Ayu Pratami Putri, Cucu Sutarsyah, Budi Kadaryanto


The objectives of the research are to find out whether there is significant difference in the improvement of students reading comprehension achievement of English narrative text between students taught through graphic organizer and taught through literal translationand to find out which one is more effective technique. The research was conducted at SMAN 1 Natar especially the first grade. To gain the objective of the research, the researcher conducted quantitative design with pre-test posttest experimental group design. The test result showed that the mean of posttest in the experimental group one was 79.8and the mean of the posttest in the experimental class two was 72, probability level (p) was 0.000. The experimental class two gained the lower average score in posttest than experimental class one. The mean difference was 7.87. It was lower than 0.05. It means that H1was accepted and H0 was rejected since 0.00<0.05. It proves that the treatments given by the researcher had better effect of the students’ achievement. Based on the data, the researcher concludes that the application of graphic organizer improves students’ reading comprehension achievement of narrative text.

Keywords: comparative, graphic organizer,literal translation,reading achievement.

Full Text:



Alyousef, H. S. 2005. Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/EFL learners.The reading matrix Vol. 5, No. 2, September 2005. Update on 5th January 2007. http.acrobat/

Arthur, W. Heilman, TimothyR. Blair, and William H. Rupley. 1981. Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading: 5th edition. Ohio: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company

Brookbank, D., Grover, S., Kullberg, K., &Strawser, C. 1999. Improving student achievement through organization of student learning. Chicago: Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435094).

Depdiknas. 2006. Materisosialisasidanpenelitiankurikulumtingkatsatuan

pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Doyle, B.S. 2004. Main idea and topic sentence. London: Ward Lock educational.

Duke, N.K., Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M.M., & Martin, N. 2010. (in press). Doing genre with purposein the K–8 classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Ellis, Edwin. 2004. Q & A: What’s the big deal about graphic organizers? Retrieved at 22 November 2012. http//

Hatch, E &Farhady. 1982. Research design and statistics for apllied linguistic.

University of California: Los Angeles Pers: Rowley, London, Tokyo.

Meyen, E., &Vergason, G. 1996. Strategies for Teaching Exceptional Children in Inclusive Settings. Denver, CO: Love.

Muth, K., and D. Alvermann. 1999. Teaching and learning in the middle grades. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Nuttal, C. 1985.Teaching reading skill in a foreign language.London : British

Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Potter, H. Abbot. 2008. Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge.

Richards, J. C. 1976. The role of vocabulary teaching.TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89.

Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., &Kameenui, E. J. (1988). Effects of teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organizer instruction on sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall.Journal of Educational Research, 82 (1), 15-21.

Smith, F. 1982. Understanding reading. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Thompson, Max., and Julia. 2004. Learning-Focused Strategies Notebook. Teacher materials. Boone: Learning Concepts, Inc.

Universitas Lampung. 2000. Pedomanpenulisankaryailmiah. Bandar Lampung:

Unila Press.

Yunita, B. F. 2008. Utilizing Graphic Organizer in Increasing Students’ reading comprehension Ability to the First Grade of SMA Negeri 10 Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Unpublished script


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c)