RESEARCH RESULT
To
analyze data, researcher has collected data through pre-test and post-test inthe both of classes, experimental class and control class. To find
out the effect of Peer Tutoring Strategy on Students’
Reading Comprehension in Narrative Text, researcher has calculated data by using quantitative analysis.
Researcher used the formulation of t-test
to test hypothesis. Next, researcher described data as follow:
A. Description of Data
1. Description Data of Pre-test
a. Pre-test Score of Experimental Class
Researcher
took class X MIA 2 as the experimental class. Based on students’ answer in
pre-test, researcher has
calculated the students’ score in
appendix 13
and 14.
Then, researcher
drawn the table sum in the following:
Table 5
Score of Experimental Class in
Pre-test
|
Total |
1840 |
|
Highest score |
85 |
|
Lowest score |
50 |
|
Mean |
70.74 |
|
Median |
81.3 |
|
Modus |
61.5 |
|
Range |
35 |
|
Interval |
6 |
|
Standard deviation |
27.66 |
|
Variant |
-74.61 |
Based on the table above the total score
of experimental
class in pre-test was 1840, mean was 70.74,
median was 81.3, modus was 61.5, range was 35, interval was 6, standard deviation was 27.66,
and variant was -74.61.The researcher got
the highest score was 85 and the lowest score was 50. Then, the calculation of the frequency
distribution of the students’ score in
experimental
class can be applied into table frequency distribution as follow:
Table 6
Frequency Distribution of Experimental Class in Pre-test
|
No |
Interval |
Mid Point |
F |
Percentages |
|
1 |
50-55 |
52.5 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
2 |
56-61 |
58.5 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
3 |
62-67 |
64.5 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
4 |
68-73 |
70.5 |
4 |
15.4% |
|
5 |
74-79 |
76.5 |
7 |
26.9% |
|
6 |
80-85 |
82.5 |
6 |
23.1% |
|
i=6 |
- |
26 |
100% |
|
From the table above, it can be
concluded that the most students are in interval 74 – 79 (7 students/26.9%). The least of students is
50 – 55(3 student/11.5%). Clear description of the data
is presented in histogram on
the following figure:
Figure 1. Histogram Result Score of
Students' Reading Comprehension in Narrative Text In Experimental Class (Pre-Test)
Based on the figure above, the frequency of students’ score from 50
up to 55 was 3; 56 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 67 was 3; 68 up to 73 was 4; 74 up
to 79 was 7; 80 up to 85was 6. The histogram shows that the highest interval (74 - 79) was 7 students, and the lowest
interval (50-55) was 3 students.
b.
Pre-Test
Score of Control Class
In pre-test of control class, researcher
calculated the result that had been gotten by the students in answering the
test. Score of pre-test control class can be seen in the following table:
Table 7
Score of Control Class in Pre-Test
|
Total |
1855 |
|
Highest score |
85 |
|
Lowest score |
55 |
|
Mean |
73.34 |
|
Median |
82 |
|
Modus |
69.5 |
|
Range |
30 |
|
Interval |
5 |
|
Standard deviation |
18.5 |
|
Variant |
97.12 |
Based on the table above the total score of control class in pre-test was 1855,
mean was 73.34, standard deviation was 18.5, variant was 97.12, range was 30,
interval was 5, median
was 82 and modus was 69.5. Researcher
got the highest score was 85 and the lowest score was 55. It can be seen on
appendix 13 and 14. Then, the computed of the frequency distribution of the
students’ score of control class can be applied into table frequency
distribution as follow:
Table 8
Frequency Distribution of Control Class in Pre-Test
|
No |
Interval |
Mid Point |
Frequency |
Percentages |
|
1 |
55-59 |
57 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
2 |
60-64 |
62 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
3 |
65-69 |
67 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
4 |
70-74 |
72 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
5 |
75-79 |
77 |
5 |
19.2% |
|
6 |
80-84 |
82 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
7 |
85-89 |
87 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
i = 5 |
- |
26 |
100% |
|
From the table
above, it can be concluded that the interval (75 – 79) had
the biggest frequency (5 students/19.2%).
