The Effect of Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) on Muhammadiyah University Students’ Reading Comprehension and Their Perceptions

: Reading is a language modality in which the sense of urgency is palpable despite the task difficulty. This study examined the hypotheses that CSR improves reading comprehension and fosters positive perceptions of the implementations. The result supported that using CSR produced levels of reading comprehension superior to conventional teaching instruction. The analysis of posttest among the groups revealed 5.56 greater effects for students in the experimental group. The t-test also reported that students had favorable impressions about CSR implementation. They recognized some reading strategies of CSR which assisted them at most in elevating comprehension.

personal work, also mingle with friends in their group. Working in a group can be considered a social engagement, and it is feasible for cognitive development to occur in order to facilitate target language internalization (Zoghi et al., 2011).
Some related studies unquestionably show that after getting CSR, learners' reading comprehension and perspective improve. In the Asian context, CSR contributes inconsistency to pupils' reading comprehension scores. Khonamri and Maedeh (2015) revealed that intermediate Iranian students who received CSR obtained twice as many points as those who received traditional instruction. Moreover, Zagoto (2016) found that In STKIP Nias Selatan, CSR assists students in identifying the main idea and creating a summary of the text. Similarly, Gani, Yusuf, and Rusiani (2016) successfully recorded high scores on the reading comprehension test from students who were taught by CSR. Comparatively, Zoghi, Mustapha, and Maasum (2011) documented that modifications of CSR did not bring significant improvement for students' reading comprehension in East-Azerbaijan.
In Indonesia, there have been a lot of studies employing CSR for reading with factorial variables to see under what conditions it helped to elevate reading scores. Initially, Pujilestari (2019) concluded that CSR and reading comprehension did not have any interaction under the proficiency level. Then, Moraliwati (2019) also noted that the relationship between CSR and reading comprehension was not influenced by group arrangement size. In other words, the contribution of CSR on reading comprehension was unaffected by factorial variables. In terms of subject's perspective, students who were treated by CSR demonstrated mutual perception, expressing a favourable, enjoyable, and advantageous perception of CSR (Gani et al., 2016;Pujilestari, 2019;Zoghi et al., 2011).
The temporary research was conducted through an informal interview with a UMLA ESP lecturer to aid the elaboration of reccurring themes being researched. She explains that students are having difficulty progressing to the next level of text. More particular, they need more effort in reading due to the large number of words in the text. It, then, adds to the level of difficulties; they come across more unfamiliar words and are unsure how to elaborate it into a linguistic input. These errors are likely to limit their ability to tackle comprehension problems, such as breaking down the micro-skills of reading. In a nutshell, they must be acknowledged for their participation in CSR, which has been considered as a promising reading strategy.
Above all consideration, this topic piqued the writer's interest due to a variety of factors. To be honest, CSR has both benefits and weaknesses, which can lead to a variety of scenarios and consequences. With short and extended responses, the reading test seeks to use a form of recognition. This research also invites Universitas Muhammadiyah Lamongan ESP students who are in high demand to speak in English in a short period of time. As a result, the current study aimed to learn more about how students perform on reading comprehension tests and how they react to the CSR implementation against the traditional reading instruction. Indeed, the objective is to address the following potential alternative hypothesis as a role: H1: there is a significant difference in the ESP students' reading comprehension scores taught by using CSR and those taught by the conventional teaching reading strategy in Universitas Muhammadiyah Lamongan.
H2: ESP students perceive positive to the use of CSR for their reading comprehension in Universitas Muhammdiyah Lamongan.

