Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Articles
DOI: 10.32806/jkpi.v6i3.1213
Submitted: 07-10-2025
Published: 15-10-2025

THE USE OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ASSISTED BY QUESTION AND ANSWER CARDS TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONAL READING AND WRITING SKILLS OF STUDENTS WITH MILD INTELLECTUAL BARRIERS (HI) IN CLASS V SLB IN YOGYAKARTA

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
Commercial facilities are assisted with question and answer cards, functional reading, and functional writing

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the use of commercial facilities assisted by question and answer cards in improving the functional reading and writing skills of students with mild intellectual barriers (HI) in class V SLB in Yogyakarta.  The research method uses a quasi-experimental approach with a one-group pretest-posttest design. This research was carried out in collaboration with three schools, namely SLB Negeri 1 Yogyakarta, SLB Negeri 2 Yogyakarta, and SLB Negeri 1 Bantul. The research subjects consisted of 20 students with mild intellectual barriers (HI) class V. Data collection was carried out through functional reading and writing ability tests, observation, and documentation. Test instruments that are validated by experts and demonstrate good validity and reliability. Data analysis used a paired t-test and an effect size test. The results showed a significant improvement in the functional reading ability of students with a tailed Sig. 2 value of 0.000, which was less than 0.05 (p < 0.05), and the functional writing ability of students with a tailed Sig. 2 value of 0.000, which was less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). The effect size test showed a Cohen's d value of 2.54 for reading and 5.08 for writing, indicating a large influence. The average pretest score for reading was 66.50 increased to 81.05 in the posttest. The average writing pretest score of 67.50 increased to 80.25 in the posttest.

References

  1. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., & Roberts, J. K. (2013). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 52-66.
  2. Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. Guilford Press.
  3. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392-408.
  4. Collins, B. C., & Stinson, D. M. (2014). Teaching generalized reading of product warning labels to young adults with disabilities through the use of key words. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29(4), 306-319.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  6. Dendawijaya, D., & Cohen, L. (2018). The use of flashcards in special education: A systematic review of teaching methods for students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 412-425.
  7. Favoury, S. (2019). Pelaksanaan Program Gerakan Literasi Sekolah Untuk Siswa Tunagrahita Kelas VIII di SLB Negeri Pembina Yogyakarta. Jurnal Widia Ortodidaktika, 8(7), 652.
  8. Graham, S., Collins, A. A., & Rigby-Wills, H. (2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 199-218.
  9. Harvey, J., Hux, K., Scott, N., & Snell, J. (2013). Text-to-speech technology effects on reading rate and comprehension by adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27(12), 1388-1394.
  10. Houston, D., & Torgesen, J. (2014). Teaching students with moderate disabilities to read: Insights from research. Division of Learning Disabilities Journal, 26(3), 28-42.
  11. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Thompson, K. L. (2018). Comparison of the effects of smart board technology and flash card instruction on sight word recognition and observational learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), 34-46.
  12. Moleong, L. J. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Remaja Rosdakarya.
  13. Mumpuniarti, & Pujaningsih. (2016). Pembelajaran Akademik Fungsional Dalam Konteks Pendidikan Khusus Orientasi Budaya. UNY Press.
  14. Piaget, J. (1951). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. International Universities Press.
  15. Rivera, C. J., & Deutsch Smith, D. (2017). Using visual learning methods to teach functional literacy skills to students with intellectual disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 175-184.
  16. Sugiyono. (2021). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
  17. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
  18. World Health Organization. (2023). Global Report on Intellectual Disabilities

How to Cite

M. Irfandi, M. I., & Mumpuniarti, M. (2025). THE USE OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ASSISTED BY QUESTION AND ANSWER CARDS TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONAL READING AND WRITING SKILLS OF STUDENTS WITH MILD INTELLECTUAL BARRIERS (HI) IN CLASS V SLB IN YOGYAKARTA. Jurnal Konseling Pendidikan Islam, 6(3), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.32806/jkpi.v6i3.1213