The highest interval (85– 89)
had 4 students and the
lowest interval was(55 – 59) with 3 students.In order to get description of the data clearly and completely,
the researcher presents them in histogram on the following figure:
Figure 2.Histogram
Result Score of Students' reading comprehension in
narrative text in Control Class (Pre-test)
Based on the
figure above, the frequency of students’ score from 55 up to 59 was 3; 60 up to
64 was 3; 65 up to 69 was 3; 70 up to 74 was 4; 75 up to 79was 5; 80 up to 84 was 4; and 85 up to 89 was
4.
2. Description Data of Post-test
a. Post-Test Score of Experimental Class
The calculation of the result that had
been gotten by the students in answering the question (test) after researcher
did the treatment by using Peer Tutoring can be seen in the following table:
Table 9
Score of Experimental Class in
Post Test
|
Total |
2135 |
|
Highest score |
100 |
|
Lowest score |
60 |
|
Mean |
82.12 |
|
Median |
91 |
|
Modus |
71.17 |
|
Range |
40 |
|
Interval |
7 |
|
Standard deviation |
23.87 |
|
Variant |
101.34 |
Based on the above table the total
score of experiment class in post-test was2135,
mean was 82.12, standard deviation was 23.87, variant was 101.34, median was 91, range
was 40, modus was 71.17, and
interval was 7. The students’ highest score was 100 and the lowest
score was 60. It can be seen on appendix 16 and 17. Then, the calculation of the frequency
distribution of the students’ score of experiment class can be applied into
table frequency distribution as follow:
Table 10
Frequency
Distribution of Experimental Class in Post-test
|
No |
Interval |
Mid Point |
Frequency |
Percentages |
|
1 |
60-66 |
63 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
2 |
67-73 |
70 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
3 |
74-80 |
77 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
4 |
81-87 |
84 |
8 |
30.7% |
|
5 |
88-94 |
91 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
6 |
95-101 |
98 |
4 |
15.3% |
|
i= 7 |
- |
40 |
100% |
|
From the table
above, it can be concluded that the middle interval (81–87) had the biggest frequency (8students/30.7%).
The highest interval (95-101)
had 4 students and the
lowest interval was(60 – 66) with 3 students.Researcher
presented them in histogram as follow:
Figure 3.
Histogram Result Score
of Students' Reading
Comprehension in Narrative text in Experimental Class (Post-test)
Based on the
figure above, the frequency of students’ score from 60up to 66 was 3; 67 up to 73
was 3; 74 up to 80 was 4; 81 up to 87
was 8; 88 up to 94 was 4; 95 up to 101 was 4. Then, the interval
which had highest frequency was 81 - 87 and the interval which had lowest
frequency was 60 – 66.
b.
Post-Test
Score of Control Class
As the control
class, researcher took class X MIA 1. The result that had
been gotten by the students in answering the question (test) after researcher
taught the reading by using lecturer strategy can be seen in the following table:
Table 11
The Score of
Control Class in Post-Test
|
Total |
1980 |
|
Highest score |
95 |
|
Lowest score |
55 |
|
Mean |
75.76 |
|
Median |
77.46 |
|
Modus |
72 |
|
Range |
40 |
|
Interval |
7 |
|
Standard deviation |
22.54 |
|
Variant |
120.61 |
Based on the
above table the total score of control class in post-test was 1980, mean was 75.76,
standard deviation was 22.54,
variant was 120.61, median was 77.46, range was 40, modus was 72, and
interval was 7. Researcher got the highest score was 95 and
the lowest score was 55. It can be seen on appendix 16 and 17. Then, the
computed of the frequency distribution of the students’ score of control class
can be applied into table frequency distribution as follow:
Table 12
Frequency Distribution of Control Class in Post-test
|
No |
Interval |
Mid Point |
Frequency |
Percentages |
|
1 |
55 – 61 |
58 |
3 |
11.5% |
|
2 |
62 – 68 |
65 |
4 |
15.4% |
|
3 |
69 – 75 |
72 |
7 |
26.9% |
|
4 |
76 – 82 |
79 |
4 |
15.4% |
|
5 |
83 – 89 |
86 |
4 |
15.4% |
|
6 |
90 – 96 |
93 |
4 |
15.4% |
|
i = 7 |
- |
26 |
100% |
|
From the table
above, it can be concluded that the middle interval (69–75) had the biggest
frequency (7students/26.9%).
