This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Reading is one of the language skills the students have to master. However, many students tend to difficulties in comprehensing the ideas conveyed in texts. Before learning at the English Study Program, the sstudents were used to learning English at their schools using Contextual Teaching and Learning Strategy (CTL). To some extent, their ability to comprehend the idea was relatively good, but remains unsatisfactory. Therefore, the objective of this study was to find out whether there was any difference of students¿½ comprehension abaility between those who were taught through Jigsaw learning strategy and those through CTL strategy. If there was a difference between the two strategies, this study was also intended to find out which of the two strategies was more effective to enhance their comprehension ability.
A pre-test ¿½ post test control group design was applied as Hatch and Farhady (1982) suggested. This experimental reserach used two groups: experimental and control groups who were selected randomly from the students taking a Pre-Intermediate Reading class in the 2010/2011 academic year. The primary data was gathered by means of reading tests: pre- test and post-test.
The results of the data analysis showed that there was a significant difference of students¿½ comprehension ability between those who were taught through Jigsaw learning strategy and those through CTL strategy. The significant difference of students¿½ achievement in the experimental class is (p<0.05, p=0.000) with a 35.15 point increase of mean in pretest and posttest. By contrast, the significant difference in the control class was (p>0.05, p=0.000) with a 17.92-points increase. These findings suggest that Jigsaw strategy is better than CTL strategy in enhancing the students¿½ reading comprehension ability. The significant level of 0.05 was used in this study. The results of the data analysis showed H0 was rejected and H1 was accepted since 0.00 < 0.05. In other words, Jigsaw learning strategy was found to be more effective to help students enhance their reading comprehension ability.
Key Words: learning strategy, jigsaw learning strategy, CTL Strategy.
Background of the Problem
English has become a compulsory subject throughout Indonesia that is taught and learnt at some elementary schools through university level. Students taking English as their major at Lampung University came from those graduating from SMAs who used a school-based curriculum (Depdiknas: 2006). The curricuculum leads the students to have real-life skills. The curriculum requires the students to acquire four language skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Altough the curricul requires students to master all skills, reading skill is the most paramount for Indonesian students as it can bee seen from the approach used, i.e, literacy approach. However, majority of students after they were enrolled at the English Department seemed lack of comprehension ability. Although many factors may have affected their comprehension, learning strategies that may enhance the students motivation and activities seem to be more important. Therefore, the study is focused on investigating strategies used by the students in comprehension classes.
The problems of the study are:
1. Is there any difference of reading comprehension achievement between students who are taught through active learning for higher education (ALFHE) ¿½ in this case Jigsaw learning strategy, and those who are taught through contextual learning strategy (CTL) at the English Study Program Lampung University?
2. Which strategy is more effective to help students enhance their reading comprehension?
Review of Previous Research
Some pieces of research on the effects of contextual teaching and learning (CTL) on students¿½ reading comprehension abilities have been conducted (Maulida, 2005; Marcelli, 2011; and Elvita, 2011). All the previous reported almost similar findings emphasizing the positive effects of students¿½ comprehension achievemnet. Like the effect of CTL, the effect of Jigsaw learning strategies has also been investigated by previous researchers (see Dedi, 2010), it was reported that there was a significant difference of students¿½ reading comprehension achievement between those who were taught through Jigsaw technique and those taught through SQ3R technique. However, all the previous reserach were conducted in either junior or senior high school, none was carried out in th euniversity. The current study was done at the university level.
Review of Related Literature
Concept of Reading
Nuttal (1982: 15) states that reading as the meaningful interpretation of printed or written verbal symbols. It means that readers¿½ understanding of the ideas conveyed in the texts highly depend not on what the texts say but on how the readers interpret them based on their cognitive structures available in the readers¿½ minds. Other linguists, (Grellet, 81:7; Goodman, 1976; Smith 1978) agree that reading is a construct of guessing and an actively deriving meaning. Still another author, Joycey (2006: 2) states that reading is an active skill, where the reader interacts with the text, and to some extent the writer. Smith (1982: 5-6) says, ¿½Reading certainly implies comprehension, and reading is something that makes sense to the reader¿½. The readers try to understand and get the meaning and information in the written texts in form of symbols, letters, graphs, etc. in other words, readers should be active to derive meanings because what the reader brings to the text is much more important that what the text gives to the reader.
