ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING TO TEACH READINGVIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ INTELLIGENCE

1Yulia Agustina, 2Ngadiso, 3Dewi Rochsantiningsih1(Student of Magister Program of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS)

Email: yulia.agustina24@gmail.com2

3

(Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS)(Magister of English Education Program of PASCASARJANA UNS)

ABSTRACT – The objectives of this research are finding out whether: (1) semantic mapping ismore effective than lecturing to teach reading at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalayain the Academic Year of 2011/2012; (2) the students who have high intelligence have betterreading ability than those who have low intelligence at the Eighth Graders of SMPN 12Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012; and (3) there is an interaction betweenteaching strategies and students’ intelligence in teaching reading at the Eighth Graders ofSMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012. This research was anexperimental study conducted at SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the Academic Year of 2011/2012.The samples were two classes: VIII C and VIII D. The researcher took the sample of this studyby using cluster random sampling. Each class was divided into two groups (the students whohave high and low intelligence). The research instruments consist of the students’ intelligencedocument and a reading test. The reading test was tried out to get valid and reliable items.Then, the data were analyzed by using multifactor analysis of variance 2 x 2 (ANOVA) andTukey test. Based on the research results, there are research findings as follows: (1) thestudents who are taught using semantic mapping have better reading ability than those whoare taught using lecturing; (2) the students who have high intelligence have better readingability than those who have low intelligence; and (3) there is an interaction between teachingstrategies and students’ intelligece because semantic mapping is more effective to teachreading for the students having high intelligence, and lecturing is more effective to teachreading for students having low intelligence. Finally, it can be inferred that: (1) semanticmapping is an effective strategy to teach reading at the eighth graders of SMPN 12Tasikmalaya in the academic year of 2012/2013; (2) the effectiveness of the strategy isaffected by the level of students’ intelligence.

Keyword - Teaching strategies, reading ability, Intelligence. INTRODUCTION Reading ability is an important tool foracademic success because it is animportant activity in life which studentscan update their knowledge, enrichvocabulary, add knowledge, ect. But infact, the students still have low ability inreading competence, yet they still lack inunderstanding reading material. It iscaused by many factors such as: theyrarely read, lack of vocabulary, low

23

motivation, and inappropriate teachingstrategy used when the teachersattempted to explain reading materials(Kamal Muhtar, 2010: 3).

Reading cannot be separated fromcomprehension, without comprehendingthe text, the readers especially thestudents will not understand and willnot receive the message or informationfrom reading materials. Essentially,reading is a process used by the reader

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idto understand and to get a message thatis conveyed by the writer through the

completed with the new information(Muhtar, 2010: 61). When using semantic

media of written language. mapping as postreading, teachersThe teacher’s strategies in teaching employ students’ disscussions to help

reading are important factors to them recall and organize informationimprove the students’ ability in reading. that they have learned from reading textThe teacher should choose an as they make connection to words orappropriate strategy in order to makestudents achieve adequate competencein reading. There are some kinds ofstrategies that can be applied by theteacher in teaching reading. Semanticmapping strategy is supposed to beappropriate strategy to develop herstudents’ ability in reading. Semanticmapping helps the students develop

concepts related to the topic (Antonnaci,et al., 2011:18).

On the contrary, lecturing strategyis used to describe a lesson where theteacher has control. It is also called asthe teacher-centered. The teacher’s dutyin this strategy is only telling thematerial directly by face to face with thestudents. The students usually have no

prior knowledge by seeing the curiosity to study about reading, yetrelationship in a given topic. It is avisual representation of a particularconcept (Cooper, et al., 2009: 102).

they only listen to the explanation fromthe teacher and often make them feelbored.