The highest interval (90-96)
had 4 students and the
lowest interval was(55 – 61) with 3 students.For the clear description of
the data, researcher presents them in histogram on the following figure:
Figure 4. Histogram Result Score of Students' Reading Comprehension in Narrative text in
Control Class (Post-test)
Based on the figure
above, the frequency of students’ score from 55 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 68 was 4; 69 up to 75 was 7; 76 up to 82 was 4; 83
up to 89 was 4; 90 up to 96 was 4. Then, the interval
which had highest frequency was 69
- 75 (7 students) and the interval which had lowest frequency was 55 – 61 (3
students).
3. Description of Data Comparison
between Pre-Test and Post-Test ofExperimental and Control Class
a.
Comparison Data between Pre-test and Post-test Experimental
Class
Based
on the description data in pre-test of experimental and control class, there was
comparison score between pre-test experimental class before and after gave a treatment by peer
tutoring strategy . It can
be seen in the following table:
Table 13
Comparison Score of Students' Reading Comprehension
in Narrative Text
in Pre-test and Post-test (Experimental Class)
|
No |
Interval |
Pre-Test |
Post-Test |
||
|
Frequency |
Score |
Frequency |
Score |
||
|
1 |
50-55 |
3 |
50,55,55 |
0 |
- |
|
2 |
56-61 |
3 |
60,60,60 |
2 |
60,60 |
|
3 |
62-67 |
3 |
65,65,65 |
1 |
65 |
|
4 |
68-73 |
4 |
70,70,70,70 |
3 |
70,70,70 |
|
5 |
74-79 |
7 |
75,75,75,75,75,75,75 |
3 |
75,75,75 |
|
6 |
80-85 |
6 |
80,80,85,85,85,85 |
9 |
80,85,85, 85,85,85, 85,85 |
|
7 |
86-91 |
0 |
- |
4 |
90,90,90, 90 |
|
8 |
92-97 |
0 |
- |
1 |
95 |
|
9 |
98-103 |
0 |
- |
3 |
100,100, 100 |
From the table
above, it can be seen that the interval 80 – 89 had
the highest frequency in pre-test, it was 9 students. While in post-test the
highest frequency was on interval 70 – 79, it was 6 students. The lowest
frequency in pre-test was on interval 90 – 99 and 100-109, it was 0. While the
lowest frequency in post-test was on interval 40-49, it was 1.
In order to get description of
the data clearly and completely, the researcher presents them in histogram on
the following figure:
Figure 5.Histogram
Comparison Data of Students' Reading Comprehension in
Narrative text in Pre-test and Post-test (Experimental Class)
Based on the
figure above, the frequency of students’ score in pre test of experimental
class from 50 up to 55 was 3; 56 up to 61 was 3; 62up
to 67was 3; 68 up to 73 was 4; 74 up to 79 was 7; 80
up to 85
was 6; 86 up to 91 was 0, 92 up to 97 was 0,
and 98 up to 103 was 0. Meanwhile, the
frequency of students’ score in post test from 50
up to 55 was 0; 56 up to 61 was 2; 62 up to 67 was 1; 68 up to 73 was 3; 74 up
to 79 was 3; 80 up to 85 was 9; 86 up to 91 was 4, 92 up to 97 was 1,
and 98 up to 103 was 3. Then, the interval which had highest frequency in pre test was 74-79(7
students) and the interval which had lowest frequency was 98-103 (0student). In post test of experimental class, the
interval which had highest frequency was 80 - 85 (9 students) and the interval
which had lowest frequency was 50-55 (0 student).
