p.point seminar hasil
TRANSCRIPT
IMPROVING STUDENTS' READING COMPREHENSION OF NARRATIVE TEXT BY
IMPLEMENTING DIRECTED READING THINKING ACTIVITY (DRTA ) STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Problem
The Reading Problems
The Causes of the Problems
The Solution of the Problems
The Reasons of the Solution
B. Identification of the Problem
Lack of interest in reading
Lack of vocabulary
Lack of background knowledge about the text
Teaching strategy
C. Focus of the Problem
Reading strategy
DRTA
To improve reading comprehension of narrative text
D. Research Questions
1. To what extent can Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text
2. What factors influence the changes of the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text through DRTA
E. Purposes of the Research
1. To find out whether Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy can improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text at grade X5 of SMAN 1 Solok Selatan.
2. To find out what factors influence the changes of students’ reading comprehension of narrative text by implementing DRTA at grade X5 of SMAN 1 Solok Selatan.
F. Significance of the Research
Giving valuable input for the English teachers in creating an alternative strategy in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text.
beneficial for researcher to improve reading teaching strategy and to overcome the problems in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text.
Theoritically
Practically
G. Definition of the Key Terms
1. Reading Comprehension
2. Narrative Text
3 . Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
A. Review of the Related Theories
B. Review of the Related Findings
C. The Conceptual Framework
1. Reading Comprehension
1. Smith (1982: 53)
2. Mcwhorter (1986:71)
3. Gunning (1996: 192
4 Cameron (2001:127)
5. Renandya and Richards (2002 : 273
6 Nunan (2003:68)
7. Harmer ( 2004: 70)
8. Neufeld (2005:302) .
9. Zainil ( 2008)
10. Brown (2009: 228)
11. Rose ( 2000: 144)
12. Lyutaya (2011)
In brief, Reading Comprehension is the process of understanding meaning from the text being read. In order to master it, the reader has to master several strategies and techniques because it needs the skills. Without understanding them reading will be useless.
2. Narrative text
1. Derewianka (1990: 40)
2. Eltis (1991: 30)
3. Gerot and Wignell (1995: 20)
4. Nugroho and Hafrizon (2010: 18)
In brief, narrative text deals with the problematic events which need resolution. To comprehend a narrative text means to understand the text organization and linguistic features of the narrative text.
3. Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)
3. Raphel ( 1982)
4 Irwin (1986: 69)
5. Tierney (1995: 3)
In short, DRTA demands that the students become active participants in the reading process, first by raising questions about the text, then , by processing the information as they read, and finally by receiving feedback relating to their original questions.
6. Miller and Player ( 1999: 93)
6. Gipe (2001)
2. Otto et.al (1979: 242)
1. Stauffer ( 1975)
7. Robinson ( 2002)
8. El-Koumy (2004)
9. Glass (2006)
2. Afni Yusuf (2008). Improving students’ involvement in Reading Comprehension of Narrative Text at Grade XII Natural Science of SMAN 1 Sei Pua Agam
3. Rika Widyantara (2009). Improving Students’ Achievement in Finding Main Idea and Word Meaning at Grade X Pariwisata 2 of SMKN 2 Singaraja
4. Yusriati (2011). Implementing DRTA Strategy to Improve the Reading Comprehension Ability of the Second Year Students of SMPN 2 Blang Bintang Aceh Besar
1. Khalek ( 2006). The Effect of DRTA in the First- Year Secondary Stage EFL Students Referential and Inferential Reading Comprehension between the Experimental Group Exposed to the DRTA and the Control Group Exposed to the Conventional Method.
