Journal

THE USE OF READER RESPONSE THEORY IN TEACHING READING COMPREHENSION OF NARRATIVE TEXT IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (A CASE STUDY IN ONE OF THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BANDUNG)

Brilian Rachman Wibowo

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

email: rachman.brilian@gmail.com

Fuad abdul Hamied M.A., Ph.D.

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

email:fuadah@indo.net.id

Sudarsono M.I.

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

email: sudarsonobdg@gmail.com

Abstract: This study focuses on the investigation of the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school and students’ responses toward the implementation of the theory. To achieve the purposes, this study used a descriptive case study as the methodology. This study involved tenth grade students of one of the senior high schools in Bandung as the research participants. The data were collected from classroom observation through video recording, written documents, and interview. The data collected were analyzed using a scoring rubric adapted from Beach (1993) and Mitchelle (1993). This study revealed that reader response theory within small group discussion provides four beneficial uses. Reader response theory within small group discussion helped students in improving their understanding of the text, improving their interpretation of the text, encouraging students to deliver their personal responses and the last, reader response within small group discussions also improving students’ critical thinking. Moreover, reader response within small group discussions is a fun way to learn for students, most of the students gave positive responses. It is supported by the fact that they seemed to be enthusiastic and interested discussing using reader response within small group discussions.

Keywords: reading comprehension, reader response, narrative text, small group discussion.

Manfaat Teori Respon Pembaca Dalam Pengajaran Pemahaman Membaca Terhadap Teks Narrative Di Sekolah Menengah Atas (Studi Kasus di Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri Kota Bandung)

Abstrak: Penelitian ini berfokus pada pengusutan dari manfaat teori respon pembaca dalam pengajaran pemahaman membaca terhadap teks narrative di sekolah menengah atas dan respon siswaterhadap penerapan teori tersebut. Untuk mencapai tujuannya, penelitian ini menggunakan studi kasus deskripsi sebagai metode penelitian. Penelitian ini melibatkan siswa kelas sepuluh dari salah satu sekolah menengah atas di bandung sebagai peserta penelitian. Data dikumpulkan mellalui penelitian kelar, khususnya rekaman video, dokumen-dokumen tertulis dan wawancara. Data yang terkumpul kemudian di analisis mnggunakan aturan penilai yang diadaptasi dari Beach (1993) dan Mitchell (1993). Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa teori respon pembaca di dalam diskusi grup kecil menberikan empat kegunaan yang menguntungkan. teori respon pembaca di dalam diskusi grup kecil menolong siswa dalam meningkatkan pemahaman mereka terhadap text, meningkatkan kemampuan mengartikan terhadap text, memberanikan siswa keberanian dalam menyampaikan pendapat pribadi mereka, dan yang terakhir meningkatkan kemampuan berfikir kritis. Lebih jauh lagi, teori respon pembaca di dalam diskusi grup kecil merupakan cara yang menyenangkan untuk belajar bagi siswa, sebagian besar siswa memberikan respon yang bai. Ini didukung oleh fakta yang menyatakan bahwa mereka antusias dan tertarik berdiskusing menggunakan respon pembaca dalam diskusi pada grup kecil.

Kata Kunci: reading comprehension, respon pembaca, teks narrative, diskusi dalam grup kecil.

Reading has an important role in learning English, practically as a receptive skill. Reading as a receptive skill means that reading is a skill that is useful to get information from written sentences of text. According to Nuttal (2005), reading is generally defined as the process of identifying written or printed text to understand its meaning. What it means by “meaning” refers to messages that may include facts, entertainments, ideas, or feeling. Anderson, Hiebert, and Wilkinson (1985) believe that the ability to read and comprehend efficiently is essential for meeting the needs of everyday life as well as in the academic arena.

Based on curriculum of 2006 and curriculum of 2013, in English subject, reading skill becomes one of the important skill to be acquired. It expects students of senior high school to be able to learn several types of text. Among the texts that are taught in the school, narrative text is one of the texts that are required to be learned by the students. Anderson and Anderson (2003) mentioned that “narrative is a piece of text which tells a story and, in doing so, entertains or informs the reader or listener”. As a literary work, narrative text should be treated differently with other texts.