b. Comparison Data between
Pre-test and Post-test Control Class
Based on the
description data in pre-test and post-test of control class, there was the
comparison score between pre-test control class before and after gave a treatment by using lecture
strategy. It can be seen in the
following table:
Table 14
Comparison Score of
Students’ Reading Comprehension
in Narrative Text
in Pre-test and
Post-test (Control Class)
|
No |
Interval |
Pre-Test |
Post-Test |
||
|
Frequency |
Score |
Frequency |
Score |
||
|
1 |
55 – 61 |
6 |
55,55,55, 60,60,60 |
3 |
55,60,60 |
|
2 |
62 – 68 |
3 |
65,65,65 |
4 |
65,65,65,65 |
|
3 |
69 – 75 |
9 |
70,70,70, 70,75,75, 75,75,75 |
7 |
70,70,75,75, 75,75,75 |
|
4 |
76 – 82 |
4 |
80,80,80, 80 |
4 |
80,80,80, 80 |
|
5 |
83 – 89 |
4 |
85,85,85, 85 |
4 |
85,85,85,85 |
|
6 |
90 – 96 |
0 |
|
4 |
90,90,95,95 |
From the table
above, it can be it can be seen that the interval 69
–75 had the highest frequency in pre-test (9 students) and that interval 69 –75had
the highest frequency in post-test (7 students). The lowest frequency in pre-test
was on interval 62 – 68, it was 3 students. While the lowest frequency in post-test
was on interval 55 – 61, it was 3 students.
For the clear description
of the data, the researcher presents them in histogram on the following figure:
Figure 6.Histogram
Comparison Data of Students' Reading Comprehension in
Narrative Text in Pre-test and Post-test (Control Class)
Based on the figure
above, the frequency of students’ score of
Control class in pre-test from
55up to 61was 6; 62 up to 68 was 3; 69 up to 75 was 9; 76 up to 82 was 4; 83 up
to 89 was 4; 90 up to 96 was 0. Meanwhile, the frequency of
students’ score of control class
in post-test from 55 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 68 was
4; 69 up to 75 was 7; 76up to 82 was 4; 83 up to 89 was 4; 90 up to 96 was 4. Then, the interval
which had highest frequency in pre test was
69-75 (9 students) and the
interval which had lowest frequency was 90– 96 (0 student). In post test of control class, the
interval which had highest frequency was 69 - 75 (7 students) and the interval
which had lowest frequency was 55-61 (3 students).
c.
Comparison
Data between Pre-test Experimental and Control Class
By
giving pre test to both of classes the researcher knew the students’ reading
comprehension before givingthe treatment.In pre test, the researcher did not apply
treatment to experimental and control class. The
comparison data of pre-test between experimental and control class can be seen
on the following table:
Table 15
Comparison Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension
in Narrative Text
in Experimental and
Control Class (Pre-test)
|
No. |
Interval |
Frequency |
|
|
Control |
Experimental |
||
|
1 |
50-55 |
3 |
3 |
|
2 |
56-61 |
3 |
3 |
|
3 |
62-67 |
3 |
3 |
|
4 |
68-73 |
4 |
4 |
|
5 |
74-79 |
5 |
7 |
|
6 |
80-85 |
8 |
6 |
From the table
above, it can be seen that the interval 80 – 85 (8
students) the highest frequency in control and the interval 74-79 (7 students) the
highest frequency in experimental class. The lowest frequency in control class
that interval 50-55 (3 students) and lowest frequency in experimental class was
on interval 50-55 (3 students).