It implies that in comprehending text, the reader relates new information from the text being read to his previous knowledge that has been stored in his mind. Reading words has no benefit if the reader does not comprehend what is being read. It has been agrreed that no reading without comprehension.
Mackey (1979: 15) says, ¿½Reading is an active process because it involves an interaction between thought and language.¿½ It means that the reader brings to the task a lot of information, ideas, attitude and beliefs to make sense of the ideas in the text. Reading is an active skill, where the reader interacts with the texts, context and the writer. In addition, Howart (2006: 1) states, ¿½reading is just as communicative as any other form of language skills.¿½ It means that in reading there is an interaction between the writer and the readers through the texts. The writer tries to encode the messages to the readers. Then the readers try to decode the messages the writer wrote.
Smith (1982: 15) notes that comprehension in reading is a matter of ¿½making sense¿½ of text, of relating written language to what we know already and to what we want to know. Comprehension can be regarded as a condition where certainty exists. We comprehend when we have no doubt about alternative interpretation or decisions in our mind. In addition, Dalman (1982: 23) states that reading is more than knowing each letter of alphabet standing for, reading involves more than word recognition; the most important thing is that comprehension is an essential of reading that without comprehension no reading takes place.
Concerning with teaching reading, Hedge (2003) states that
any reading component of an English teaching may include a set of learning goals:
¿½ The ability to read a wide range of texts in English. This is the long-range goal most teachers seek to develop through independent readers outside EFL/ESL classroom.
¿½ Building knowledge of language that will facilitate reading ability.
¿½ Building schematic knowledge to facilitate understanding concepts and ideas.
¿½ The ability to adapt the reading technique according to reading purpose (such as the use of more recent and integrative ALFHE jigsaw learning strategy and CTL Strategy for undergraduate students).
¿½ Developing an awareness of the structure of written texts in English.
¿½ The ability to take a critical stance to the contents of the texts.
Therefore, based on the quotation above, it is important to develop students¿½ ability to adapt the reading strategy to reading purpose and materials being read.
Alyousef (2005: 143) says that contemporary reading tasks, unlike the traditional materials, involve three-phase procedures: pre-, while-, and last-reading stages. The pre-reading stage helps readers activate their relevant schema. For example, the teachers can ask students questions that arouse their interests while previewing the text. The while-reading stage is to develop students¿½ ability to tackle texts by developing their linguistic and schematic knowledge. The last-reading stage includes activities, which enhance learning comprehension using exercises, cloze exercises, cut-up sentences, and comprehension questions.
The major aim of teaching reading is to develop students¿½ reading skills so that they can read English texts effectively and efficiently. Effective and efficient reading is always purposeful and tends to focus mainly on the purpose of the activity. Then the purpose of reading might be achieved by developing reading techniques, such as scanning, skimming, mapping, CTL strategy, and ALFHE jigsaw strategy. In short, in teaching reading the teacher should provide various strategies to the students with purpose for reading to anticipate different type of reading texts. Therefore, reading technique should be matched to reading purpose to read efficiently and effectively.
Concerning the purpose of reading, Suparman (2005:1) states, there are two major reasons for reading (1) reading for pleasure and (2) reading for information (in order to find out something or in order to do something with the information that the readers get). Therefore, the students should be exposured to various types of texts and should be trained to use various reading strategies so that they adjust their reading strategies to the reading materoials and reading purposes whether to read for pleasure or to get information.
Concept of Narrative Text
A narrative is a kind of story composed in a constructive format (as a work of writing, speech, poetry, prose, pictures, song, motion pictures, video games, theatre or dance) that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events. Narrative text is a sequence of events, which is based on life experience and is person-oriented using dialogue and familiar language. The purpose of narrative text is to entertain the readers with actual or imaginary experiences in difference ways. A narrative text always deals with some problems which lead to the climax and then turn into a solution to the problem.