There should be a reconsideration of how literature should be approached in the classroom so that teachers and students would no longer be concerned solely with identifying the “correct” interpretation of texts. (Rosenblatt, 1938, 1978). He also stated that reading literature is an ‘aesthetic’ reading that requires readers to interact emotionally and experimentally with the text. However, the emotional and experiential interactions depend on the reader‟s background schemata. Different schemata will create different interpretation.

Dealing with the barriers of language and culture, literature for teaching literature in EFL (English as Foreign Language) settings suggests the use of ’friendly’ materials. ‘Friendly’ materials here mean selecting texts that are relevant to the students‟ language proficiency as well as the students’ context. (Marcus,2006; Kilduff, Hamer and Mc Cannon, 2010),

Regarding to the characteristic of literary work, the most suitable theory that is suitably applied to it is reader response theory. Reader response rely on individual interpretations of books to make the literary understandings constructed throughout the reading process visible. These theory situate students (and everything influencing their identities) in very active roles as readers”. (Beach, 1993; Tompkins, 1980).

Reader response theory gives a reader a special literary experience by using it. The important part of the literary experience is that of creating visual mental images in response to a text. These mental images of characters, places, actions are intimately related to readers' emotional experiences with texts and their understanding of texts (Beach, 1993). However, the emotional and experiential interactions depend on the reader‟s background schemata. Different schemata will create different interpretation.

Using the reader response approach encourages students to think about what it is that they bring to the piece that elicits their reaction (Mitchell, 1993). Students are encouraged to reflect personal experience with the text they read. They rethink of their own personal experience, connect it with the world of text, and draw conclusions on the meaning of the text (Garrison and Hynds, 1991).

“Reader response theory asks the teacher to begin the study of literature with the students' response. Instead of telling about literature, our job (teacher) becomes helping students discover what a piece of literature can mean” (Mitchell, 1993). The teacher should be aware of the relation between using reader response theory and group discussion. Using group discussion and reader response theory increase students’ literature element (Beach, 1993).

To apply it in the class, reader response should be used within small group discussion, because reader response should be discussed. Using small groups allows instructors to play a facilitator role in maximizing the amount of student talk and helping students stay engaged in the work of language practice and language learning. Astika (2007) believed that in using group work, the quality of language produced which is capable of greater variety than that commonly produced in a teacher-centered classroom.

Using group discussions as a tool for promoting students’ high-level comprehension of text (i.e., critical literacy) is needed. The term high-level comprehension is used to refer to critical, reflective thinking about text. High-level comprehension requires that students engage with text in an epistemic mode to acquire not only knowledge of the topic, but also knowledge about how to think about the topic and the capability to reflect on one’s own thinking (cf. Chang-Wells & Wells, 1993).

The problem is that reader response theory is rarely used in senior high school, escpecially in Bandung. In order to give a special treatment to a narrative text and investigate students’ responses toward the theory, this study will cover two purposes, those are: to find out what is the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school and investigate what are students’ responses toward the implementation of the theory.

METHOD

This study used qualitative method because it is aimed at describing the use of reader response in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text. In association with qualitative method, this study could be considered into case study design since this study set a case within the real world (Creswell, 2012).

The participants of this study were tenth grade students of one of the senior high schools in Bandung. However, there were only 5 students’ that were analyzed. They were chosen from one class purposevely, based on their enthusiastic learning literature.

This study used three instruments for collecting the data, there are: Video recording, written documents and interview. By using various method, this study is expected to reduce the bias and subjectivity.

The students’ excerpts were coded based on the scoring rubric, adapted from Beach (1993) and Mitchell (1993). Each excerpts were divided based on its codes.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

Those findings that were found from the data gained are supported by some evidence. The data from classroom observations are used to verify the activities in reading class, whether it was lined with activities in the lesson plans. The data derived from the interview, which was addressed to the students, are used to gain some information from the students directly in real situation and feeling toward the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school.

Due to the wealth of content of the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school, this study is sharpened on several aspects which are presented in the table and will be analyzed and elaborated in this chapter. Researcher adapted the table from one of the best researchers of reader response theory Beach ( 1993) and supported by several theories and interpretation from Mitchell (1993) as the researcher who also concern in reader response theory in senior high school (see table 1).