This strategy is most effective when Besides the strategies, teachingit is used before, during, and afterreading and when the teachers serve asthe guide or facilitator to their studentswho construst their own semantis maps.

learning process is affected by thestudents’ intelligence. It influences theirability in English skills especially inreading ability. Intelligence is the most

When semantic mapping is as important tool for success and failure ofprereading, helps to active students’ students in learning and also asprior knowledge (schemata). Further, theteacher may use students’ prereadingsemantic maps to determine how muchknowledge building is required beforestudents read the text (Antonnaci 2011:

personality factor that influence theresult of teaching and learning process.(Helmi, 2011: 34). According to Carol(2012: 1) intelligence is capacity forknowledge and the ability to acquire:

18). Using semantic mapping in whilst- capacity for reason, ability toreading helps the students to record the comprehend relationship, ability toinformation obtained from the text. Bymaking a semantic map during readinga text, the students’ prior knowledge are

24

evaluate and judge, and capacity fororiginal and productive thought.

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

An English teacher has an important 3. To know weather there is anrole to manage and help students to getsuccess in their learning. One of theefforts, an English teacher should assisther students in implementing reading

interaction between teaching strategiesand students’ intellegence in teachingreading.

There are some definitions of readingability by giving them a suitable strategy according to some experts. Richardhow the students learn to receive themessage and information in understand-ing a reading material. Considering thatbackground, the researcher states theproblems to be researched as follows:1. Is semantic mapping more effective

than lecturing to teach reading for the

(1997: 6) defines reading as a powerfulactivity that gives knowledge, insight, andperspective on readers. It means readingis powerful activity in getting knowledge,insight, and the reader’s perspective.

Nunan (1998: 23) states that readingis a process of decoding written symbols,

eighth graders of of SMPN 12 working from a smaller unit (individualTasikmalaya? letters) to large ones (words, clauses, and

2. Do the students having high sentences).intellegence have better reading abilitythan those having low intellegence forthe eighth graders of of SMPN 12Tasikmalaya?

3. Is there any interaction between the

Davies (1995: 1) states that reading isa mental, or cognitive, process whichinvolves a reader in trying to follow andrespond to a message from the writerwho is distance in space and time.

teaching strategies and students’ From the theories above, it could beintellegence in teaching reading? inferred that reading is a process to

In accordance with the problems decode the written symbol whichabove, this research is intended: involves a reader in understanding and1. To know weather the semantic attribute the information from a text to

mapping is more effective than build meaning as a piece oflecturing in teaching reading at the communication between the reader andeighth graders of SMPN 12 writer.Tasikamalaya in the academic year2011/2012.

There are four basic levels of readingcomprehension according to Burs, et al,.

2. To know weather the students having (1996: 177), namely: literal,high intellegence have better reading interpretative, critical, and creativeability than those having low reading. Brown (2004: 306) gives the

intellegence for the eighth graders ofSMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in the academicyear 2011/2012.

25

strategies for reading comprehension.They are:1. Identifying the purpose in reading

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id2. Scan the text for specific information Further, semantic maps are graphic3. Distinguish between literal and displays of word meaning that offers the

implied meaning, ect.Based on the previous elaboration

students a visual representation of howwords and concept are related through a

above, it can be generated that reading network of organized knowledgeability is a process to decoding thewritten symbol which involves a reader in

(Heimlich and Pittelman in Antonnaci,2011: 18).

understanding the information from a In the researher’s undestanding,text to find main idea, explicit and semantic mapping strategy is a graphicimplicit information, word references, array of knowledge which containsand meaning of certain word based on nodes, drawn as circle, squares, orthe context. There are several aspects of triangles as a key word which isreading skill which lead to the indicatorsthat students or the readers are able to:

connected by lines or arrows to showhow words and concept are related

(1) find main idea; (2) find explicit through a network of paragraph ininformation; (3) find implicit information;(4) find word references; and (5) find

comprehending a text.Sinatra (1986: 5) descibes different

meaning of certain word based on the formats of semantic map: (1) thecontext. narrative sequential, format arranges