Some examples of narrative texts are: folktale - a very old traditional story from a particular place that was originally passed on to people in a spoken form, e.g., The Mighty. Fairy tale - an old story about magic things intended for amusing and giving lessons, meanings, and moral values, fable - a traditional short story teaching moral lessons, especially one with animals as characters, considered as one group of animal stories, e.g., The lion and the mouse, and myth - a story from ancient times, especially one that was told to explain natural events or to describe the early history of place or people, e.g., Tower of Babel.
Text organization of a narrative text comprises four parts: Orientation which refers to the characters, problems, place and time, such as: who the character is in the text, what the problem is in the text and where it happens in the text; complication which denotes a crisis that arises, consisting of initiating event, subsequent event and climax aspects when the characters face the problems; resolution showing that the crisis is resolved. In this part, the character does an activity to solve the problem and finally re-orientation which indicates the optional point. This part states the conclusions of the event based on the writer¿½s point of view.
Concept of Active Learning
Active learning strategies are instructional activities involving learners in doing things and thinking about what they are doing. Active learning derives from two basic assumptions: that leaning is by nature an active process and that different people learn in different ways. There some arguments of why active learning strategies are very important in higher education. That is, first they have a powerful impact on learners¿½ learning; besides, any strategies that promote active learning are comparable to lecturers in promoting the mastery of content, but superior to lecturers in promoting the development of learners¿½ thinking skills. More importantly, active learning strategies engage learners in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. And finally, various learning styles are best served by engaging learners in active learning activities.
There are some advantages of active learning: first, active learners use their prior knowledge in making meaning from the content; next, active learners think critically about and create their own elaborations; furthermore, active learners are cognitively engaged; and more importantly active learners employ a wide range of reading and learning strategies.
Examples of active learning strategies are: think-pair share, lecture discussion, questioning, case studies, supervise studies, demonstration, and panel discussion. In short, lecturers especially in English Study Program are encouraged to use active learning strategies to engage students in their own learning.
Concerning concept of learning in general, Michael and Harold (2003: 3) state that ¿½Learning is a change in behavior that results from the learner's interaction with the environment (experience).¿½ It implies that in each instance, some observable, more or less permanent change in the learner's behavior has occurred as a result of his or her interaction with a particular environment. Recent advances in cognitive science are beginning to provide us with some general principles, applicable in education that should facilitate learning.
According to Scales (2008: 57), ¿½Learners will become more effective if they extend their range of learning styles and experience¿½. It means that the students¿½ learning strategy and the background knowledge will influence the effectiveness of learning. Furthermore, the teacher must apply the appropriate strategy to teach the students. More importantly, Suparman (2001 and 2005b) has found that students using integrative reading strategies tend to be more successful than those using single and similar strategy for all types of texts. Therefore, the lecturers and teachers should be aware of strategies that students use while they are making sense of the ideas conveyed in a text. Besides, they should also train their students to use active learning which may trigger the students to be fully engaged in the learning.
School-Based Curriculum (Indo: KTSP) (Depdiknas: 2006), which is applied by the government for all schools in Indonesia, encourages the students to be active in learning processes. Here, the teacher should focus on how to create an active learning environment that will facilitate students' mastery of knowledge. The starting point for such an effort must be an understanding of the processes involved in learning.
Michael and Harold (2003: 63) states that an active learning environment will not flourish if students do not accept responsibility for their own learning and participate in the learning environment in an appropriate way. In other words, an active learning requires students¿½ participation in learning activities. No active learning without students active participation.
Cooper and Donald (1996) suggest three points that the people who work in the classroom should consider in order to get an effective teaching and learning:
1. First and most important, the things that the teachers and pupils try to achieve in their classroom teaching and learning, the ways they try to achieve these things and the problems they encounter offer very fruitful starting points for generating hypotheses about effective classroom teaching and learning.
2. Only through knowing about the teachers¿½ and pupils classroom practices and the thinking that underlies them will it be possible to theorize incisively about the limitations of current classroom practice.
3. Only through knowing about the teachers¿½ and pupils classroom practices and the thinking that underlies them will it be possible to educate beginning teachers or to plan curricula or in other ways to plan intelligently for the development of classroom practice.