Related to the finding and the table, the data collected have gained the following uses related to the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school: Improving their understanding, improving their interpretation, encouraging students to give their personal responses, and encouraging students to think critically.

Table 1 Scoring rubric for reader response theory in small-group discussion.

(Adapted from Beach (1993) and Mitchell (1993))

SCORE

UNDERSTANDING

INTERPRETATION

PERSONAL RESPONSE

CRITICAL RESPONSE

4

Students recall the important elements of the story in order, with details. Student’s response has a sense of

story.

Students made a prediction, conclusion, and/or

comparison by using

supporting details from the story.

Students made connections from

their life to characters or

events in the story. Students give details to explain its

connections.

Students tell what they think about the story. Students support it with details from the story or

their life.

3

Students recall the important elements of the story in order. Student’s response has

a sense of story.

Students made a prediction, conclusion, and/or

comparison using some details from the story.

Students made a connection from

Their life to the events in the story. Students give details to explain.

students tell what they think about the story. Students support it with details from the story

2

Students recall some important elements of the story.

The elements are not in

order and/or complete.

Students made a prediction,

conclusion, or

comparison. Lack of

details.

Students made a connection from

their life to events in the

story. Lack of details.

Students tell what they think about the story, but students don't use details from the text

1

Students recall elements of the story. They may not be important or complete.

Students made an inappropriate

prediction, conclusion, or

comparison. lack of

details.

Students tell events from the story and/or my life, but they are not connected.

students tell about the story without telling what they think.

In order to get the best answer from students, this study adopted the list of questions from Mitchell (1996) (see table 2).

Table 2. List of questions. Mitchell (1993) .

READER RESPONSE

• What struck you about the story/poem?

• What kinds of things did you notice?

• What would you like to talk about after reading this?

• What issues did it raise for you?

• Were there parts that confused you?

• What questions would you like to ask?

• Did anything upset you or make you angry?

• Is there anything you want to ask any of the characters?

• How did you feel after you read the poem/story?

• What made you feel this way?

To fulfill the critea of media used, this study used Lutung Kasarung in the first week, three simple rules in the second week, and the story of an hour in the third week. Those stories are suitable with what Marcus, (2006); Kilduff, Hamer and Mc Cannon, (2010) stated. They argued that dealing with the barriers of language and culture, literature for teaching literature in EFL (English as Foreign Language) settings suggests the use of ’friendly’ materials. ‘Friendly’ materials here mean selecting texts that are relevant to the students‟ language proficiency as well as the students’ context.

Table 3. Students’ improvement of their understanding of narrative text.

STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING

BEFORE USING READER RESPONSE WITHIN SMALL GROUP

AFTER USING READER RESPONSE WITHIN SMALL GROUP

FIRST WEEK

2

Students recall some important elements of the story. The elements are not in order and/or complete.

3

Students recall the important elements of the story in order. Student’s response has a sense of story.

SECOND WEEK

2

Students recall some important elements of the story. The elements are not in order and/or complete.

3

Students recall the important elements of the story in order. Student’s response has a sense of story.

THIRD WEEK

3

Students recall the important elements of the story in order. Student’s response has a sense of story.

4

Students recall the important elements of the story in order, with details. Student’s response has a sense of story.

Based on the table 3, it can be seen that students’ understanding were improved. In the first week, students recall some important elements of the story. The elements are not in order and/or complete. It can be seen in this excerpt :

Teacher : So, tell me about the story.

Student A : Story of Purbasari who have been cursed and finally heal by Lutung Kasarung.

Than, it was improved to be like this in the last week:

Teacher : So. I want to hear your opinion of this story after discussed in your group?.

Student B : This is story about Ms. Mallard, who has a shock attack, after hearing the rumor that tells her husband has died. She has a conflict with herself about what should she feel after losing his husband. At the end of the story, her husband came home in good condition, but unfortunately Ms. Mallard has died of heart disease.

Students achieved four points, because Students recall the important elements of the story in order, with details. Student’s response has a sense of story.

Table 4. Students’ improvement of their interpretation of narrative text.

