Gita Hilmi Prakoso (2016) Explicit And Implicit Strategy Training, Which One Is Better?
This research aimed to investigate how explicit and implicit strategy training affected the usage of Cognitive reading strategies by students. Modified Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) was employed as an approach to teach Cognitive reading strategies to the students. The design of this research was non randomized control group pretest - posttest design. There were two classes of second grader students of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung as the sample of this research. To gather the data, questionnaire was employed in this research. The results showed that the usage of cognitive reading strategies in class which was taught explicitly is better than the implicit one. Out of ten strategies, there are four strategies which differ significantly and positively between students who were taught in experimental (explicit) and control (implicit) class. In short, explicit strategy training gives better effect to students since their usage of cognitive reading strategies is better than students who were taught the strategiesimplicitly.
Keywords: ModifiedCALLA, Strategy Training, Cognitive Reading Strategies, Effective Reading
 Behroozizad, S., & Bakhtiyarzadeh, H.2012. Pragmatic meaning and EFL learners‟ text - understanding ability. English Language and Literature Studies , 2 (1), 28 - 34.  Hamra, A., &Syatriana, E. 2012. A Model of Reading Teaching for UniversityEFLStudents : Need Analysis and Model Design. English LanguageTeachingVol.5 No.10  Riswanto., Risnawati.,&Lismayanti, D. 2014. The Effect of Using KWL(Know, Want,Learned) Strategy on EFL Students‟Reading Compreh ensionAchievement . International Journal of Humanities and Social ScienceVol.4, No.7(1).  Riswanto., Risnawati.,&Lismayanti, D. 2014. The Effect of Using KWL(Know, Want,Learned) Strategy on EFL Students‟Reading ComprehensionAchievement . International J ournal of Humanities and Social ScienceVol.4, No.7(1).  Wenden,A& J.Rubin.1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  O‟Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Ozek, Y&Civelek, M. 2006. A Study on the Use of Cognitive Reading Strategies by ELT Students, The Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teachers Articles.  Ratna. A. 2014. The Use of Cognitive Reading Strategies to Enhance EFL Students‟ReadingComprehension. International Journal of Education (IJE), Vol.2No. 1  O'Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. U. 1986. The Cognitive AcademicLanguagE learningApproach: AnESL Content - BasedCurriculum . Office of Bilingual Education and Min orityLanguages Affairs (ED) , Washington, DC.  Cubukcu, F. 2008. How to Enhance Reading Comprehension ThroughMetacognitiveStrategies. The Journal of International Research Vol.1/2Winter .  Marimuthu,R&Muthusamy,C. 2011. Metacognitive Strategy Traini ng through The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) as a Way toImprove Reading Comprehension Performance among Students ofan English Language Course at UiTM Penang. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research .Vol.7(1).  Creswell, J. W. 2009. Re search Design; Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches . United States of America: Sage Publication.  Nash - Ditzel, S. 2010. Metacognitive reading strategies can improveself - regulation. Journal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 40 (2), 45 - 63 .  Nelson, J. M., & Manset - Williamson, G. 2006. The impact of explicit, self - regulatory readingcomprehension strategy instruction on the reading - specific self - efficacy,attributions, andaffect of students with readingdisabilities. Learning Disability Qu arterly,29 (3), 213 - 230.