For the clear
description of the data is presented in the histogram comparison data
pre-test between experimental and control
class on the following figure:
Figure 7.Histogram
Comparison between
Description Data of Students' Reading
Comprehension in Narrative Text in Experimental and Control Class (Pre-Test)
Based on the figure above, the
frequency of students’ score of control
class in pre-test
from 50 up to 55 was 3; 56 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 67 was 3; 68 up to 73 was 4; 74
up to 79 was 5; 80 up to 85 was 8. Meanwhile, the frequency of
students’ score of experimental
class in pre-test
from 50 up to 55 was 3; 56 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 67 was 3; 68 up to 73 was 4; 74
up to 79 was 7; 80 up to 85 was 6.Then, the interval 80 –
85 (8 students) the highest frequency in control and the interval 74-79 (7
students) the highest frequency in experimental class. The lowest frequency in
control class that interval 50-55 (3 students) and lowest frequency in experimental
class was on interval 50-55 (3 students).
d.
Comparison Data between Post-test Experimental and
Control Class
The researcher got
the comparison data between post-testscore in experimental and control class after giving
the treatment. The comparison datacan be seen on the following table:
Table 16
Comparison Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension
in Narrative Text
in Experimental and
Control Class (Post-test)
|
No. |
Interval |
Frequency |
|
|
Control |
Experimental |
||
|
1 |
55 – 61 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
62 – 68 |
4 |
1 |
|
3 |
69 – 75 |
7 |
6 |
|
4 |
76 – 82 |
4 |
1 |
|
5 |
83 – 89 |
4 |
8 |
|
6 |
90 – 96 |
4 |
5 |
|
7 |
97-103 |
0 |
3 |
From the table above, it can be
seen that the interval 69 – 75 has the highest frequency
in pre-test, it was 7 students in control class. While the highest frequency in
experimental class was on interval 83 – 89, it was 8 students. The lowest
frequency in control class was on interval 97 –103, it was 0. While the lowest
frequency in experimental class was on interval 62
– 68, it was 1.
For the clear
description of the data is presented in the histogram comparison between
description data post test
of experimental andcontrol
class on the following figure:
Figure 8.Histogram
Comparison between
Description Data of Students' Reading
Comprehension in Narrative Text in Experimental and Control Class (Post-test)
Based on the figure above, the
frequency of students’ score of control
class in post test from 55 up to 61 was 3; 62 up to 68
was 4; 69 up to 75 was 7; 76 up to 82 was
4; 83 up to 89 was 4; 90 up to 96 was 4; 97 up to 103 was 0. Meanwhile, the frequency of
students’ score of experimental
class in post test from 55 up to 61 was 2; 62 up to 68
was 1; 69 up to 75 was 6; 76 up to 82
was 1; 83 up to 89 was 8; 90 up to 96 was 5; 97 up to 103 was 3. Then, the interval 69 – 75has the highest frequency in pre-test,
it was 7 students in control class.
While the highest frequency in experimental class was on interval 83 – 89, it was 8 students. The lowest
frequency in control class was on interval 97-103, it was 0. While the lowest
frequency in experimental class was on interval 62
– 68, it was 1.
From the
description of comparison data above, it can be conluded that the students’ scores
of experimental class by using peer tutoring was higher than the students’ score of control class by
using lecture strategy.
B. Technique of Data
Analysis
1. Requirement Test
a. Normality and Homogeneity of Experimental and
Control Class in Pre-Test
Table 17
Normality and Homogeneity in
Pre-Test
|
Class |
Normality Test |
Homogeneity Test |
||
|
x2count |
x2table |
fcount |
ftable |
|
|
Experimental
Class |
6.07 |
11.070 |
-1.30<4.28 |
|
|
Control Class |
2.53 |
11.070 |
||
Based on the table above, the score of experiment
class Lo = 6.07<
Lt = 11.070 with n = 26 and control
class Lo = 2.53<
Lt = 11.070 with n= 26, and real
level
The coefficient of Fcount= -1.30was compared with Ftable. Where
Ftable was determined at real α 0.05, and the different numerator dk
= N-1 = 26-1=25 and denominator dk N-1 = 26–1 = 25. So, by using the list of
critical value at F distribution is got F0.05
= 4.28. It showed that Fcount-1.30<Ftable4.28. It showed
that both experimental and control class were homogeneous.The
calculation can be seen on the appendix 15.