Semantic mapping is derived from information in several pararelthe words semantic and maps. A hierarchical strands; (2) the thematic orsemantic mapping, as construction, has descriptive map displays elements andessentially two aspects: visual and details about person, place, or thingsconceptual. A visual semantic map is around a central theme; and (3) themade up of forms, such as circles, comparative or contractive map,triangles, etc. Conceptual semantic map relationship among concepts bycontains verbal information inside and displaying how class, examples, andbetween the forms, which representsrelationship between the words/ideas(Fisher in Raiziene 2003: 193). There are

attributes are related. The following isthe example of semantic mapping byJudy Casulli in Brisk (2000 : 71):

some definitions of semantic mapping racoon skunk poecupine rabbit

proposed by some experts:According to Sinatra (1986:4) defines

semantic mapping as a graphic arrange-ment how the major and minor ideas arerelated in a written work.

26

JungleAnimal

DesertAnimal

Animals in South

PainsAnimals

MountainAnimals

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idIguana armadillo jaguar llma occurs between the instructor and theFigure 1. The Example of SemanticMapping.

Antonnaci, et al., (2011: 20) explainthe advantages of using semanticmapping as follows:a. Helping to developh word knowledge;b. Helping to activate students’ prior

knowledge;c. Helping to determine how much

building knowledge is required;In addition, this strategy has

disadvantages for its use. The followingare disadvantages of using semantic mapaccording to Eppler (2006: 201):a. It is not easy to apply by beginner

students; it requires extensivetraining.

b. It is difficult to find out the relationbetween the ideas.

c. The overall pattern does notnecessarily assist memorability.On the other hand, a lecturing is

probably the oldest teaching strategy andis still used widely used by manyteachers in the classroom. A lecturing isan oral presentation intended to presentmaterial or teach people about particularsubject.

Kelly (2012: 1) defines that lecturingis a teaching strategy where an instructoris the central focus of informationtransfer. Sometimes, they will write on aboard or use an overhead projector toprovide visuals for students. Students areexpected to take notes while listening tothe lecture. Usually, very little exchange

27

students during a lecturing.Westwood (2008: 18) remarks that

the main objection to lecturing is thatthey imply the possibility of creatingknowledge and understanding instudents simply by talking at them. Infact, the formal lecturing is the classicexample of a transmission strategy.

In short, lecturing strategy is theteacher-centered which focuses oninformation transfer. It emphasizes onthe teacher’s role in presentinginformation by talking to students, whilestudents are passive, they only receivethe information from teacher’spresentation.

The following here are theadvantages of lecturing according toCashin (1985: 85):a. Lecturing can help communicate the

enthusiasm of teachers for theirsubjects.

b. Lecturing can be specifically organizedto meet the needs of particularstudents.

c. Lecturing can present large amountsof information.

Although the lecturing can be aneffective and efficient teaching startegy,it has a number of disadvantages,according to Cashin (1985: 87) as follows:a. In lecturing students are often passive

because there is no mechanism toensure that they are intellectuallyengaged with the material.

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idb. Students' attention wanes quickly after

fifteen to twenty-five minutes.c. Information tends to be forgotten

quickly when students are passive.

fact, carrying abstract thinking, adaptingand learning from the experience, andevaluating and judgment.

The factors that affecting Intelligence,Intelligence is general term to according to Cherry (2012: 5) there are

describe human mind which covers many three main factors that influenceinterrelated abilities, such as the ability intelligence:in solving the problem, reasoning, a. Geneticsplanning, thinking abstractly to use b. Biology and Biochemistry, there are alanguage, conveying idea, understandingideas and learning. According to Carol(2012: 1) intelligence is capacity for

wide range of biological factors thatcan impact intelligence.

c. Environment, there are a number ofknowledge and the ability to acquire: environmental factors that impactcapacity for reason, ability to child cognitive development:comprehend relationship, ability to demographics, poverty, bird order,evaluate and judge, and capacity for childhood trauma, environmentaloriginal and productive thought.