Cycles
Topic, Main Idea, Unstated idea, Detailed information, Supporting details, Schematic Structure
Predicting
Students’ Low Reading Comprehension of Narrative Text
Problem
Improvement of Students’ Reading Comprehension of narrative textExpected Result
Problem Solving DRTA
Reading Proving
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
PLAN
ACTION
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION CYCLE
CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH (CAR)Kemmis & Mc Taggart (1988 : 11)
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
A. Type of the Research
Time Place Participants
The second week of April -
the third week of May 2012
SMAN 1 Solok Selatan
27 students of grade X5
B. Research Setting
C. INTRUMENTS
Observation Field notes InterviewTask and
Test
D. Procedure of the Research Model developed by Kemmis and Teggart (1988:11), that is spiral model Cycle 1, 2 , 3
1. The form of narrative text discussed were about legend, fable and fairy tale.
2. Teacher groups the students
3. Teacher direct or activate student’s thinking prior by showing the title or pictures of the story
4. Teacher gives open – ended questions and asks the students to make predictions.
5. Teacher writes students’ predictions on the board and revises the students’ predictions.
6. Teacher introduces some vocabulary.
7. Teacher distributes the story and ask the students to read the first selecting stopping point silently to evaluate their previous predictions.
8. Teacher gives the prompting questions about specific information to help students formulate their the next predictions for the next stopping points predictions.
9. Teacher asks students to formulate the next predictions individually and then discuss in group.
10. Teacher asks students to read the second stopping point silently to evaluate their previous predictions
11. Teacher gives the prompting questions about specific information to help students formulate their
12. Teacher asks students to formulate the next predictions individually then discuss in group
13. Teacher asks the students to read silently for the third selecting stopping point to evaluate their previous predictions.
14. Teacher helps students with difficult words while reading silently.
1 5.Teacher monitors groups’ discussion
16. Teacher helps students to evaluate their predictions and refine them in group discussion
17. Teacher lists students’ predictions for each selecting stopping points and revise them.
18. Teacher asks students to verify or modify their predictions by finding supporting statements for each selecting stopping points in the text.
19. Teacher leads students in discussing their verifications
20. Teacher asks the students to do the task individually
21. Teacher discusses the students’ answer in class discussion.
E. Techniques of Collecting the Data
The direct observation, field notes, interview
TASK and TEST
F. Techniques of Analyzing the Data
The Quantitative Data.
Task and test
For analyzing the data from the individual score
Note:S = Student’s scoreX = Number of correct answerN = Number of items
The formula of the means offered Gay and Airasian (2009: 307)
Note:
X = Means of score
∑X = The sum of all scores
n = Number of students
Note : P = Percentage f = Frequency of students’ obtained score
N = Total Number of Students
The formula of percentage of students’ reading score
The qualitative data will be described using the steps offered by Gay and Airasian (2009: 449-456).
Data managing
Classifying
Describing
Interpreting
1. The extent to which DRTA strategy improved the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text
NoScore Interval
Number of Students/meeting
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 1 2 31. 90 – 100 1 3.72. 80 – 89 3 5 5 11.11 18.51 18.513. 70 – 79 4 3 2 14.81 11.11 7.44. 60 – 69 4 6 11 14.81 22.22 68.175. 50 – 59 9 6 2 33.33 22.22 7.46. 40-49 4 6 7 14.81 22.22 25.927. 30-39 3 - - 11.11 - -8. 20-29 -9. 10-19 - -
10. 0-9 - -Total 27 100
Table 6: The students’ Score on Reading Tasks (cycle 1)
Cycle 1
Graphic 1.The condition of the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text through reading tasks in each meeting (M) in cycle 1
M.I M.II M.III0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
25.93
33.33
25.93
Graphic 2. The Condition of Each Indicator of Students’ Reading Comprehension through Reading Task in Each Meeting in Cycle 1
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
63.00%
66.00%
59.30%
55.60%
51.90%50.60%
70.40%
67.90%
63.00%
66.70%
55.60%53.70%
62.90%
65.90%
62.90%
59.30%
53.70% 53.50%
General Detailed Main Unstated Supporting Schematic
Information Information Idea Idea Details StructureM.1 63.00% 66.00% 59.30% 55.60% 51.90% 50.60%M..2 70.40% 67.90% 63.00% 66.70% 55.60% 53.70%M.3 62.90% 65.90% 62.90% 59.30% 53.70% 53.50%
The Result of Reading Test (table 7)
Cycle 1The mean score of students’ reading comprehension of narrative test at the end of this cycle was 62.4. There were only 11 (40.74%) students could achieve MAC, while 16(59.26 %) students from 27 students could not.