b. Normality and Homogeneity of
Experimental and Control Class in Post-Test
Table 18
Normality and Homogeneity in
Post-Test
|
Class |
Normality Test |
Homogeneity Test |
||
|
x2count |
x2table |
fcount |
ftable |
|
|
Experimental
Class |
1.83 |
11.070 |
0.84<4.28 |
|
|
Control Class |
0.34 |
11.070 |
||
The previous table shows that the
score of experimental
class Lo = 1.83< Lt = 11.070 with n = 26 and control
class Lo = 0.34< Lt = 11.070 with n = 26, and real level
The coefficient of Fcount= 0.84was compared with Ftable. Where
Ftable was determined at real α 0.05, and the different numerator dk
= N-1 = 26-1 = 25 and denominator dk N-1 = 26-1 = 25. So, by using the list of
critical value at F distribution is got F0.05
=4.28. It showed that Fcount0.84<Ftable4.28. So, the researcher concluded that
the variant from the data of the students’ reading comprehension in narrative
text at grade Xof SMANegeri8 Padangsidimpuan in
experimental and control class was homogenous. The calculation can be seen on
the appendix 18.
2. Hypothesis Test
After
calculating the data of post-test, researcher has found that post-test result
of experimental
and control class is normal and homogenous. The
data would be analyzed to prove the hypothesis. It used formula of t-test.
Hypothesis of the research was “peer tutoring has significant effect on students’ reading
comprehension in narrative text at
gradeX ofSMANegeri8 Padangsidimpuan”. The
calculation can be seen on the appendix 19
and 20.
The result of t-test was as follow:
Table 19
Result of T-test from the Both
Averages
|
Pre-test |
Post-test |
||
|
tcount |
ttable |
tcount |
ttable |
|
-2.92 |
2.021 |
2.28 |
2.021 |
The test hypothesis have two criteria. First, if tcount<ttable, H0 is accepted. Second, tcount>ttable, Ha
is accepted. Based on researcher calculation in pre test, researcher found
that tcount -2.92 while ttable 2.021with opportunity (1 –α ) = 1 - 5% =
95% and dk = n1 + n2 – 2 = 26 + 26 – 2 = 50. Cause tcount<ttable(-0.29<2.021), it means that hypothesis Ha
was rejected and H0 was accepted. So, in pre test, the two classes were same. There
is no difference in the both classes. But,
in post test, researcher found that tcount2.28while ttable 2.021 with opportunity (1
–α ) = 1
- 5% = 95% and dk = n1 + n2 – 2 = 26 + 26 – 2 = 50.
Cause tcount>ttable (2.28> 2.021), it means that
hypothesis Ha was accepted and H0 was rejected. The calculation can be seen on the appendix 20. In this case, the mean
score of experimental class by using peer tutoringstrategywas 82.12 and mean score of
control class was 75.76 that was taught by using lecturer strategy. So,
there was the significant effect of using peer tutoring strategy on students’ reading
comprehension in narrative text at
grade XSMA
Negeri 8 Padangsidimpuan.
C. Discussion
Researcher
discussed result of this research and compared with the theory and the related
findings that have been stated by the researcher. First, Related to the theory from Densereau
stated that Peer tutoring has been used with college students to develop
higher-order skills such as reading comprehension.[1] L.