According to Silberman (2009), there are eight types of learning strategy which can be applied in teaching learning process in order to make the students active, that is:
1. Full-class learning - the students learns full in class. The direction from the teacher stimulates the whole students in teaching learning.
2. Class Discussion - the students must do dialogue and debate about the main topic in the class.
3. Questioning Prompting - the students ask the clarification quickly.
4. Collaborative Learning - the students learn by cooperating. The tasks are done by working in a small group.
5. Peer Teaching - the focus of direction is given by the students. The students are suggested to work in pair.
6. Independent Learning - The learning activities are done individually.
7. Affective Learning ¿½ it includes the activities which help the students test their feelings, moral values, and attitudes.
8. Skill Development - the students should learn and practice the skills technically or non technically.
Active learning is considered one of the newest and up to date strategies in teaching learning activity as stated in School Based Curriculum. Given that the strategy was new, I have been interested in conducting research on active learning strategy to help students improve their reading comprehension achievement. ALPHE Jigsaw strategy and CTL strategy are two kinds of active learning strategies which are rarely compared especially in reading classes. So the two strategies were chosen to compare their effectiveness in reading classes.
Concept of Jigsaw Learning Strategy
According to Silberman (2009), ¿½Jigsaw is a strategy which is applied globally; it seems like group-to-group exchange technique with a difference that every student teaches something to their friends.¿½ The quotation suggests that jigsaw learning strategy is applied to delivery information by students working in groups and group exchanges in the teaching learning activity.
In addition, Aronson et al. (1978) states that jigsaw strategy is meant to provide students with the chance to learn a material from their peers. A material is divided into section for each student to deal with. The students who are responsible for the same section get together and form a new group of which the goal is for them to master the section of the material and to enable them to teach the other members in their original learning group later.
He also developed jigsaw learning strategy as Cooperative Learning Technique. Jigsaw is excellent for task that has several distinct aspects or components. Home teams are formed, with each team member taking responsibility for one aspect of the problem question. Expert team is then formed of all students responsible for the same aspect. The teams go over the material they are responsible for and plan how to teach it to their home groups. After adequate time has been given, the students return to the home teams and bring their expertise to bear on the assigned task. Positive interdependence is developed because each student has different information needed to complete the task.
Long and Porter (1985: 207) write that ALFHE jigsaw contains more feedback activities for both lectueres/teachers and students which include checking, understanding, seeking clarification, sharing ideas and making sure the message get across. Besides, ALFHE jigsaw provides more chance for the lecturer/teacher to know his students response as a feedback in teaching learning process. More importantly, Nation (1991: 29) comments that jigsaw technique ensures that the participants need to get information from other people. By applying the technique, each participant has essential information. No one has the same information. In this case, the students share the information to bridge the gap.
Procedures of Using ALFHE Jigsaw Learning Strategy
According to Silberman (2009), there are 11 steps considered important in the implementation of the jigsaw classroom:
1. The lecturer/teacher chooses the learning materials which can be separated into some parts.
2. The lecturer/teacher counts the parts and the total number of students.
3. The day¿½s lesson is divided into 5¿½6 segments (one for each member)
4. Each student is assigned one segment to learn. Each student should only have direct access to their own segment.
5. The students should make a group of ¿½expert group¿½. Every group has a leader from each group in the class.
6. The students should be given time to read over their segment at least twice to become familiar with it. Students do not need to memorize it.
7. Temporary experts groups should be formed in which one student from each home group joins other students assigned to the same segment. Students in this expert group should be given time to discuss the main points of their segment and rehearse the presentation they are going to make to their home group.
8. The students come back to their home group.
9. The students present his segment to the group. Other members are encouraged to ask question for clarification.
10. The lecturer needs to change of groups in order to observe the process. Intervene if any group is having trouble such as a member being dominating or disruptive. There will come a point that the group leader should handle this task. Teachers can whisper to the group leader as to how to intervene until the group leader can effectively do it themselves.
11. A quiz on the material should be given at the end so students realize that the sessions are not just for fun and games, but that they really count.