METHOD
The key to answer the present study is to uncover how the proposed outcome, CSR, relates to the reading comprehension matters, as well as how students view on CSR. Thereafter, the study was designed as an experimental study using a clusterrandomized sampling technique to determine whether the participants were in the experimental or control group. Two classes of Management department, consisting of forty students, during the 2020/2021 academic year who enrolled in the ESP program were invited to participate in this study. Furthermore, an expert in teaching reading was involved to assess whether the designed instruments appropriately satisfied what had to measure throughout the implementation. To be more exact, the procedures among two classes across different reading strategies were shown in the following description.
In the experimental classroom, meeting 1 focused on reading pre-test and a general overview of CSR. Meeting 2 generally consisted of procedure and details on how to implement CSR, including group roles, norms, cue cards, learning logs, forms, time allotment to practice each strategy. Days 3-5 in experimental sections consisted of working with CSR. Students had 5-10 minutes discussion in their group before they reproduced possible responses to the logs then shared it to the whole class. Teacher-students conference to help answer the reading questions worksheet and label the gist with "Strong" or "further developed". Students' activities also demanded primarily on some minilessons related to the text elements and genre. They were assigned to do a comprehension task using QAR (Question-Answer Relationship).
Students in the control group used the same worksheet and had reading instruction for the same amount of time, 100 minutes per day, one selection per third-four period every Monday and Tuesday. Yet, they did not use any other means of CSR. Meeting 1 was spent on pre-test. Meeting 2-5 consisted of a mutual procedure of teaching reading as the previous ones. They began the learning by posting questions and making predictions. They read aloud the text and did the assignment individually; it was followed by discussion about the text elements and vocabulary review. They featured the technique of scientific approach to answer the questions and produced responses to present in the whole class voluntarily and conduct question-answer sections later.
Regarding the procedure of implementation, students had both online and face-to-face meetings during the pandemic era, according to university regulations. The Zoom meeting applications were used to host the online class, and the WhatsApp was used to distribute the quiz and submit the learning log.

Fithriyah, Nasih, Suryati, The Effect of Collaborative… 92
Reading tests and questionnaires were distributed to the target sample. The test contained several necessary types; multiple choice and pairing graded 0-1, short responses graded from 0-2, and extended responses graded from 0-4. Indeed, there were 30 questions set reflecting the reading test. Furthermore, the questionnaire was only distributed to the experimental group, because they owed CSR in reading a workshop on at least four meetings for each selection being studied. The credit score for each statement was 1 to 4 from dislike to love. These data were collected to compare the group achievement in different study conditions, and they were analysed using a statistical tool.

FINDINGS
The data collection on the implementation were tabulated and presented quantitatively along with the hypotheses being verified. The findings are divided mainly into two folds; the difference of students' reading comprehension score across different treatments and the difference of students' perception in the experimental group.

The Difference of Students' Reading Comprehension Score Across Difference Treatment
Full descriptive statistics of reading comprehension pre-and post-test for students in different study conditions at each group are tabulated in Table 2. The results show that both experimental and control classrooms made measurable gains in reading comprehension. At the pre-test, the experimental group was marginally ahead of the control group. As well as, at the post-test, reading comprehension scores in the experimental class outperformed those in the control class. Based on the table, both groups consist of 20 students and reach significant scores after the given treatment. During the pre-test in the CSR group, the minimum score is 60.70 and the maximum reaches 84. The mean is 72.49 with 1.48 standard error and 6.64 standard deviation. Accordingly, the score for the CSR group in the post-test is ranging from 74 to 95 maximum score. The average score in this test is 82.56 with 1.35 standard error and 6.05 standard deviation. In the same way, difference scores are shown from the conventional group. During the pre-test, their lowest score is 59, while the highest score is 82. Their mean score is 71.74 with 1.54 standard error and 6.91 standard deviation. At the time of post-test, the conventional group had 67 minimum scores and 90.26 maximum scores. They acquire 77 mean scores with standard error of 1.38 and standard deviation of 6.17.
Admittedly, two classrooms perform different reading comprehension achievements as seen in the table. To be more sophisticated to see how much the difference between the group and the test, Figure 1 compares the mean scores before and after the treatment being given among the groups.
1.  Figure 1 shows the difference between the groups and tests. The pre-test of experimental and control classroom scored 72.49 and 71.73 respectively, which implies that the CSR group starts slightly higher than the traditional group with a difference of .76 points. After the treatments, the mean score of post-tests from the experimental and control class are 82.56 and 77 respectively. Therefore, the difference between them is 5.56 points.

