The Effect of Question Answer Relationship Strategy in Student’s Reading Comprehension of Narrative Text

Yeni Juwita

Abstract


For students in vocational higher education, where English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is frequently a means of advancing academically and professionally, proficiency in reading comprehension is crucial. Through internal evaluation, this study aims to assess the efficacy of the Question Answer Relationship (QAR) strategy on students' reading comprehension of narrative texts at Lhokseumawe State Polytechnic. The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of QAR strategy on students' ability to comprehend narrative texts, paying special attention to how well it enhances their reading proficiency. Students were divided into experimental and control groups, with the experimental group receiving instruction using the QAR strategy. A pretest-posttest design was employed using structured reading comprehension assessments. The questionnaire covered aspects of comprehension including literal understanding, inferential reasoning, and critical analysis of narrative elements. The findings reveal that students who received instruction using the QAR strategy demonstrated significantly higher reading comprehension scores compared to the control group, noting particular improvements in identifying implied information and making text-to-self connections. However, challenges remain in students' ability to analyze complex narrative structures and author's craft. The results underscore the effectiveness of the QAR strategy as an instructional approach for enhancing reading comprehension of narrative texts. This study highlights the value of strategic reading instruction for improving students' reading proficiency and aligning English language education with institutional goals in vocational settings.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bouchard, M. (2005). Comprehension strategies for English language learners. Scholastic.

Brown, H. D. (n.d.). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. Longman.

Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Gerd Stables.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haynes, J., & Zacarian, D. (2010). Teaching English language learners across the content areas. ASCD.

Hielman, A. W. (n.d.). Practices teaching reading (5th ed.). Bell and Howell Company.

Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Insights from linguistics. The Guilford Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing task of communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationship, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516.

Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge University Press.

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction. ASCD.

Westwood, P. (2001). Reading and learning difficulties: Approach to teaching and assessment. Acer Press.

Willis, J. (2008). Teaching the brain to read: Strategies for improving fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.RetryClaude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses. 3.7 Sonnet


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Indexing :

Creative Commons License
Journal of Language Testing and Studies (J-Latest) licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.