The effect of KWL strategy, QARs strategy, and curiosity on students’ achievement in reading comprehension
List of Authors
  • Rita Meutia

Keyword
  • KWL strategy, QARs strategy, curiosity

Abstract
  • KWL and QARs are two teaching strategies which activate prior knowledge, retrieve information, and provoke students’ curiosity. Although both strategies have different procedures, they affect students’ reading comprehension achievement. To know the effect of both strategies and curiosity on students’ reading comprehension achievement, an experimental research with Two-Way ANOVA analysis is carried out. The data analysis of 120 students of SMA Negeri 1 Tanjungbalai, North Sumatera, Indonesia, shows that: (1) The students taught by KWL strategy have higher achievement in reading comprehension than those taught by QARs strategy (the mean score of group 1 is 74.2 while the mean score of group 2 is 73.3 with Fobserved = 6.74>Ftable = 3.92 at significance level = 0.05), (2) The students with high curiosity have higher achievement in reading comprehension than those with low curiosity (the mean score of group having high curiosity is 82.8 while the mean of group having low curiosity is 64.7 with Fobserved = 5.91>Ftable = 3.92 at significant level = 0.05), (3) There is significant interaction between these two teaching strategies and curiosity on students’ reading comprehension achievement (Fobserved = 4.70>Ftable = 3.92 at significant level = 0.05). Among all variables tested by Tuckey-Test, the students with high curiosity taught by KWL strategy and the students with low curiosity taught by QARs strategy show the most significant interaction (Qobserved = 21.9>Qtable = 2.76 and Qobserved =21.8>Qtable =2.76 at significant level = 0.05). So, KWL strategy is compatible to the students with high curiosity while QARs strategy is suitable for the students with low curiosity.

Reference
  • 1. Alderson, C. J. (2000). Assessing Reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    2. Anderson, L. W. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. England: Longman.

    3. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

    4. Barnett, J. E., & Francis A. L. (2012). Using Higher Order Thinking Questions to Foster Critical Thinking: A Classroom Study. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology.

    5. Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Curiosity and Learning. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    6. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom. Alexandria, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    7. Dale, E. (1966). The Art of Reading. The Newsletter, 32 (2), 1-4.

    8. Danielle, S. (2007). Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    9. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    10. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

    11. Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    12. Grossen, B. (2001). The Fundamental Skills of Higher Order Thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(6), 343-353.

    13. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Longman.

    14. Hyde, A. (2006). Comprehending Math: Adapting Reading Strategies to Teach Mathematics. Portsmouth: Hainemann.

    15. Jonathan, R. (2012). The Power of Curiosity. United Kingdom: RSA Centre.

    16. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Permendikbud No. 24 Tahun 2016. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan SMA.

    17. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98.

    18. Ogle, D.M. (1986). KWL Teaching Model for Active Reader. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

    19. Orasanu, J. (1986). Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    20. Paris, S. G. (1987). Reading and Thinking Strategies. Lexington: DC. Heath.

    21. Raphael, T. E. (1985). Teaching Question- Answer Relationships. New Orleans: International Reading Association.

    22. World Bank. (2018). Perkembangan Triwulanan Perekonomian Indonesia: Pendidikan untuk Pertumbuhan. Washington DC: World Bank.