Percentage of students’ mastery on indicator of reading comprehension
general information was 72.2. detailed information was 71 main idea was 61.1 unstated idea was 57.4 supporting details was 54.8 Schematic Structure was 55.6
The problems found in cycle 1The problems were as follows:
1. The students had lack of vocabulary
2. A great deal of students got difficulty to find supporting details, especially for finding the word meaning, and schematic structure.
3. The students still had lack of motivation to predict, to read and to prove predictions.
4. The involvement of the low students were still low in predicting, evaluating and proving
5. The teacher provided less monitoring.
6. Lack of pictures or unrelated pictures
7. The teacher could not manage the time effectively.
The revised plan for cycle 2○ Giving more vocabularies in pre reading stage and
guiding the students with more vocabularies by guessing the meaning from the context in reading stages
○ Explaining more about schematic structure of narrative text in pre teaching activity.
○ Encouraging the students to formulate, to read and to prove the predictions.
○ Giving more attention to the low students.○ Using related pictures to help the students in
predicting.○ Managing the time as effective as possible.○ Monitoring all students in every stages maximally
Cycle 2
NoScore Interval
Number of Students/meeting
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 1 2 31. 90 – 100 3 5 6 11.11 18.51 22.22
2. 80 – 89 6 5 5 22.22 18.51 18.51
3. 70 – 79 5 6 6 18.52 22.22 22.22
4. 60 – 69 5 3 3 18.52 11.11 11.11
5. 50 – 59 3 4 4 11.11 14.81 14.81
6. 40-49 2 2 2 7.4 7.4 7.4
7. 30-39 3 2 1 11.11 7.4 3.7
8. 20-29 - - - - - -9. 10-19 - - - - - -
10. 0-9 - - - -Total 27 100
Table 8: The students’ Score On Reading Comprehension Tasks (cycle 2)
Graphic 3. The Condition of the Students’ Reading Comprehension of Narrative Text Through Reading Tasks in Each Meeting (m) in The Second Cycle
M. I M. II M. III0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
51.85
59.2662.96
Graphic 4. The condition of each indicator of students’ reading comprehension through reading task in each meeting in cycle 2 CYCLE 2
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
70.40%
64.80%66.70% 66.70%
60.50%
64.80%
70.40%
72.80%
70.40%
66.70%
61.10%62.96%
74.10%
71.60%70.40% 70.40%
66.70%68.50%
M 1
M 2
M 3
General Detailed Main Unstated Supporting Schematic
Information Information Idea Idea Details Structure
M.1 70.40% 64.80% 66.70% 66.70% 60.50% 64.80%
M..2 70.40% 72.80% 70.40% 66.70% 61.10% 62.96%
M.3 74.10% 71.60% 70.40% 70.40% 66.70% 68.50%
Graphic 5: The comparison of students’ achievement through reading comprehension test on cycle 1 and 2
CYCLE 1 CYCLE 258
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
62.4
70.74
The Result of Reading Test (table 9)
Cycle 2The mean score of students’ reading comprehension of narrative test at the end of this cycle was 70.7. There were only 17 (62.96%) students could achieve MAC, while 10(37.04%) students from 27 students could not.
Percentage of students’ mastery on indicator of reading comprehension
general information was 85.2 detailed information was 75.0 main idea was 74.1 unstated idea was 65.4 supporting details was 63.7 Schematic Structure was 70.4
The problems in cycle 2
1) Some students still consult dictionary to find difficult words
2) There were still a few students who didn’t want to involve in predicting, reading and proving stage.
3) Students still got difficulty in finding supporting details, especially for finding word meaning, and unstated idea.