Meanwhile, Gardner (1999: 6) statesthat human intelligence involves skills ofthe problem solving which enable theindividual to solve the problems, tocreate an effective product, and to have

stress, and parenting.Based on the previous quotations

above, it can be concluded that indicatorsof intelligence are the general mental ofindividual to learn a new knowledge,solve the problem, make good responses

awork for the acquisition of new from truth or fact, carry abstractknowledge. thinking, adapt and learn from the

Later on, Thordike in Djaali (2007: environment, and evaluate and judge.64) defines intelligence as demonstrable The researcher presents somein ability of individual to make goodresponses from the stand point of truthor fact. According Terman in Djaali(2007: 64) intelligence is the ability to

hypotheses. Those hypotheses are asfollows:1. Semantic mapping is more effective

than lecturing to teach reading for thecarry on abstract thinking. eighth graders of SMPN 12

From the theories above, it can besummarized that intelligence is human’sability to use his knowledge in learning anew knowledge, solving the problem,making good responses from truth or

28

Tasikmalaya.2. The students having high intelligence

bave better reading skill than thosehaving low intelligence of the eighthgraders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya.

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id3. There is an iteraction between

teaching strategies and students’intelligence in teaching reading.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThe research was conducted at SMPN 12Tasikmalaya at the eighth graders inacademic year of 2011/2012 which islocated on Jl. Sutisna Senjaya Kawalu,Tasikmalaya and was conducted fromJuly to January 2013.

graders D and C. The number of studentsof each class is 40 students.

The researcher took the sample ofthis research by using cluster randomsampling technique. This technique isused because the population of thisresearch consists of some classes andeach class is relatively homogeneous.

The researcher used a test to collectthe data. There are reading test and

In this research, the researcher students’ intelligence document. Readingapplied an experimental study with a test is used to know students’ ability inquantitative approach. Fraenkel and reading while students’ intelligenceWallen (1993: 240) state that document is used to collect the data ofexperimental study is one of the most students’ intelligence. The form of test ispowerful research methodologies, objective test.because it is the best way to establishcause and effect relationship betweenvariables.

Meanwhile, a quantitative approach isa kind of research that gives a pressurein the systematic analysis, using statisticanalysis toward quantitative data thatincludes correlational study, experiment,

For the IQ test, the students werealready tested by their own school,therefore the researcher will use thosescore as the data. The IQ test in thisresearch has been conducted by LembagaPengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia(LPSDM) Pelita Harapan Bangsa which islocated at Perum Green Java No. 1

and ex-post facto. This research is Cawang, Magelang.designed to describe and to prove theinfluence of using semantic mapping toteach reading viewed from students’intelligence.

The population of this research is all

Meanwhile, reading test is in multiplechoice forms. According to Heaton (175:14) multiple choice item is now widelyregarded as being one of the most usefulof all objective item types. The test must

the eighth graders of SMPN 12 be valid and reliable.Tasikmalaya in academic year of In techniques of analyzing the data,2011/2012. The total numbers of the researcher used descriptive analysispopulation are about 380 students and inferential analysis. Descriptivedivided into 9 classes. The sample of thisresearch are two classes, the eighth

analysis is used to know the mean,median, mode, and standard deviation ofstudents’ scores in reading test.

29

s log s466.8

123.2 3.3 7.8099 0 15

SS Df

1

374.11

1419.61

3

76Within groups

Total 79

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

842 316 684 421

No. Sample

1 1

2 1

3 1

4 1

Ʃ

Inferential

Df 1/(df)

19 0.052

19 0.052

19 0.052

19 0.052

analysis is

2 2i i

24.568 1.390377

39.713 1.598934

47.186 1.673821

55.7342 1.746122

used to

(df)log si2

26.41717

30.37975

31.8026

33.17632

121.7758

test

754.5 896.5 1058. 3176.5 5 95 85

41.80066

1.621183 χo2 χt2

1.4341

Based upon the calculation above, itshows that the χo2 (3.30) is lower than χt2 atthe level of significance α = 5% (7.815) or

hypothesis. Before conducting the χo2 < χt2 (3.30 < 7.815). Therefore, it can behypothesis, it is necessary to know the concluded that the data obtained are