Given the procedure of ALFHE jigsaw learning strategy above, I believe that ALFHE jigsaw learning strategy is applicable and suitable for a group exchange in discussing and sharing information in the learning process. The technique can challenge the students to be more active in learning process.
Concept of CTL Srategy
Newman and Wehlage (1997) state Contextual teaching and learning (CTL) is a strategy of teaching and learning that helps teachers relate subject matter content to real world situation and motivate them to make connection between knowledge and its application to their lives as family members, citizens, and workers.
They also state that a stimulus or real problem is the opening material for CTL Strategy. Therefore, the students are invited to use a critical thinking skills and systematic approach to inquiry of the problem or issues. Of course the problem that are relevant to the students¿½ families, school experiences, workplaces, and community hold greater personal meaning for students.
It is also stated that CTL Strategy is combination between school-based teaching and learning and community-based teaching and learning. Students learn in the field of their interests, often providing a service to the community during the learning experience. CTL strategy promotes the development of the knowledge and skills for success in the real world. In this process, CTL strategy connects educational theoretical knowledge to community practical applications.
What is more, Depdiknas (2002) describes seven elements of CTL:
In this approach, the students are active in learning process based on the previous knowledge (entry behavior). They try to predict the rhetorical point of the text by previewing and constructing the provisional map. The students preview the title to predict what what the text will be about. The students should construct the knowledge by themselves through the direct involvement in teaching-learning activity. The students become the centre of the activity, not the teacher.
Inquiry is a cycle of observing, questioning, investigating, analyzing and concluding. Knowledge and skills that the students have are not a result of memorizing but mostly a result of finding by themselves. Moreover, during reading activity students will realize whether their prediction and locating the schemata are correct or not.
3. Learning Community
The principle of learning community is that learning in-group will give better result than learning alone. In doing tasks, the students interact with one another in sharing the information/ideas that they get from the text, so they could help each other to enhance their achievement in reading comprehension.
In CTL, questioning should not be dominated by the teacher. The teacher should create situation that makes his students curious. If the students are curious in something, they tend to ask more about it to the teacher or his classmates. If this situation happens, the teaching learning process will be lively and the students will be more motivated to learn.
In CTL, the model is not only the lecturer/teacher. Model can be organized by involving the students. In short, the teacher can ask them to give the model to his/her friends about how to spell and pronounce a difficult word that they find in reading text.
Students and lecturer/teacher review the respond, event, activities and experience. They also record what they have learned, and felt, and the new ideas appeared. For example, if the situation is at junior high school, the students pronounce the word sad incorrectly, and the teacher corrects it by demonstrating. From the model given by teacher, the students realize that what they have done is wrong and try to pronounce it correctly by imitating like what the teacher has done.
7. Authentic Assessment
A teacher who wants to know the students¿½ development in learning should collect the data from the real activity while the students learn. The data are taken from the students¿½ activities when they are learning whether it happens in the class or out side the class, and the data of this model is called Authentic data.
Based on the explanation above, I believe that this approach enables the students to acquire information from many types of texts, including narrative. Students can understand the message easily and comprehend it successfully and effectively.
A quantitative research with control group pretest posttest design was used in this study which belongs to a true experimental design. The design was used because the study was intended to compare two techniques (ALFHE jigsaw and CTL learning strategies) which one of them is more effective in increasing students¿½ reading comprehension achievement. The participants of the experimental class was taught reading comprehen-sion using narrative texts where they were required to discuss and identify involved aspects ¿½main ideas, details, inferences, references, and vocabularies - through ALFHE Jigsaw learning strategy. Whereas those in the control class were taught using similar texts and related aspects through CTL strategy. The same pre-test and posttest were administered to both classes.
The research design following Hatch and Farhady¿½s (1982: 22) was represented using the following figure:
G1 (Random) : T1 X1 T2
G2 (Random) : T1 X2 T2
Where: G1 = the experimental class; G2 = control class; T1 = the pretest; T2 = the posttest; X1 = treatment using Jigsaw learning strategy; X2 = treatment using CTL strategy
In this research, there were three variables studied: first, independent variable 1 - Jigsaw learning strategy(X1); second independent variable - CTL strategy (X2) and the dependent variable, that is, reading comprehension achievement (Y).