STUDENTS’ INTERPRETATION

FIRST WEEK

SECOND WEEK

THIRD WEEK

2

Students made a prediction, conclusion, or comparison. Lack of details.

2

Students made a prediction,conclusion, or comparison. Lack of details.

3

Students made a prediction,

conclusion, and/or

comparison using some details from the story.

Based on the table 4, it can be seen that students’ interpretation were improved. In the first week, students made a prediction,

conclusion, or comparison, but lack of details. It can be seen in this excerpt :

Student 2 :(haltingly) I notice that Purbararang is jealous, so she cursed her sister.

Than, it was improved to be like this in the last week:

Student 2 : Indeed, in the story she didn’t treat herself well, imprisoned herself in abedroom, so she became ill, always gloomy.

Student 4 :She also trusts someone easily, there is no evidence, but she trusted it.

Students achieved three points, because Students made a prediction, conclusion, and/orcomparison using some details from the story.

Table 5. The improvement of students’ encouragement to deliver their personal response.

STUDENTS’ PERSONAL RESPONSE

FIRST WEEK

SECOND WEEK

THIRD WEEK

2

Students made a connection from their life to events in the story. Lack of details.

3

Students made a connection from their life to the events in the story. Students give details to explain.

3

Students made a connection from their life to the events in the story. Students give details to explain.

Based on the table 5, it can be seen that students’ were encouraged to deliver their personal response. In the first week, students made a connection from their life to events in the story, but lack of details. It can be seen in this excerpt :

Students 2 : I wonder how the lake heals purbasari’s face. How almighty Lutung kasarung is.

Than, it was improved to be like this in the last week:

Student 2 : Oh the story was only an hour story?, I also like to brood over if it’s only an hour.

Students achieved three points, because Students made a connection from their life to the events in the story. Students give details to explain.

Table 6. The improvement of students’ encouragement to deliver their critical response.

STUDENTS’ CRITICAL RESPONSE

FIRST WEEK

SECOND WEEK

THIRD WEEK

2

Students tell what they think about the story, but students don't use details from the text.

2

Students tell what they think about the story, but students don't use

details from the text.

3

Students tell what they think about the story. Students support it with

details from the story or

their life.

Based on the table 6, it can be seen that students’ were encouraged to deliver their critical response. In the first week, students tell what they think about the story, but students don't use details from the text. It can be seen in this excerpt :

Student 4 : So the point is, this is a social jealousy issue, Purbarang wanted to be a queen, that’s all.

Than, it was improved to be like this in the last week:

Student 5 : The story is sad, but it is actually a great story. The dead is because of her joy and a heart attack.

Students achieved three points, because Students tell what they think about the story. Students support it with details from the story or their life.

To answer research question number two, The students’ responses findings were gained from the classroom observation data and interview data. In the classroom observation, the data is in the form of sheets consist of the learning activities, responses, and evidence.

This study concluded that generally students enjoyed discussing in small groups using reader response theory. They found benefits in using that technique. Although, they faced problems in delivering their ideas in first meeting, but they seemed to understand the text really well and enjoying the activity given. The students’ problem in discussing in small-group discussion using reader response theory is that they need a leader to lead the group, because they are always distracted by another topic that has no relation with the material given.

Furthermore, students are really aware of the importance of learning English. They learned seriously every activity given, even teacher needed to use ice breaker to make them relax. Moreover, the students were really enthusiastic, even the class was in the early morning. The students contributed really well in the class by participating in activities and answering teacher’s questions. Even, students want the researcher to teach them permanently.

This study obtained conclusion that during the lesson, especially on the activities of using reader response theory, participants always feel eager to discuss their comprehension of the text in a group. Moreover, participants found that discussing in providing benefits to them. They also felt happy and free in sharing their opinion in group discussion. Even though, sometimes their attention span is decreased and distracted by another topic, but in the last meeting they are able to focus very well.

CONCLUSION

This study was conducted to investigate the use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text to the tenth grade students of one of the senior high schools in Bandung. Based on the findings, researcher drew two main conclusions. First, the use of reader response and second, students’ responses toward the iplementation of reader response, and wiill be briefly elaborated below.

