Table 10: The Comparison Scores among Post-test and Pre-test
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum
Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation Pretest
29 68.00
83.00 73.6897
3.79006 Postest
29 77.00
88.00 79.0000
2.81577 Valid N listwise
29
The table presents the score of reading pretest and posttest. The minimum score of the pre-test is 68.00 and the maximum one is 83.00 while the
minimum score of post-test is 77.00 and the maximum score is 88.00. These scores improvement influences the mean of the both test. The pre-test mean is
73.68 and the post-test mean is 79.00. It is higher than the pre-test scores. It means that there was improvement
in students’ reading comprehension showed by the improvement of the students’ scores.
99
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS
This chapter summarizes the findings in the previous chapter. It presents the implications and suggestions as well. The detail explanation is presented as follows.
A. Conclusions
This part concludes the findings on how Directed Reading Thinking Activity DRTA improving
the grade VIII students’ reading comprehension at SMP N 9 Magelang.
Two kinds of data are presented to confirm the students’ improvement in reading comprehension. The data are qualitative and quantitative data. In terms
of the qualitative data, the results are presented as follows. 1. DRTA successfully facilitated the students to generate the main idea
and identify the detail information of the text through making prediction, reading and confirming the predictions.
2. Pre-teaching vocabulary and predicting helped the students recognizing clues to guess and understand the unfamiliar words from
context. 3. Group discussion helped students actively participate during the
reading class. 4. The use of PPT made the students actively engaged during the
teaching and learning process. In terms of the quantitative data, the improvement of the students’ reading
comprehension was supported by comparing the students’ reading scores after
the pre-test and post-test. The students’ mean scores in the pre-test is 73.68 while
in the post-test, it increases 5.32 points to 79.00. In conclusion, based on the result of the research and the data found, it can be said that DRTA is effective to
improve the students’ reading comprehension.
B. Implications
In regard of the conclusions, the implementation of Directed Reading Thinking A
ctivity can improve the students’ reading comprehension, especially in the matter of identifying the main ideas and detail information. Hence, some
implications can be drawn as follows. 1. DRTA is helpful to make the students thinking while reading so they can
understand the text better. 2. Pre-teaching vocabulary and predicting can be implemented in
recognizing the meaning of unfamiliar words. 3. Working in group, encourages the students to be more confident in
joining the class activities. 4. The use of PPT in teaching and learning process is beneficial to attract the
students’ attention so that they will be more interested to learn the materials.
C. Suggestions
Based on the result of the research, the conclusions, and the implications of the directed reading thinking activity DRTA implementation to improve the
students’ reading comprehension, the researcher wants to suggest some points for
the English teacher and the further researchers. The suggestions are intended to find and enhance the effective ways in teaching reading, especially for the junior
high school students. The recommendations are presented as follows. 1. For the English teachers
Comprehension is one of crucial issues of reading. It can be achieved by applying some strategies in reading. Hence, the teachers should
facilitate the students with the most suitable and feasible strategy of reading. DRTA can be used to help the students thinking while reading.
2. For other researchers The implementation of Directed Reading Thinking Activity can
improve the students’ reading comprehension. It is suggested for other researchers to use Directed Reading Thinking Activity as one the
references in teaching reading.
102
REFERENCES
Bouchard, M. 2005. Comprehension Strategies for English Language Learners. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Brown, H. D. 2007. Teaching by Principles. England Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
________ 2006. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 5
th
Ed.. New York: Pearson Education
________ 2004. Language Assessment : Principles and Classroom Practices. America: Longman.
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in Language Teaching: A Guide to Practitioners. London New York: Routledge.
________ 2007. Systemic Action Research. Bristol: Policy Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. 2010. Research Methods in Education
5th Ed.. New York: Routledge. Depdiknas. 2013. Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta : Depdiknas.
Grellet, F. 1983. Developing Reading Skills: A practical guide to reading comprehension exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. 2001. How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of Language Teaching. Essex, England: Longman.
Hedgcock, J. S. and Ferris, D. R. 2009. Teaching Readers of English: Students, Text, and Context. Routledge: UK
Johnson, A. P. 2008. Teaching Reading and Writing: a guide book for tutoring and remediating students. Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Groups,
Inc.: USA Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar, Technologies for
Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney University of New Southwales. Lems, K., Meller, L. D., and Soro, T. M. 2010. Teaching Reading to English
Language Learner. NY: The Guilford Press Mickulecky, B. S., and Jeffries, L. 2004. More Reading Power: Reading for
Pleasure, Comprehension Skills, Thinking Skills, Reading Faster, 2
nd
Ed.. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Moreillon,
J. 2007.
Collaborative Strategies
for Teaching
Reading Comprehension: Maximizing Your Impact. USA: American Library
Association.
