P.point seminar hasil

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 text
Expected 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

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 Interview
Task 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
The qualitative
data
from observation
sheets,
field notes
interview

For analyzing the data from the
individual score
Note:
S = Student’s score
X = Number of correct answer
N = 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
Reading/memoing
Classifying
Describing
Interpreting

1. The extent to which DRTA strategy improved the students’
reading comprehension of narrative text
No
Score Interval
Number of
Students/meeting
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 1 2 3
1. 90 – 100 1 3.7
2. 80 – 89 3 5 5 11.11 18.51 18.51
3. 70 – 79 4 3 2 14.81 11.11 7.4
4. 60 – 69 4 6 11 14.81 22.22 68.17
5. 50 – 59 9 6 2 33.33 22.22 7.4
6. 40-49 4 6 7 14.81 22.22 25.92
7. 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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
M.I M.II M.III
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
63.00%
66.00%
59.30%
55.60%
51.90%
50.60%
70.40%
67.90%
63%
66.70%
55.60%
53.70%
62.90%
65.90%
62.90%
59.30%
53.70% 53.50%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
General Detailed Main Unstated Supporting Schematic
Information Information Idea Idea Details Structure
M.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 1
The 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
1
The 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
No
Score Interval
Number of
Students/meeting
Percentage (%)
1 2 3 1 2 3
1. 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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
M. I M. II M. III
51.85
59.26
62.96

Graphic 4. The condition of each indicator of students’ reading
comprehension through reading task in each meeting in cycle
2
CYCLE 2
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%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
M 1
M 2
M 3
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
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2
62.4
70.74

Cycle 2
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.
comprehension
 general information was 85.2
 detailed information was 75.0

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

No
Score 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
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
M.I M.II
70.37
81.48

Graphic 7. The Condition of Each Indicator of Students’
Reading Comprehension Task in Each Meeting in Cycle 3
Cycle 3
77.80% 77.80%
74.10% 74.10%
66.70%
68.50%
85.20% 85.20%
77.80%
79.60%
69.10%
74.10%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
M.1
M..2
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
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3
70.74
78.52

Cycle 3
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.
comprehension
 general information was 90.7
 detailed information was 85.2

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).
62.4
70.74
78.52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3

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 strategy
 Otto (1979: 242)
 Glass (2006)

C. Limitation of the Research
 Not all students could be interviewed.
 The time allocated for this research
was limited

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION
S, 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

P.point seminar hasil

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à P.point seminar hasil

Similaire à P.point seminar hasil (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

P.point seminar hasil