THE USE OF DIRECTED READING THINKING ACTIVITY IN TEACHING READING NARRATIVE TEXT : A Quasi Experimental Study at One Private School in Bandung.

THE USE OF DIRECTED READING THINKING ACTIVITY

IN TEACHING READING NARRATIVE TEXT

(A Quasi Experimental Study at One Private School in Bandung)

A Research Paper

Submitted to English Education Department as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan degree

By:

Riska Inggriana Setiadi

0704608

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

THE USE OF DIRECTED READING THINKING ACTIVITY

IN TEACHING READING NARRATIVE TEXT

(A Quasi Experimental Study at One Private School in Bandung)

Oleh

Riska Inggriana Setiadi

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salahs atu syarat gelar Sarjana Pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

© Riska Inggriana Setiadi 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Oktober 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian, Dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis

PAGE OF APPROVAL

THE USE OF DIRECTED READING THINKING ACTIVITY IN TEACHING READING NARRATIVE TEXT

(A Quasi Experimental Study at One of Non-Public Schools in Bandung)

By

Riska Inggriana Setiadi 0704608

Approved by

Supervisor I Supervisor II

Dr. Dadang Sudana, M.A. Riesky, S.Pd., M.Ed. NIP.195901121985032001 NIP.198105252005011002

Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed. NIP.196211011987121001

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the use of Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA) technique in teaching reading narrative texts and also the students’ Perception towards the use of DRTA technique in teaching narrative text. The design of this study was quasi experimental by using two classes, each of which consisted of 20 students further assigned into control and experimental classes. The data were collected through pre-test, postest, and questionnaire. The result of independent t-test computation showed that t-obt = 5.393 was greater than the t-crit =0.312 on the significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed) with the effect size of 0.65. It means that there was a significance difference between the post-test score of experimental and control groups after the treatment. Thus it can be concluded that DRTA technique was effective in teaching reading narrative texts. The analysis on the questionnaire indicated that the students gave positive perceptions toward the use of DRTA where 90% of the students agreed that DRTA improved their reading ability. It is recommended that DRTA technique be used in teaching and learning reading.

Table of Contents

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... i

PREFACE _... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _... iii

ABSTRACT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS _... vi

LIST OF TABLES _... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ... x

LIST OF APPENDICES _... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Statements of the Problems ... 3

1.3 Aims of the Study ... 3

1.4 Scope of the Study ... 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ... 4

1.6 Clarification of Key Terms ... 5

1.7 Organization of the Paper ... 6

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION _... 7

2.1 Reading ... 7

2.2 Reading Comprehension ... 9

2.3 Teaching Reading ... 10

2.3.1 Conventional Technique ... 11

2.3.2 Alternative Technique ... 11

2.5 Narrative Texts ... 15

2.5.1 Definitions ... 15

2.5.2 Generic Structure and Language Features of Narrative Text... 16

2.6 Students’ Perceptions ... 17

2.7 Previous Related Studies ... 18

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20

3.1 Research Design ... 20

3.2 Population and Sample ... 22

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis ... 22

3.3.1 Data Collection ... 23

3.3.1.1 Reading Test ... 23

3.3.1.2 Questionnaire ... 25

3.3.2 Data Analysis ... 26

3.3.2.1 Scoring Technique ... 26

3.3.2.2 Pilot Test ... 27

3.3.2.3 Validity Test ... 27

3.3.2.4 Level of Difficulty Test ... 28

3.3.2.5 Discrimination Test ... 28

3.3.2.6 Reliability Test ... 29

3.3.2.7 Pre-test Data Analysis ... 29

3.3.2.8 Normality of Distribution Test ... 30

3.3.2.9 Variance Homogeneity Test ... 30

3.3.2.10 Independent t-Test ... 31

3.3.2.12 Effect size ... 31

3.3.2.13 Dependent t-Test ... 32

3.3.2.14 Questionnaire Data Analysis ... 33

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 34

4.1 Hypothesis Testing ... 34

4.1.1 Pre-Test ... 34

4.1.1.1 Normality of Distribution Test ... 34

4.1.1.2 Variance Homogeneity Test ... 35

4.1.1.3 Independent t-Test... 36

4.1.2 Pre-Test ... 38

4.1.2.1 Normality of Distribution Test ... 38

4.1.2.2 Variance Homogeneity Test ... 38

4.1.2.3 Independent t-Test... 39

4.1.2.4 Effect Size ... 41

4.1.2.5 Dependent t-Test ... 42

4.2 Students Perception ... 44

4.3 Discussions ... 47

CHAPTER V CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS _{... 50}

5.1 Conclusions ... 50

5.2 Suggestions ... 51

REFERENCES _{... 52} APPENDICES

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the general issues related to the study. These include Background of the Study, Statements of the Problem, Aims of the Study, Scope of the Study, Significance of the Study, Clarification of Key Terms, and Organization of the Paper.

