARKing up the tree! Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd, Issue 7,4, November 2006, p4-7 http://www.varklearn.com/documents/Educational%20 Developments.pdf Accessed on January, 4th 2013. Fountas, I.C & G.S.Pinnel. 2006. Level books (k-8): Matching texts to readers for effective teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Gerot, L & Peter, W. 1994. Making sense of functional grammar. Australia: Antipodean Educational Enteprises Goodman, L. 1990. Time and Learning in the special education classroom. New York: State University of New York Press. Grabe, W and Stoller, F.L. 2002. Teaching and Researching reading. British: Pearson Education Hummel, S. 2000. Developing comprehension skills of secondary students with specific learning difficulties. Australian journal of learning difficulties, 5,4,22-27

133

Johnson, P.A. 2008. Teaching reading and writing. Washington D.C: Rowman and Littlefield Education Joyce, B. 1996. Models of Teaching. 5th Edition. USA: Allyn & Bacon Keefe, J.W. 1979. Learning styles: an overview. In NASSP’s student learning styles: Diagnosing and proscribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA. National association of secondary school principles Kemple, J.C.W and Nelson, E and Salinger, T and Herrmann, S & Drummound, K 2008 The enhanced reading opportunities study: early impact and impelementation findings , Washington , DC: Institute of education sciense and US Department of education Knight. 1994. Genre in Language Learning. New York: The Gilford Lyon, G.R. 1998. Why reading is not a natural Process. Educational Leadership, 55(6): 14-18 Mazaimi, Zulfan. 2008. Efektivitas Strategi Pembelajaran Menggunakan Media Komputer dan Gaya Belajar Terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia pada Pokok Pembahasan Sistem Periodik dan Struktur Atom. Thesis. Medan: Unimed McDonough, J. 2003. Materials and Methods in Elt. USA: Blackwell. Publishing Ltd. Mitchell, C. 1995. Learning style. London : Further education Development Agnency Myers, L, and Botting, N. 2008. Literacy in the mainstream inner-city school: Its relationship to spoken language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24, 1, 95-114 Nunnan, D. 2003. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Nurjannah. 2011. The effect of linguistics exercise and topic familiraty on students achivement in reading comprehension. (A thesis). Medan: Unimed Nuttal, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Educational Books Ltd. O’ Sullivan. 1994. Learning with genres. New York: The Gilford Pressley, M. 1998. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.New York: Guilford Press. Pressley, M. 2006. Reading instuction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed). New york: Guilford RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for Understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Rubin, D. 2000. Teaching elementary language arts: A balanced approach (6th edn) Boston: Allyn & Bacon Simpson, A. Task-Based Learning.http://www.esllounge.com/adamsimpson- task-basedlearning.shtml. accessed on February, 2nd 2013 Spolsky, B. 1999. Concise Ensyclopedia of Educational Linguistics. London: Elsevier Science Steinberg, D.D. 1982. Pscholinguistics: Language, Mind and World. New York: Longman Stewart , K.L and Feliceti, L.A. 1992. Learning styles of marketing majors educational research quarterly, 15(2), 15-23 Teale, W & Yokota, J. 2000. Beginning reading and writing: Perspectives on Instruction. In D.S. Strickland & L.M. Morrow (eds) Beginning reading and

134

Writing (pp.3-21). New York: Teachers College Press Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). "Mapping a Route Toward a Differentiated Instruction". Educational Leadership 57 (1): 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentia ted_instruction. Accessed on Juny, 3rd 2013. Torgesen, J.K. 2000. Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities ResearchAnd Practice, 15 (1): 55-64

Uno, H. 2008. Orientasi Baru Dalam Psikologi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara Wena, M. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara Westwood, P. 2001. Reading and Learning Difficulties: Approaches to teaching and Assessment. Victoria: Acer Press Willis, J . 1996. A Framework for TaskBased Learning. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman

135