.4)The teacher gave less reward for the students who could formulate their predictions and prove their predictions.
5) The teacher still could not manage the time effectively.
6) There were a few students who were lack of confidence because of being afraid of making mistake.
The revised plan for cycle 3○ Giving more vocabularies in pre reading stage and
guiding the students with more vocabularies by guessing the meaning from the context in reading stages
Approaching the low and the lazy students personally.
Explaining more the supporting details which focus on finding meaning of words, unstated idea.
Giving more reward
Managing the time well
Building the students’ confidence
NoScore Interval
Percentage (%)
1 2 1 2
1. 90 – 100 5 5 18.52 18.52
2. 80 – 89 7 4 25.93 14.81
3. 70 – 79 7 13 25.93 48.15
4. 60 – 69 6 4 22.22 14.81
5 50- 59 2 1 7.40 3.70
Total 27 100
Table 10: The students’ Score on Reading Comprehension Tasks (cycle 3)
Cycle 3
Graphic 6. The Condition of the Students’ Reading Comprehension of Narrative Text Through Reading Tasks in Each Meeting (M) in the third Cycle
M.I M.II64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
70.37
81.48
Graphic 7. The Condition of Each Indicator of Students’ Reading Comprehension Task in Each Meeting in Cycle 3
Cycle 3
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
77.80% 77.80%
74.10% 74.10%
66.70%68.50%
85.20% 85.20%
77.80%79.60%
69.10%
74.10%
M.1
M..2
General Detailed Main Unstated Supporting SchematicInformation Information Idea Idea Details Structure
M.1 77.80% 77.80% 74.10% 74.10% 66.70% 68.50%
M..2 85.20% 85.20% 77.80% 79.60% 69.10% 74.10%
Graphic 8. The Comparison of Students’ Achievement through Reading Comprehension test on Cycle 2 and 3
CYCLE 2 CYCLE 366
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
70.74
78.52
The Result of Reading Test (table 11)
Cycle 3The mean score of students’ reading comprehension of narrative test at the end of this cycle was 78.52. There were 23 (85.19%) students could achieve MAC, while 4 (14.81%) students from 27 students could not.
Percentage of students’ mastery on indicator of reading comprehension
general information was 90.7 detailed information was 85.2 main idea was 81.5 unstated idea was 80.2 supporting details was 70.4 Schematic Structure was 73.1
Table 12. The Improvement of the Class Average Score of Students’ Reading comprehension Test.
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
62.4 70.74 78.52
Graphic 9: The Students’ Achievement in Each Cycle. (from the first to the third cycle).
CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
62.4
70.74
78.52
2. The factors influence the changes of the students’ reading comprehension by applying DRTA
Unknown Reading Text as
Teaching Material
Classroom Management
Teacher’s Approach.
Instructional and Motivated
Strategy
B. Discussion
DRTA : Richardson and Morgan (1997)
Gipe ( 2001)
Khalek (2006)
Yusuf (2008)
Rika Widyantara (2009)
Yusriati (2011)
The factors influenced the changes of the students’ reading comprehension through DRTA strategy
1. Unknown Reading Text as Teaching Material El-Koummy (2004)
2. Classroom Management Nunan (2003: 233)
3. Teacher’s Approach
4. Instructional and motivated strategyOtto (1979: 242)Glass (2006)
C. Limitation of the Research
Not all students could be interviewed. The time allocated for this research
was limited
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
○ Conclusion
1. The implementation of DRTA strategy improves the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text at grade .
2. There were 4 factors influenced the changes of students’ reading comprehension of narrative text
○ Implications
This research implies that DRTA strategy can be chosen as a strategy to solve some problems in reading comprehension.
Suggestions
In accordance with the conclusions and implication, the suggestions can be given as follows:
1. The researcher as the English teacher should continue applying DRTA strategy in teaching reading comprehension of narrative text as an alternative strategy in teaching.
2. Other English teachers are suggested to do research about DRTA for the other kinds of text