1.1Background of the Study

Reading is a part of human life. In daily activities, people deals with it, such as reading a brochures, reading letters, reading newspapers and reading short messages and so on. It is very useful in different ways and for various purposes. As it is inseparable from people’s life, it is important to master reading skill.

Reading deals with written language which is different from spoken language. Therefore, the sill of reading cannot be mastered by natures as speaking or listening skill. Cameron (2001) stated that reading requires individual’s specific skills and knowledge about how written language operates on text. Hence, reading skill needs to be taught explicitly.

In language teaching and learning, reading has been taught from primary to high school. However, a great number of students are still lacks of reading skill, especially in English as a foreign language (ESL). Although, some students could read texts well, they were unable to retain the information and many students encounter some trouble in summarizing or pulling main ideas from their reading.

Besides, students may be able to complete their reading assignment but they are not aware that they had problems understanding to text (Ozckus, 2003).

Results finding shows that teaching reading comprehension to students is not an easy task for teachers. The difficulty are due to large class size, limited reading strategies, and lack of consideration in applying the suitable strategy in teaching process (Yoosabai, 2009). The teacher usually explains everything to students by translating each sentence or word by word rather than helping students read by promoting thinking about the meaning (Panmanee, 2009). The technique seems to lead the students to think that reading is tiring and boring since it forces the students to deal with the meaning of each word. Another unproductive teaching strategy which commonly appeared is asking students to read aloud sentence by sentence or each section and then answers the questions given. Essentially, English teachers can present the reading material better and meet all learners’ needs if they can teach the students by using an interactive way.

In order to encourage students to read interactively and develop their reading comprehension, teachers need to find an effective exercise for students by using different reading strategies for different purposes (Panmanee, 2009). One of popular strategy that can improve students’ reading comprehension is Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) (Stauffer, 1969).

Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) is an instructional framework that views reading as a problem-solving process best accomplished in a social context (Stauffer, 1969). The teacher’s role in this framework is to select an instructional leveled text, divide the text into meaningful sections, and facilitate

discussion of each section of the text. Meanwhile, Students are responsible for establishing their own purposes for reading, generating prediction, and verifying or revising predictions during the discussion of each section. In addition, Stauffer recommends using DRTA with narrative or non-narrative text at all grade levels.

Considering the explanation above, this study is conducted to find out whether the use of DRTA in teaching reading narrative text can be an effective technique, especially for tenth grade of senior high school. Narrative text is chosen because it is commonly read by senior high school students. It is hoped that this study can be one of references for English teachers to teach reading in interesting and enjoyable ways in order to motivate the students to read.

1.1Statements of the Problem

This study is conducted to answer these following questions:

1. Is the use of Direct Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) effective in teaching reading narrative text?

2. What is the students’ perception toward the use of DRTA method in teaching reading narrative text?

1.3 Aims of the Study

Based on the questions formulated above, the aims of the study are:

1. To find out whether teaching reading narrative text using DRTA

2. To investigate the students’ perception toward the implementation of Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) technique in teaching reading narrative text.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study focuses on teaching reading by using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) technique at the first year in SMA in Bandung. Dealing with reading skills, the researcher focuses on reading narrative text since it is one of the text types that must be learnt by tenth grade students of Senior High School (Model Syllabus and RPP, 2007). While for comparison, the whole class lecturing method is given in the control group.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is expected to make contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning English in Indonesia, particularly in senior high school.

This study is also expected to enhance students’ and teachers’ knowledge related

to reading skills and to develop their creativity in packing the reading process into meaningful action.