No Data No ofSample (Lo) (Lt) (α) Status

homogenous.Table 3.The Summary of a 2x2

1 A1 40 0.07 0.14 0.05 Normal2 A2 40 0.08 0.14 0.05 Normal3 B1 40 0.06 0.14 0.05 Normal4 B1 40 0.07 0.14 0.05 Normal5 A1B1 20 0.08 0.19 0.05 Normal6 A2B1 20 0.10 0.19 0.05 Normal7 A1B2 20 0.10 0.19 0.05 Normal8 A2B2 20 0.06 0.19 0.05 Normalnormality and homogeneity. Then, theresearcher tested the hyphotesis usingMultifactor Analysis of Variance orANOVA 2X2. It is used to find out thedifference between columns and rows.Besides ANOVA, the researcher used

Multifactor of VarianceSource ofVariance

Betweencolumns (The 221.Teaching 11Strategies)Between rows(Self– 1Actualization)Columns byrows 1(Interaction)Between 2014groups .84

3176.85

5191.69

MS

221.11

374.11

1419.61671.61241.801

Fo

5.290

8.950

33.961

Ft(.05)

3.97

Tukey Test to identify the significantdifference between groups or cells.

Based on the above table, it can beconcluded that:1. Fo between columns (5.290) is higher

than Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and itRESULT AND DISCUSSIONTable 1. Summary of Normality Test

Based upon the above data showingthat Lo of A1 (0.0738) < Lt (0.141), Lo 0f A2

(0.0804) < Lt (0.141), Lo 0f B1 (0.0689) < Lt

(0.141), Lo of B2 (0.0717) < Lt (0.141), Lo ofA1B1 (0.0897) < Lt (0.190), Lo ofA2B1(0.1017) < Lt (0.190), Lo of A1B2

(0.1026) < Lt (0.190), and Lo of A2B2

(0.0694) < Lt (0.190), it can be inferredthat the data obtained are in normaldistribution.Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test

means the difference between columnsis significant. The students’ mean of A1

(72) is higher than the students’ meanof A2 (67), thus it can be stated thatsemantic mapping is more effectivethan lecturing to teach reading.

2. Fo between rows (9.393) is higherthan Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected andit means difference between rows issignificant. It can be stated that the

X1

1173X2

8410X3

8153X4

9508difference between the achievement of

si2

51.2

466.824.56

45754.5

539.71

6.45896.5

547.18

2.051058.

9555.73

the students having high intelligenceand those having low intelligence is

30

(3.25) is higher than qt (2.86), the

higher than qt (2.86), it can be

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

significant. The students’ mean of B1

(71) is higher than the students’ meanof B2 (66). Hence, the students who

Hence, B1 (71) is higher than B2 (66), itcan be stated that the students havinghigh intelligence have better reading

have high level of intelligence have ability and those having lowbetter reading ability than the intelligence.students who have low intelligence.

3. Fo interaction (1419.61) is higher than3) Because qo between cells (A1B1 and

A1B2) (6.80) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),Ft (0.05) (3.97). H0 is rejected and it can the students who have highbe stated that there is interactioneffect between the two variables, theteaching strategies and the degree ofintelligence on the reading ability. Itmeans that the effect of the teachingstrategies used on the reading abilitydepends on the sudents’ degree orlevel of intelligence.Table 4. The Summary of Tukey Test

intelligence who are taught by usingsemantic mapping are significantlydifferent in reading ability from thestudents who have low intelligencewho are taught by using lecturing. Themean score of students having highintelligence A1B1 (77) is higher thanthat of those who have low intelligenceA1B2 (65), so semantic mapping is more

BetweenGroup qo qt Status Meaning effective than lecturing to teachA1 – A2

B1 – B2

A1B1 – A2B1

A1B2 – A2B2

3.254.236.803.52

2.862.862.952.95

SignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant

A1 ≠ A2

B1 ≠ B2

A1B1 ≠ A1B1

A1B2 ≠ A2B2

reading for the students having highintelligence.

