A Quantitative Analysis of Reading Comprehension in University Students

Ryan Al Ihsan; Yeni Rahmawati

doi:10.24903/bej.v6i2.1763

Authors

Ryan Al Ihsan Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur
Yeni Rahmawati Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24903/bej.v6i2.1763

Keywords:

Cognitive strategy, Reading comprehension, Students in University

Abstract

This study was to investigate the correlation between students’ cognitive reading strategies and students’ reading comprehension. The population in this study were overall second-semester students of UMKT from all undergraduate faculty. The total population in the study was 2,362 students. The sampling that was chosen in this study was simple random sampling by selecting representative respondents from each study program. By using a table of sampling size with a confidence level of 95% (margin of error 0.05%), it was found that from N= 2362 total population, the total sample was 428 students. The conducting data found that there was a significant relationship (sign. 0.01) between cognitive strategy and reading comprehension among students at UMKT. It was proved from the result that the significant value was under the p-value (0.05). However, the level of correlation was small, it was because some respondents stated that they didn’t use their mother tongue or read aloud when they got a difficult text, and they used translator apps to get an instant way of understanding the texts. The suggestion for the next researchers and practitioners such as teachers is to use a cognitive strategy to understand English rather than using an instant way likewise using the application or asking someone else to get the answer or comprehension. In other words, cognitive strategies involve active engagement with the activity, which aids in comprehension meanwhile Reading comprehension is a cognitive ability that provides the ability to synchronize text information with background knowledge

References

Arbain, A., & Nur, D. R. (2018). The use of magic and fairy tale dice to improve students’ ability in writing narrative text. 1st International Conference on Intellectuals’ Global Responsibility (ICIGR 2017), 91–94.

Arbain, A., Taufik, A., Ngoc, T. T. N., & Nur, D. R. (2017). Basic English Drill. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=aLNF.

Arbain, A., Taufik, A., & Nur, D. R. (2017). Daily English Phrases Book. UWGM Press.

Flavell, J. H. (2000). The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control. In B. L. S. Timothy J. Perfect (Ed.), Applied Metacognition (illustrate, pp. 15–23). Cambridge University Press.

Grabe. (2009). Teaching and Testing Speaking. In The Handbook of Language Teaching (Issue May). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch23

Hartina, S. S., Vianty, M., & Inderawati, R. (2018). Correlation Between Students’ Metacognitive Strategy Used in Writing Process and Essay Writing Performance. The Journal of English Literacy Eduaction, 5(2), 158–176.

Hauck, M. (2005). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and CALL. PhD Thesis, The Open University, 191.

Klinger, K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Correlation between Students’ Cognitive Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension. Jurnal Studi Guru Dan Pembelajaran, 2(3), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.30605/jsgp.2.3.2019.61

Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00411.x

Marzuki, A. G., Alim, N., & Wekke, I. S. (2018). Improving the reading comprehension through cognitive reading strategies in language class of coastal area in indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 156(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/156/1/012050

Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.11.001

Mokhtari, K & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL Students’ Awareness of Reading Strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10.

Nasri, M., & Biria, R. (2016). Integrating Multiple and Focused Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension and L2 Lexical Development of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(1), 311. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.1p.311

Nur, D. R. (2016). An Analysis of Derivational Affixes in Commencement Speech. Script Journal, 1(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v1i1.18

Nur, D. R. (2020). Virtual Reality adoption in Indonesia higher Education from lecturer’s voice. A Journal of English Literature, Linguistics, and Education, 8(1), 31.

O’Malley & Chamot. (1990). O Malley.pdf.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies : what every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A Closer Look at Gender and Strategy Use in L2 Reading. Language Learning, 53(4), 649–702. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00239.x

Pressley, Michael & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal Protocols of reading The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading (1st Editio). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052938

Rachman, D. (2018). Students’ Interest in Learning English and Reading Understanding Ability Using Story Texts. JELE (Journal of English Language and Education), 4(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.26486/jele.v4i1.428

Rachman, D., & Khatimah, K. (2018). Mind Mapping vs Semantic Mapping: Which Technique Gives EFL Learners more Benefits in Reading Comprehension? JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 3(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v3i2.1498

Rachman, D., Nur, D. R., Sunarti, S., & Puspita, R. H. (2019). The hurdles of the teacher in the practice of target language in the Indonesian EFL junior high school. Acitya: Journal of Teaching and Education, 1(1), 49–54.

Rachman, D., & Setiawan, I. (2016). Students’ problems and experience on prezi. Script Journal: Journal of Linguistic and English Teaching, 1(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v1i2.32

Ratnawati, D. (2006). The Correlation Between Vocabulary Mastery and Reading Comprehension: The Case of The Seventh Grade Students of SMPN 13 Semarang in The Academic Year 2005/2006. Universitas Negeri Semarang.

Sari, M. I. (2016). Reading Strategy Use and Reading. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning, 1(2).

Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2021). The Role of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension: A Critical Review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348

Sugiyono. (2016). The Correlation Between Students ’ Vocabulary Depth And Their Reading Comprehension In Academic Texts.

Suyitno, I. (2017). Cognitive Strategies Use in Reading Comprehension and its Contributions to Students’ Achievement. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(3), 107–121.

Thang, N. Van, & Anh, B. H. (2019). the Effects of Cognitive Reading Strategies Instruction ( Crsi ) on Students ’ Reading Comprehension and Their Attitudes Towards Crsi At. October.

Van Dijk, T. A. &, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Language, 62(3), 664. https://doi.org/10.2307/415483

Wahyono Edi. (2019). Correlation between Students’ Cognitive Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension. Jurnal Studi Guru Dan Pembelajaran, 2.