1.6 Clarification of Key Terms:

To avoid misconception and misunderstanding, several terms are clarified. Those are:

a. The Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) is a comprehension strategy that guides students in asking questions about a text, making predictions, and then reading to confirm or refute their predictions (Stauffer, 1969).

b. Reading is an activity in combining words into idea to get new information of the whole text (Spache, 1964).

c. Reading Comprehension is building construction process while reading text (Harris &hodges, 2005).

d. Narrative text is a piece of writing which has purpose to entertain, it also deals with problematic events that leads to crisis and turning point (Gerrot&Wignell, 1994).

e. Whole class lecturing method is an instructional method which teacher delivers the materials to all students in the form of lecturing and demonstrating, and leads discussion in the form of question and answer (Stahl, 1994).

1.7 Organization of the Paper

This paper will be presented in five chapters. The chapter will be subdivided into subtopics that will elaborate the issue given. Chapter I discusses the background of the study, statement of problems, aims of the study, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, clarification of key terms and organization of the paper. Chapter II provides the theoretical foundation of the study. The theory discussed include reading, reading comprehension, teaching reading, DRTA, narrative text, students’ perception and previous related studies. Chapter III elaborates the research design, population and sample, and data collection and analysis. Chapter IV presents the findings and discussions of the study. Finally, chapter V presents all the conclusions of the study and also provides for implications and suggestions for further researchers and related institutions.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents research methodology employed in this study, as an attempt to find the answer to the following issues, namely if the use of Direct Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) effective in teaching reading narrative text, and the students’ perception toward the use of DRTA method in teaching reading narrative text. In general, it covers Research Design, Population and Sample, also Data Collection and Analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This study used a quantitative method and applied a quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent control group. Hatch and Farhady (1982) state that non-equivalent control group design means that there are two groups in the study, namely experimental and control groups. In this case, both groups were in the same grade level but used a different set of teaching in the teaching and learning process. Narrative text was used as the materials in teaching and learning process. Each group was taught how to read narrative texts, yet the experimental group applied some treatments to find out the answers of research questions. Meanwhile control group was taught through the conventional method, which is the whole class lecturing method.

Pre-test and post-test were conducted in this research. Pre-test was given at the beginning of the research and post-test was given at the end of the research. The results of those tests were used to find out whether or not there are any

difference between the experimental group and control group. The research design of the study will be illustrated in the following table:

Table 3.1

The Quasi-Experimental Design

Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test

Experimental Xe 1 T Xe2

Control Xb 1 O Xb 2

Xe 1 : Students’ reading scores of the experimental group on pre-test Xb 1 : Students’ reading scores of the control group on pre-test T : Treatment uses DRTA

O : No treatment

Xe 2 : Students’ reading scores of the experimental group on post-test Xb 2 : Students’ reading score of the control group on post-test

Furthermore, this study tested two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is null hypothesis (Ho) which states that there is no significant different in total mean score between the experimental group and control group. The notation of the null hypothesis is as follows:

Ho :

µ

1 =

µ

2

Ho : Alternative hypothesis

µ

1 : Experimental group

The second hypothesis is an alternative hypothesis (Ha) which states that

there is a significant difference in total mean score between experimental and control groups. The notation of alternative hypothesis is as follows:

Ha :

µ

1 ≠

µ

2

Ha : Alternative hypothesis

µ

1 : Experimental group

µ

2 : Control group

3.2 Population and Sample

The population of this study was the tenth grades students of a private Senior High School in Bandung. The school was chosen due to an easier accesses to the writer to conduct the study in this school. Moreover, the sample was selected by using persuasive sampling in which the sample is not randomly selected. This study only used two classes as the sample of the study. The first class, XB was the experimental group and the other, XE was the control group. Each group consists of 25 students. To anticipate the absence of some students during the research, there were only 20 students from each class as the sample. Therefore, the settle number of the sample are 40 students.

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

In collecting data, this research study starts from the step of organizing teaching procedures for experimental and control group classes, organizing the research instruments, trying out to test instrument, and then administering pre-test

to both experimental and control groups in order to find the initial ability between the two groups.

After lesson plans were organized, DRTA in teaching reading narrative text was applied to experimental group students and teaching reading narrative text with conventional method (whole-class lecturing) was applied to control group. At the end of experimental treatment, post-test was administered to both control and experimental groups in order to find out the result of the treatment. Furthermore, to answer the second research question, a questionnaire was administered to the experimental group in order to gather further information on students’ perception toward the implementation of DRTA in teaching narrative text.

3.3.1 Data Collection

The data collection involved two instruments, namely reading test and questionnaire.