Based on the findings and the discussion of the result in the previous chapter, reader response theory provided four beneficial uses for students. First, a reader response was able to improve students’ understanding ability. From the observations, researcher found that after discussing using reader response within small groups, students’ answers were improved. It became more detailed and complete. Second, reader response improved students’ interpretation ability. Participants showed improvement in interpreting the text each meeting. Third, reader response encouraged students to deliver their personal responses. By using reader response theory and sharing within the small group, students were encouraged to share their personal responses. And the last, but not least, small group discussion using reader response approach was encouraging students to think critically. In the class, students are expected to think critically, so small group helped them in obtaining information and sharing their understanding, interpretation and personal responses of the text given.

Furthermore, this study also found out students’ responses toward use of reader response theory in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text in senior high school. Field notes and students’ checklist showed that students were generally enthusiastic and interested discussing text using reader response approach within small groups. Although, in the first meeting, students faced a problem to span longer attention within a small group.

The result of the interview also showed good responses from students in using reader response approach within using small group discussion. The students enjoyed the teaching and learning process of reading comprehension using reader response approach within small group discussion technique. Moreover, the technique could also reduce the students’ boredom in learning English, especially in reading comprehension of narrative text.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A., (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. National Academy of Education. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim,S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognitionand Instruction, 19, 1–46.

Arikunto, S. (2009). Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rinaka Cipta..

Astika, G (2007) Readings In Language Taching And Research, Salatiga : Widya Sari Press

Beach, R. (1993). A teachers introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Beins, Bernard C. and Maureen A. (2012). Research Methods and Statistics. Pearson. L.A.

Brookfield, S. D. and Stephen P. (2005). Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools andTechniques for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Joessey-Bass.

Brown, H. D. (2000). 4th Edition. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. NY: Pearson Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2001). 2nd Edition. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NY: Pearson Longman.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative Methodology in language teaching : the role of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ Knowledge and Learning to Teach. Retrieved on May 25, 2014, from, ww83.homepage.villanova.edu/Richard.jacobs/.../carter.pdf

Chang-Wells, G. L. M., & Wells, G. (1993). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 58–90). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3-7.

Creswell, J.W. (2012) Educational Research : Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative And Qualitative Research (Fourth Edition) Boston, USA : Pearson Education, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative And Mixed Method Approaches. United States Of America : Saga Publication. Inc

Daggett, W. (2003). Achieving reading proficiency for all. Retrieved december 16th, 2015 from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/Reading%20White%20Paper.pdf.

Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, & M. B. Platt. (2008). Using discussion pedagogy to enhance oral and written communication skills. College Teaching 56(3): 163–172.

Davis, T. M.,& P. H. Murrell. (1993). Turning teaching into learning: The role of student responsibility in the collegiate experience. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Deslita, and Eliawati. (2013). The Effectiveness of Group Retelling to Develop The Speaking Ability of The Second Year Students of SMP Babussalam Pekanbaru. Academic journal-pdf.

Duplass, J. (2006). Middle and high school teaching: Methods, standards, and best practices. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Expert Panel on Early Reading in Ontario.Toronto: Author.

Fay, Nicolas, Simon G., and Jean C. (2000). ‘‘Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size.’’ Psychological Science 11(6): 481–486.

Frenken J.R, Wallen, N.E., Hyun H.H.( 2012). How to design and evaluate research in education eight edition. New York : Mc Graw Hill.

Furchan, A. (2011) Pengantar penelitian dalam pendidikan. Fourth edition. Yogyakarta : pustaka belajar

Gall, J. P.,&M. D. Gall. (1990). Outcomes of the discussion method. In Teaching and learning through discussion: The theory, research and practiceof the discussion method, ed. William M. Wilen, 25–44. Springfield, IL:Charles C. Thomas.

Garrison, B., & Hynds, S. (1991). Evocation and reflection in the reading transaction: A comparison of proficient and less proficient readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 23, pp. 259-280.

Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education 45(3): 212–227.

Harmer, J. (2001). 3rd Edition. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson.

Harmer, J. (2010). How to Teach English, New Edition. New York: Pearson Education.