The Difference of Students' Perceptions in the Experimental Classroom
On a four-point scale, the target sample was asked to rate their own opinion of CSR implementation. Table 3 summarized their responses to the experimental class's questionnaire. Based on the criteria of perception level, there are 12 questions reviewed about students' experience of using CSR and 8 questions about to what extent CSR assists them in reading comprehension. Related to the CSR, the most positive feeling is shown in the statement that they practice fix-up strategies to handle the words or concepts issues. More than half of students fall into good category for the following statement: ignoring the difficult words, using four fix-up strategies, figuring out the most important information of a text, constructing the gist statement with friends, answering the QAR questions set, and reading with a partner.

Fithriyah, Nasih, Suryati, The Effect of Collaborative… 94
However, in relevance to the usefulness dimension, most items result in good criteria. They start with CSR for identifying details. They as well as believe that CSR assists them in breaking down the text structure. CSR is also good for identifying informative/explorative proportional information, as it is good for identifying facts and opinions. To sum up, they perceive it is good for CSR to interpret the meaning of word construction.
In a nutshell, CSR is an unquestionably favourable reading strategy for students in the experimental group. They respond in a variety of ways based on the personal experience with CSR for reading comprehension. Assuredly, CSR and its components help them increase their comprehension in reading.

The Difference of Students' Perception in the Experimental Classroom
This section informs the summary of hypotheses testing results. It is decided which hypotheses is accepted or rejected. The criteria of p value (Sig,) with less than the .05 significance level means H0 rejection or H1 approval. Based on the table, the p value scores for .007, which is below the significance level of .05. It denotes H1 acceptance. In other words, there is a significant difference in reading comprehension between those students who are taught utilizing CSR and those who are taught using a conventional strategy.
The experiment views were observed to know their tendencies after the intervention of CSR. The hypothesis testing was done by comparing their scale of responses towards statements in a questionnaire. As mentioned previously, the criteria results in H2 acceptance because of the score of p value, which has to be below the 5% level of significance. The data from the table above shows that p value reaches out .001 and it does not exceed the significance level. In short, the H2 is approved implying the positive perception on the use of CSR for reading comprehension. CSR promise to enhance the reading comprehension scores and leaves positive perceptions for the doer. After the implementation and the analysis, their claim has been proven to be trustworthy.