The participants of the research were 80 students of the third semester at the English Study Program, FKIP, Unila taking Intermediate Reading Course in 2009/2010 academic year. The total number of students comprises two classess - A and B, where one of the two classes was selected using a toss coin (to avoid subjectivity) as an experimental class and the other as a control class.
The research instruments used to collect the data consisted of first, pretest, which was administered before giving the treatment to obtain the students¿½ entry point of their reading achievement. Thirty items with five options were used. And secondly, posttest, which was administered to both groups. Like the pretest, the posttest was reading test. The items of the posttest are the same as those of the pretest. The test was administered to determine the students¿½ reading achievement after they received the treatment. Before the instruments were used, they were tried out to determine the validity, reliability, level of difficulty, and discrimnating power based on Heaton¿½s (1999) and Hatch and Farhady¿½s (1982) ideas.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results of the pre test were as follows: The total score of the pre test in the experimental class was 1712, the mean of pre test was 50.35; the highest score was 63; the lowest score was 33; the median was 50.00 and the mode was 50. Meanwhile, the total score of the pre test in the control class was 1574, the mean of pre test was 47,76; the highest score was 60; the lowest score was 33; the median was 47 and the mode was 47. Based on the statistical calculation, it was found that both the experimental and control classes had the same level of ability in reading comprehension.
The post test was administered to analyze whether the students¿½ score increased or not. It was found that the mean score of post test was 85.50; the highest score was 100; the lowest score was 80; the median was 87 and the mode was 80. By contrast, the mean score of post test in the control class was 65.68; the highest score was 73; the lowest score was 60; the median was 67 and the mode was 67.
Table 1 . The Comparison of the Students¿½ Posttest Scores in Both classes
Variables X Y Z Conclusion
Experimental Class 85.50 2.19.824 0.000 Significant difference
Control Class 65.68
Where X = the students¿½ mean scores in posttest; Y = the difference score between the means of both classes; and Z = the significant score of students
Table 1 shows that scores of the students were significantly different (p<a (p>0.05, p = 0.000). Therefore, H1 was accepted. That is, reading comprehension ability of the experimental and control classes were significantly different.
The Increase of Students¿½ Reading Achievement
The results of pre- and post-tests in the experimental class showed that the use of ALFHE Jigsaw strategy increased the students¿½ reading comprehension achievement. This can be seen from the increase of means scores in the experimental class, from 50.35 (pre-test) to 85.50 (post-test) as sshown by Graph 1 below.
Graph 1. The Experimental Class Scores of Pre- and Post-Tests
Graph 1 shows that there was a 35.15 poin increase of the students¿½ scores from 50.35 in the pre-test to 85.50 in the post-test. The finding convincingly suggests that ALFHE Jigsaw strategy can be used effectively to increase students¿½ reading comprehension achievement.
Like the mean scores in the experimental class, those in the control class using CTL strategy also improved from 47.76 (pre-test) to 65.68 (post-test). But the increase was not as significant as that in the experimental class. The increase is illustrated in the following graph:
Graph 2. The Control-class-scores of pre- and post-tests
Graph 2 shows that there was a 17.92 point increase in th emean scores from 47.76 (pre-test) to 65.68 (post-test). In other words, the CTL technique can be used to help the students¿½ comprehension increase significantly. However, the increase was not as significant as that when using ALFHE Jigsaw as shown by the following table:
Table 1. The comparison of score increase of students¿½ reading
Comprehension in both classes
Posttest score Class N X Y Z
Experimental class 34 85.50 19.82 0.000
Control class 34 65.68
Where N = the total number of students who took part in the post test; X = the students¿½ mean scores; Y = the different score between the mean of both classes (mean difference); and Z = the significant score of students
Table 1 above shows that: first, the mean score of experimental class was higher than that of the control class; second, the difference of students¿½ scores between that in the experiemental and that in the control classes is significant, that is, p = 0.000) at the significant level of 0.05, the H1 was accepted because p > a (a = 0.05). That is, there was a statistically significant difference of students¿½ reading comprehension achievement between those who were taught through ALFHE Jigsaw strategy and those taught through CTL strategy.