S. Fuchs Fuchs also said the peer tutoring strategy has been well validated for
promoting the development of low-level skills, such as spelling, math and
reading.[2]
Then, Anita Lie said that teaching by peers (peer tutoring) was more effective
than teaching by teachers, this is due to the background of the student
experience that is similar to one another than with the schemata teachers. It means that learning process does
not have come from the teacher to students, but can also from students to other
students.
Second, based on
related findings: Yanuar Irakas Prihatno has done
research.[3]
He found that students’ scores mean of the pretest was 66.26, whose the highest
and lowest score in turn were 88, and 32, in the post-test mean score was 78.5 having
85 as the biggest, and 55 as the smallest score. It indicated that the
students’ scores improved during the implementation of peer tutoring.
Then,
Dika Prima Nugraha Putra also has done research.[4]
The result of the research had shown that Peer Tutoring could be an effective
technique to improve the students’ reading comprehension. This conclusion came
from the analysis of the test result. He found that students’ scores mean of the pre-test was 47.26,
whose the highest and lowest score in turn were 70, and 35, in the post-test having
mean score was 77.41 and having 85 as the biggest, and 55 as the smallest
score.
The last, Besty Maghfiroh has also done
research.[5]
The result of the research had shown that Peer Tutoring could be an effective
method to increase the students’ interest and matematika study result. This
conclusion came from the analysis of the test result. He found that students’ scores mean
of the pre-test was 61.83, in the post-test having mean score was 77.30.
The research
result and the theory have proven that this strategy
is good where the students were so enthusiastic to follow the lesson. This proofs show that peer
tutoringis suitable to be applied in teaching reading comprehension. So, peer tutoring strategy has given the effect to the research that has been done
by the researcher or the other researcher who mentioned in related findings.
D. Limitation of the Research
The research was limited in some
situations. It was the problems in the class that appeared during doing the
research, but the researcher couldn’t hold or improve those things. The
limitation of the research was as follow:
1. The researcher was not sure whether all
of students in the experimental class and control class did the test honestly.
There was a possibility that some of them answered the test by copying or
imitating their friends’
answer.
2. The students were noisy while in learning process. They
were not concentrating in following the learning process. Some of them talked
to their friends and some of them did something outside the teacher’s rule. Of
course it made them cannot get the teacher’s explanation well and gave the impact
to the post-test answer.
3. It was also a possibility that some of
students were not too serious in answering the pre-test and post-test. It may caused by the test, because they knew before that the test would not influence their score in the
school. It made them answer the test without
thinking hard and the answer of the test was not pure because they did not do
it seriously.
[1]D. F. Dansereau,
Transfer from cooperative to individual studying. Journal of Reading, (5),1987, p. 614-619, assessed from goo.gl/uZUilo, retrieved on
.
[2]L. S.
Fuchs Fuchs, D., Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., &Karns, K. Acquisition
and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in
mathematics for students with varying learning histories School Psychology Review, (24), 1995,
p. 604-620, assessed from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ
589164,
retrieved
on
[3]Yanuar Irakas Prihatno, Improving
Grade X Students’ Reading Comprehension by Using Peer Tutoring at MAN III
Yogyakarta”, 2014, accessed from http://eprints.uny.ac.id/19826/1/
Yanuar%20 Irakas%20Prihatno%2009202244030.pdf. Retrieved on
[4]Dika Prima Nugraha
Putra, Improving Grade XI Students’ Reading Comprehension by Using Peer
Tutoring at SMA N 1 Pleret, 2013, accessed from http//:eprints.umk.ac.id/1173/1/ TITLE.pdf. Retrieved on
[5]Besty Maghfiroh, Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran Kooperatif
Model Tutor Sebaya (Peer Tutoring) Terhadap Minat dan Hasil Belajar Matematika Kelas
V Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Darul Huda Ngaglik Bandulan Sleman Yogyakarta, 2012, accessed
from http://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/9948/
1/BAB%20I%2C%20 IV%2C%20DAFTAR%20PUSTAKA.pdf.
Retrieved
on