1) Because qo between columns A1A2

(0.05)

difference between columns issignificant. The students’ mean of A1

(72) is higher than the students’ meanof A2 (67). It can be inferred thatteaching reading using semanticmapping at the eighth graders ofSMPN 12 Tasikmalaya is more effectivethan teaching reading using lecturing.

2) Because qo between rows B1B2 (4.230) is

(0.05)

concluded that the students who havehigh intellligence and those who havelow intelligence are signicantlydifferent in their reading ability.

31

4) Because qo between two cells (A1B2 andA2B2) (3.52) is higher than qt (0.05) (2.95),lecturing differs significantly fromsemantic mapping to teach reading forstudents who have low intelligence.The mean score of students havinglow intelligence who are taught bylecturing (69) is higher than those whoare taught by using semantic mapping(64), thus lecturing is more effectivethan semantic mapping for teachingreading for students having lowintelligence.

Reffering to the result of tuckey testat point 3 and 4 above, it can be infferedthat semantic mapping is moreappropriate strategy for the students

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idwith high intelligence, while conventional Maggard (2012: 1) states promote astrategy, lecturing, is appropriate combination of semantic mapping andstrategy for students with low reading activities to enable the readers tointelligence in teaching reading. Hence, itcan be summarized that there is aninteraction between teaching strategiesand the students’ intelligence in teachingreading.DiscussionBased on the computation result of dataanalysis, it can be presented as follows:1. Semantic mapping is more effective

than lecturing to teach reading.

make use of schema in achieveng a fullerunderstanding of a text.

On the contrary, lecturing is used todescribe a lesson where the teacher has acontrol. It is also called as the teachercentered because the teacher’s duty inthis strategy is only telling the materialdirectly by face to face with the students.

Westwood (2008: 18) remarks thatthe main objective to lecturing is creating

Semantic mapping is a strategy in knowledge and understanding inwhich information is categorically students simply by talking at them.structured. It helps students arrange Moreover, in this stratregy the studentsinformation by utilizing the most have no chance to be active, creative,important aspect and concept which is and interactive because only the teacherrelated with a text. All activities in this becomes the decision maker, as astrategy are students-centered because it consequence, it makes the studentsmakes the use of students’ prior passive and feel bored in followingknowledge and control the input at eachparagraph of the map’s bulding.

According to Zaid (2005: 7) semanticmapping is as comunicative languageteaching because it incorporates manyaspects of CLT such as active, interactive,students centered, and as an integrativeactivity. Using semantic mapping in pre-reading phase stimulate the studentsprior knowledge, the whilst-reading helpsthe students to record the informationobtained from the text, and when using

teaching learning process because theyonly listen to the teacher’s explanation.That is why semantic mapping is moreeffective than lecturing to teach reading.2. The students’ having high intelligence

have better reading ability than thosehaving low intelligence.

Intelligence is the most importanttool for success and failure of thestudents in learning. Carol (2012: 1)states that intelligence is capacity forknowledge and the ability to acquire:

semantic mapping as post reading phase capacity for reason, ability tohelps the students recall and organize comprehend relationship, ability toinformation from what they have learned evaluate and judge, and capacity forfrom reading a text. Widomski in original and productive thought. The