The use of ALFHE Jigsaw Strategy in the Experimental group
Before using ALFHE jigsaw strategy, the participants were divided into several groups, each of which comprised five participants. Then one participant from each group was appointed as the leader. After that, five reading narrative texts were provided for them, one text for one group. Then they were assigned to make sense of the ideas conveyed in the texts.
The first grouping was called home group consisting of five people. Each participant was numbered from 1 through 5. The same numbered participants were assigned to form a new group called expert group who were assigned to comprehend one certain text. After they finished discussing their texts, each member of the expert groups should return to their own home groups explaining what they have discussed in the expert groups to their home group mates. In the last activity, the participants were asked whether they had some difficulties related to the topics.
The use of CTL Strategy in Control Class
Unlike in the experimental class, in the control class the researcher taught the participants using CTL strategy. The results of the data analysis in control class proved that CTL strategy could also be used to improve the students¿½ comprehension, but it was not as well as nor effetively as the ALFHE jigsaw strategy.
The differences between the use of ALFHE jigsaw strategy and CLL occurred because in the former all participants were required to be actively engaged by the nature of the tasks, where each of the individual participants had to report what they had discussed in their expert groups to their home groups, i.e., participant no. 1 had to explain text number 1, participant no. 2 had to explain text no.2 and so on until students no. 5 who had to explain text no. 5. They were engaged in discussion using English not only in the expert groups but also in the home groups. In short, the participants in the ALFHE jigsaw strategy were more successful because they were doing some activities by themselves, they learned by doing where learning by doing has been believed to be much more effective for improving students¿½ comprehension and abilities.
The Effectiveness of the Strategies
In line with the results of the research previously presented, it was found that the increase of the students¿½ reading comprehension score in the experimental class after treatments was significant. It proved that H0 of this research was rejected and H1 of this research was accepted. It can be seen by comparing the increase of the students¿½ reading comprehension scores within both groups. The use of Jigsaw Learning Strategy was found to have highly motivated the students to learn. It can be seen from their enthusiasm and participation in identifying the main idea of text. By contrast, Contextual Teaching and Learning can also attract them but not as effective as ALFHE Jigsaw learning strategy. This findings are relevant to the theories described in the previous section.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
In line with the results of the data analysis and discussions, the researcher draws the following conclusions:
1. There is a significant difference of students¿½ reading comprehension achievement between those who were taught through ALFHE jigsaw strategy and those taught through CTL strategy. This can be identified from the significant increase of the students¿½ achievement in experimental class, i.e., their mean score of pretest (50.35) and their mean score of posttest (85.50) with an increase 35.15 points. While in the control class, the mean score of the pretest is 46.29 and the posttest is 65.68 with the increase was only 17.92 points. The mean difference is 19.82, suggesting that the experimental class has gained 19.82 points higher than the control class in the posttest.
2. ALFHE jigsaw strategy is more effective than CTL strategy to help students improve their reading comprehension. The use of ALFHE jigsaw strategy can challenge the students to be more active and engaged in learning. It can be seen from their enthusiasm and their participation in doing the tasks given to them. By contrast, CTL strategy can also challenge them but not as effectively as ALFHE jigsaw strategy. In the experimental class, the students can get information from the discussion like sharing information among the students, so that the students were interested in the lesson. Then they can get a high chance of success. In control class, the students sometimes feel that they are burdened because they were not interested in the lesson.
In line with the conclusions above, the following suggestions are put forward:
a. English lecturers are highly recommended to apply active learning for higher education (ALFHE) such as ALFHE jigsaw strategy as one of the alternatives in teaching reading classes because it has been found to be effective to enhance students¿½ motivation, activities, and finally comprehension abilities.
b. To make sure that the technique runs effectively, the lecturers are suggested to divide the students in small groups of four or five.
c. ALFHE such as ALFHE jigsaw strategy should be applied not only for reading classes but also for other classes such as Translation, Language Assessment, and Writing classes where students can be assigned to work in groups so that they can express and share their ideas both in the expert groups and in home groups.
d. Other researchers are recommended to replicate this research with different classes and topic areas to support the findings of the current study.