Improving reading comprehension using the survey, question, predict, read, respond, summarize (SQP2RS) strategy

Kamalia Kamalia


The aim of the research was to improve students’ reading comprehension through the Survey, Question, Predict, Read, Respond, Summarise (SQP2RS) strategy. Based on problems in the field, the researcher formulated three research questions: (1) Will implementing the SQP2RS strategy improve the reading comprehension of tenth grade students at SMA N 1 Sawang? (2) What will be the results for reading comprehension from students after implementing the SQP2RS strategy with tenth graders at SMA N 1 Sawang? (3) How will the students respond to the implementation of the SQP2RS strategy for improving’ their reading comprehension? This research was a collaborative classroom action study. The subjects of the research were tenth grade students at SMA N 1 Sawang. The study was conducted in three cycles by following the procedure for action research, via: planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting. To collect the data the researcher used instruments, via: tests, observation sheets, field notes and a questionnaire. The data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The mean score from the students’ test results after cycle 1 was 63, this increased to 69 then 78 after cycle 3. The students had positive responses toward the use of the SQP2RS strategy for learning reading comprehension in their class. This was proved by the overall mean score for approval of the five factors measured which was 3.67 out of 4.


SQP2RS Strategy; Reading Comprehension

Full Text:



Grellet, F. (1981). Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamdan, A. R., Ghafar, M. N., Sihes, A. J., & Atan, S. (2010). The cognitive and metacognition reading strategies of foundation course students in teacher education institute in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 133-144.

Huang, J., & Nisbet, D. (2012). Training adult ESL learners in metacognitive reading strategies. Journal of Adult Education, 1(41), 1-7.

Hult, M. & Lennung, S. (1980). Towards a definition of action research: A note and a bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 241-250.

Kemmis. S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner, 2nd Ed. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative analysis: Oral version of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 1-4.

McLaughlin, M., & Vogt, M. E. (Eds.) (2000). Creativity and Innovation in Content Area Teaching: A Resource for Intermediate, Middle, and High School Teachers. Norwood, M. A.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Moat, L. C. (1999). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do. Retrieved from

Nilawati, & Alicia, D. (2013). Using the combination of Multipass and Survey, Question, Predict, Read, Respond, Summarize (SQP2RS) in teaching reading to junior high school students. Jurnal Mahasiswa Bahasa Inggris, 2(2), 1-5.

Pratyasto, P. (2011). Jenis Teks Bahasa Inggris. Bandung: Pustaka Pitaloka.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.

Ruddel, M. R. (2005). Teaching Content Reading and Writing. New York: Wiley Jossey Bass Education.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, C. A.: Rand Corp.

Vogt, M. E. (2000). Learning for students needing modifications: An issue of access. In M. McLaughlin & M. E. Vogt (Eds.), Creativity and Innovation in Content Area Teaching: A Resource for Intermediate, Middle, and High School Teachers, (pp. 329-351). Norwood, M. A.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

E-ISSN: 2085-3750 

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.