32

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idstudents who have high level of 3. There is an interaction betweenintelligence will acquire knowledge teaching strategies and the students’quickly and apply the knowledge intelligence.effectively. The students having high Students’ participation in learningintelligence have high ability in activities is strongly affected by teachingcomprehending a text (Debour, 1960:132). By high intelligence the studentshave hard effort optimally to achieve thesuccess, have much bravery to answerteacher’s question, have strong intentionin learning that makes them understandthe lesson more easily as stated byGardner (1999: 6) human intelligenceinvolves skills of the problem solvingwhich enable the individual to solve the

strategies. Semantic mapping strategy isa students-centered because it makes thestudents more active, interactive, andcreative. When they try to create a map,the students work with each other beforeand after reading a text. The studentswho are taught using semantic will findthe main concept of a text then try torepresent a text by making the schematawhich are related to paragraphs of a text.

problem, to create an effective product, It certainly helps the students toand have to a work for the acquisition ofnew knowledge.

On the other hand, students with lowintelligence will find the diffulty in

understand reading a text easily. Allactivities in this strategy such as pre-reading, whilst reading, and post readingare communicative. According to Zaid

acquiring new knowledge. They are (2005: 7) semantic mapping is aspassive because they prefer becoming communicative language teachinglisteners and following participants in because it incorporates many aspects oflearning process. They always depend on (CLT) such as active, interactive,someone else, don’t try hard, give up students-centered, and integrativeeasily in the face of challange. It provesthey are slower in doing reading tasks

activity.The fact shows that the students

which are given to them as stated by having high intelligence have highDebour (1960: 132) the students who curiosity in comprehending readinghave low intelligence will have low abilityin understanding a text. It happensbecause they have less capacity to learnand to solve the problem, and to carry onthe abstract thinking. That’s the reason

material and like to read anything thatteacher gives them. They also peformvery well in the class, try to be active, anddo the task better. Gardner (1999: 6)states that human intelligence involves

why the students’ having high skills of the problem solving whichintelligence have better reading ability enable the individual to solve thethan those having low intelligence.

33 problems, to create an effective product,

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idand to have a work for the acquisition of between teaching strategies and students’new knowledge. Therefore, semantic intelligence for teaching reading.mapping is more effective to teachreading for the students having highintelligence.

Meanwhile, lecturing strategy is theConclusion, Implication, and SuggestionAs the research result and the discussion

teacher-centred which focuses on elaborated in preceding page, theinformation transfer. This strategy findings are as follows:doesn’t give any chances to the studentsto be active in learning process. The

1. Semantic mapping is more effectivethan lecturing to teach reading for the

students are passive and mostly they eighth graders of SMP 12prefer talking with their friends than Tasikmalayain the academic yearlistening to the teacher. It is stated byKelly (2012: 1), lecturing is a teaching

2011/2012.2. The students having high IQ have

strategy where an instructor is the cenral better reading ability than thosefocus of information transfer.

The fact shows that the studentshaving low IQ.

3. There is an interaction between thehaving low intelligence have less teaching strategies and the students’attention, motivation, and interest in intelligence in teaching reading at thejoinning learning process, tend to wait to eighth graders of of SMP 12the teacher’s explanation to know themessage of a text or need their friends’help in understanding a text. It is statedby Charles Spearman in Cherry (2012: 5),

Tasikmalaya in the academic year2011/2012.

The findings indicate that semanticmapping is more effective than lecturing

people who have high intelligence to teach reading. Semantic mapping is aperform well on a work tend to perform useful strategy which helps the studentswell on other works, while those who to increase and develop their priorhave low intelligence perfom badly on awork, tend to perform badly on others.

knowledge by seeing the connectionsthrough paragraphs in a given topic by

Hence, the students’ having low the teacher. Semantic mapping usesintelligece will have less capacity to learn before, during, and after reading a text.and perform well. Therefore, lecturing is Prior to read a text, the teachermore effective for the students havinglow intelligence.