Hill, W. (1977). Learning through discussion. Beverly Hills: Sage.

http://www.ngsp.net/Portals/0/Downloads/HBNETDownloads/Edge_Mono_Moore1.pdf [accessed 13/12/2015]

Jackson, S. L. (2008). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach (3rd ed). Wardsworth.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., &, Holubec, E. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jordan, et. Al. (2001). Synthesizing Evidence from Narrative, Text and Opinion. Australia: Lippincott-Joanna Briggs Institute

Kerstin H., Philip H. P, and Bruce M. W. (2012). Assessing Student Perceptions of the Benefits of Discussions in Small-Group, Large-Class, and Online Learning Contexts. France. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Kilduff, M., Hamer, R., & McCannon, J. (2010). Working with short Stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. 2nd ed. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London:Routledge.

Lazar, G. (2005). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Legan, J. (2012). English Skills with Readings : Eight Edition. New York : McGraw-Hill..

Linse, C. T. (2006). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. In David Nunan (Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

Lyon, D. C., & J. J. Lagowski. (2008). Effectiveness of facilitating smallgroup learning in large classes. Journal of Chemical Education 85(11): 1571–1576.

Malik R.S. & Hamied F.A. (2016). Research methods: Guide for first time researcher (2nd ed). Bandung. UN Press.

Marcus, S. (2006). A World of fiction: Twenty timeless short stories. New York: Pearson Education.

Marks, M. P. (2008). ‘‘Fostering Scholarly Discussion and Critical Thinking in the Political Science Classroom.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 4(2): 205–224.

Mayo, A., M. D. Sharma, & D. A. Muller. (2009). Qualitative differences between learning environments using videos in small groups and whole class discussions: A preliminary study in physics. Research in Science Education 39(4): 477–493.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research And Case Study Application In Education.. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mikulecky, B. S. & Jeffries, L. (2004). More Reading Power. United States Of America: Pearson Education. Inc.

Mitchell, D. (1993) "Reader Response Theory: Some Practical Applications for the High School Literature Classroom," Language Arts Journal of Michigan: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 6.

Moats & AFT Teachers. (2004). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. Washington: A Union of Professional.

Moore and David W. (2008). Reading Comprehension Strategies. Online at http://www.ngsp.net/Portals/0/Downloads/HBNETDownloads/Edge_Mono_Moore1.pdf [accessed 13/04/2015]Nicol, D. J., & J. T. Boyle. 2003. Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education 28: 457–473.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom, New York : Cambridge University Press.

Nuttal, C. (2005). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann Educational books.

Nuttal, C. (1988). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. Oxford: Heinemann International Publishing.

Olmstead, J. (1974). Small group instruction: Theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2003). Early Reading Strategy: The Report of the

Oxford: Heinemann International Publishing.

Pang, S. E. & Muaka A. (2003). Educational Practices Series-12: Teaching Reading. Switzerland: IAE.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248.

Pollock, P., K. Hamann, & B. Wilson. (2011). Learning through discussions: Comparing the benefits of small-group and large-class settings. Journal of Political Science Education 7(1): 48–64.

Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 22-224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3): 223–232.

Program in Reading Comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.

Riduwan. (2009). Skala Pengukuran Variable – Variable Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (1988/2007). Writing and reading: The transactional theory in center for the study of reading. http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18044/ctrstreadtechrepv01988i00416_opt.pdf?sequence: A Reading Research and Education Center Report,.

Ruddell, M. R. (2005). Teaching Content Reading and Writing, Fourth Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Samuel, S.J., and Kamil, M.L. (1988), models of the reading process. In P.L. Carell, J.Devine, and D.E. Eskey (eds.) Interactives approaches to second language reading, pp. 22-36, New Your: Cambridge University Press.

Sugiono. (2009). Metodepenelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif Dan R&D. Bandung :Alfabeta

Tompkins, J.P. (Ed.). (1980). Reader-response criticism: From formalism to poststructuralism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research : Design And Methods 92 Nd Edition). Newburry Perk, CA :Sage Publication.

Yuliasari, D.P.E. (2014) Improving Reading Comprehension Through Small Group Discussion Technique Of The Eighth Grade Students Of Smp Negeri 4 Denpasar In Academic Year 2013/2014.Denpasar.