DISCUSSIONS
In general, the lecturer or researcher has been determined to have implemented the intervention faithfully. The results of the current experiment with CSR and traditional teaching reading in ESP students of the Management department support the premise that CSR increased the students' reading comprehension scores compared to the standard strategy. Referring to the analysis, it might be concluded that the intervention has a significant and predictable impact on overall reading comprehension increases. The evidence records 5.56 points difference across students' post-test score among the groups. In addition to pre-test, comparison among them demonstrates a slight advantage for the experimental group, who reach a slightly ahead score of the control group despite their characteristics such as special education services prior or outside the class. This advantage allows students to do and achieve better on reading comprehension tests afterwards. CSR facilitates the situation which addresses and invites obvious instruction, scaffolding, peer-mediated learning, and fixed assistance for struggling readers through the use of social interaction, that contains a balancing result from what students bring, achieve, and needed in the full learning potential through having social interaction with others (Lightbown & Spada, 2001;Mardiani, 2017;Sari, 2014). As founder of CSR, Klingner and friends (2012;1996) assume that CSR is valuable in maximizing students' opportunity to discuss content from the text in a non-threatening or low anxiety setting. Above those considerations, CSR is an appealing reading strategy since it encourages social engagement while rejecting individual and cultural distinctions.
The quantitative improvement of students' reading comprehension score from the present study supports the previously empirical research. From the first appearance, Klingner and Schumm (1998) is able to note that CSR is beneficial to students' learning since it strengthens their reading ability in a variety of ways. Further, they reconvince (1999) by a research that CSR has a positive impact, students keep helping shoulder to shoulder to aid comprehension. Then, other recent studies have also found similar results. To begin with, Rozak et al. (2012) conclude that CSR appears to be a good technique for reading comprehension in terms of encouraging and motivating learners to learn. Second, Nosratinia, Mirzhakhani, and Zaker (2013) suggest that CSR contributes kindly to the students' EFL learning autonomy. Al-Roomy (2013) also finds that CSR aids students' comprehension before, whilst, and after the reading process quantitatively and qualitatively. Other experimental research with mutual results conclude that this strategic reading assists university students in achieving better understanding than the typical teaching reading (Gani et al., 2016;Zagoto, 2016).
Despite the supportive research, it needs to know the contradict research outcome. Some studies reveal that CSR teaching instruction is no better than non-CSR instruction (Nosratinia & Fateh, 2017;Pujilestari, 2019). In their study, however, Zoghi et al. (2011) renew the fix-up strategy by adding text organization and discourse marker identification. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to improve students' study results. Compared to the students' proficiency level who were invited to their study, CSR is not suitable for more competent readers, taking into account their expertise who already read the test rapidly, freely, and liberally. Nosratinia and Zaker (2013) warns of a very likely cultural effect for students who do not commit to work collaboratively in learning. Under these circumstances, students' proficiency level and culture can be ruled out, because the target sample has difficulty in recognizing the reading elements and are more accustomed to working groups.
Students acquire success, participation, and drive to learn more about reading comprehension as a result of CSR and its components (Karabuga & Kaya, 2013). This premise guides the second question posted in this study, to what extent CSR helps the students in their reading comprehension class. Hence, this research also provides the students' perspective following the intervention. Students enjoy practicing the fix-up strategy. In terms of which strategy they love most, looking for cognates runs out as the best selection for them, while the remaining fix-up strategies gain similar turnouts. Under certain conditions, they prefer to ignore the unfamiliar words and keep reading in case the fix-up did not really work for their situation. In consequence, the click and clunk with fix-up strategies lead them to gain better understanding. This result is in line with the study which informs that CSR have an option to improve students' vocabulary banking with varying vocabulary levels (Karabuga & Kaya, 2013;Karimabadi et al., 2015).
Other effective reading strategy is get the gist technique. They love to figure out the key information of text and construct their gist. Although, they are not comfortable to have different opinions to select which gist statement will be displayed to the whole class, they could not deny that this step provides a tool for identifying supporting details, text arrangement, informative/explorative proportionale information. As Zoghi et al. (2011) mention that get the gist becomes most useful phase because it covers the discussion of text's matter in group setting.
The wrap-up strategy also have the mutual result. Students are pleased to answer the QAR questions with partners. During the discussion section, they like to seek out the evidence from the text to discover information or facts over opinions to support their answer. Khonamri et al. (2015) explain how the text become clearer by working together in a group. Students tend to be more attentive about the text standards and specifications, so they do not want to let their work be disappointing when it performs to the whole class.
Likewise with the studies, this study backs up the necessity to broaden the concept of reading beyond a one-on-one contact between the reader and the text to include the construction of meaning through collaborative efforts from a larger group of readers. In this case, meaning is constructed when students work together to comprehend the text. According to this viewpoint, CSR emphasizes social interaction in the reinforcement of reading and learning habits.

CONCLUSIONS
Either CSR or conventional strategies successfully enhance ESP students' reading comprehension. However, CSR has a greater influence in the current context. The goal of implementing CSR is to satisfy students' desire to interact with and learn from those around. Quality and mutuality resulting from collaboration are likely to generate a delightful learning atmosphere. Hence, the conclusions are reached in two folds. Initially, the study revealed that students who are taught using CSR achieved significant and better scores than those who are not. It indicates that CSR contains potential reading strategies compared to the standard teaching reading, especially under the topic of expository text. Moreover, students have a positive perception about CSR. To be more specific, the favorable phases of CSR are click and clunk, get the gist, wrap up, and collaborative work. This strategic reading, further, helps them with identifying details, informative/explorative information, word recognition and fluency. Without a doubt, CSR provides excellent chances for students to develop inferential reading abilities, such as the competency to predict and guess, as well as their affective in reading skills. In other words, adopting the appropriate evidence-based teaching strategy for an ESP reading class is not a novelty approach; rather, it aids educators in responding to rapidly rising reading phenomena in the near future.