Based on explanation above, it can beconcluded that there is an interaction

34

distributes the text to be read andcarefully selects the key words to belearned for understanding the text andthe lesson. First, the teacher asks the

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.idstudents to think of ideas which related b. The teachers can apply semanticto the topic. This brainstorming phase mapping to teach reading toallow the students to stimulate their improve the students readingprior knowledge or experience. Thus ability.prior knowledge can be used as a c. The teachers have to consider thatstepping a block get new knowledge.Second, the teacher writes down the topicor main concept in the center of the map.Then, engage to build the semantic maps

intelligence is one factor that mayinfluence the students’ readingability in the teaching and learningprocess.

and begin the pre-reading discussion. Asstudents read, they use their semanticmaps to add to the meaning of the

2. For the Studentsa. The students are expected to be

more active, creative, and havingwords. The teacher instructs the students good participant in learningto add the information from their process especially in reading class,readings to clarify the meaning of keywords. Then, the teachers encourages thestudents to note additional words thatfurther explain the ideas from their

in order that the students canimprove their reading ability andget good achievement in reading.

b. For the students who have lowreading. As the students read, the teacher intelligence, they shouldreminds students to write down encourage themselves to studyquestions about words that need hard and be more active inclarification. jonning the teaching learning

The teacher directs the students touse their semantic maps during the

process especially in reading class.

discussion of their reading. The teacherdirects them to clarify the informationthat they get from their readings.

For the last, related to this research,

3. For Other Researchera. The researchers can use this result

of the study as the starting pointto continue the next study.

the researcher wants to gives some b. The researchers can use thissuggestions as follows: research as an additional1. For the Teachers reference for further relevant

a. The teachers should focus theirattention to select the strategiesbased on some consideration: like

research certainly with differentvariables and condition.

level of difficulty andintelligence.

students’ REFERENCESAntonnaci, et al. (2011). 40 Strategies for

Middle and Secondary Classrooms

35

ENGLISH TEACHINGVol. I, Issue 1 (2013), PP 23-36http://jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id

Developing Conten Area Literac.Sandiego: Sage.

Balajthy. (2003). Struggling Readers:Assessment and Instruction inGrades. Boston: Guilford Press.

Brown, H Douglas. (2004). LanguageAssessment Principles and

Through Semantic MappingStrategy. Unpublished Thesis.Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.

Nunan (1998). Desingning Task for theCommunicative Classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Classroom Practices.Longman.

Mexico: Kelly. (2012).Retrieveddatabase.

Lecture Pros and Cons.from 712 educators

Brisk. (2000). Literacyand Bilingualism AHandbook for All Theachers.Houston: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Burns, et al. (1984). Teaching Reading inToday’s Elementary Schools. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Carol. (2012). Intelligence. Retrieved fromhttp://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/intelligence .

Carol. (2012). Factors Ffecting Intelligence.Rerrieved from http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=7&topicid=636 .

Raizienie, Saule and Bronislava Grigaite.(2005). Developing Child’s thinkingskill by Semantic MappingStrategies. 9(2), 192-206. Retrievedfrom EBSCO online database.

Zaid. (2005). Semantic Mapping inCommunicative Language Teaching.30(3), 11. Retrieved from EnglishTeaching Forum database.

Cashin (1985). Improving Lectures.Manhattan: Kansas State University.

Cooper, et al. (2009). Literacy: HelpingStudent Construct Meaning. Boston:Cengage Learning, Inc.

Davies. (1995). Introducing Reading.London: ClaysLtd, StIves plc.

Debour. (1960. The Reaching Reading.New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston Inc.

Djaali. (2007). Psikologi Pendidikan.Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Eppler. (2006). A Comparison betweenMapping Methods. JournalImformation Visualization, 5, 202-210. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.95000131.

Fraenkel and Wallen. (2000). How toDesign and Evaluate Research inEducation. Boston: McGraw HillCompanies.

Gardner. (1999). Intelligence Reframe.New York: Basic Books a member ofthe Preseus Books Group.

Helmi. (2011). The Effectiveness of GroupInvestigation Model to TeachReading Viewed from Students’Intelligence. Unpublished Thesis.Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.

Muhtar, Kamal. (2010). ImprovingStudents’ Reading Comprehension

36