3.3.1.1 Reading Test

Research instruments are the tools which are used to measure something that we observe in order to obtain the data and answer the research problems (Sugiono, 2011). The instruments that were used in this study are pre-test, post-test, and questionnaire.

Pre-test was administered in both experimental and control groups. The test instrument was a reading comprehension test. It was given to the experimental and control groups to find the initial differences between the groups of students

who had a similar level of reading. Moreover, a post-test was implied in the last program of the research. After conducting several treatments, researcher administered the post-test to both experimental and control groups. This post-test was given to find out whether or not there are any difference between those groups as a result of some treatment given. All items of reading test were the same as those of the pre-test. It consisted of thirty multiple choice questions. It was composed based on standards in Indonesian curriculum of English teaching, as explained in the following tables:

Table 3.2

The Competencies and Indicators of Reading Test Aspect Standard

Competence

Basic Competence Indicators

Reading 11.

Understanding the meaning of the simple short essay in the form of recount and

narrative relative to the environment

11.2

Giving respond to the meaning in the simple functional text accurately, clearly, and

appropriately relate to the environment

11.3

Giving response to the meaning and the rhetorical stage in accurately, clearly, and appropriately relates to the environment in the recount and narrative

Identifying the generic

structures of the text which include theme, place, time and actor/actress.

Identify type of the text

Identify contents of the text

Table 3.3

Material Content of Multiple Choices Questions

No Number of Questions Learning Material

Pre-test Post-test

1 2,5,7,11,15 1,5,22,25,27 Identifying the generic structure 2 4,9,10,12,13,23,24,

25,26,27,28,29,30

2,3,13,14,15,16,17, 18,19,20,24,29,30

Identifying contents of the text

3 1,3,6,8,14,16,17,18, 19,20,21,22

4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 21,23,26,28

Language features

However, the pilot test had to be administered before conducting pre-test and post-test to the experimental and control groups in order to find whether the instruments were appropriate to be used in pre-test and post-test by discovering the value of validity, index of difficulty, reliability, and discrimination index. The pilot test was conducted in another class that did not belong to the control and experimental groups.

3.3.1.2 Questionnaire

According to Arikunto (2006), a questionnaire is a written test used to gain the information from the respondent. There are two types of questionnaire, namely open questionnaire and closed questionnaire. In open questionnaire, the respondents have a freedom to answer the question based on their own word of opinions. In closed questionnaire, a number of possible answers of questions are given by the researcher, so that the respondents only choose one of them. The advantage of using questionnaire is that the test can be given to a large number of

people at the same time, while the disadvantages are the unclear or ambiguous questionnaire cannot be clarified, and the respondents have no chance to expand or react verbally to particular questions (Conoley and Kramer, 1989).

The questionnaire was distributed in the experimental group after both control and experimental groups had finished their post-test. The closed questionnaire was used in order to provide consistency of response across the students and generally easier to use and analyzed related to the objectives of the study (Nunan, 1992). The questionnaire was conducted to find out the students’ perceptions toward the use of DRTA in teaching reading narrative text. The questionnaire consisted of 7 questions with the following categories:

Table 3.4

Questionnaire Categories

No Aspects Item

number

Total

1 Students’ feelings toward the use of DRTA

1,7 2

2 Students’ thoughts toward the use of DRTA

2,3,4,5,6 5

Total 7

3.3.2 Data Analysis

3.3.2.1 Scoring Technique

Since this study employed multiple choice questions, the scoring technique of the questions used the formulation with no punishment. The formula without

punishment is a formula that has no minus system of score to the students’ in correct answers (Arikunto, 2006). The formula of scoring technique is stated as follows:

S = R S = Score

R = Right

3.3.2.2 Pilot Test

The pilot test was conducted to find out whether or not the instrument was valid and reliable. In other words, it was to see if the test was appropriate to use or not. Furthermore, results of pilot test are attached in Appendix C.

3.3.2.3 Validity Test

The validity test was used to see whether the test was valid or not to be used in pre-test and post-test. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), validity refers to appropriateness, meaningfulness, correctness and usefulness of the inferences a researcher makes.

Pearson’s Product Moment was applied to test the validity. The data can be calculated using Bivariate-Correlation in SPSS 16 for Windows or calculated using Anates V4 programs. The result of r coefficient correlation is consulted to the critical table of r Product Moment. If the value of r-obtained is bigger than the r critical value with alpha 0.05, the correlation is significant and it can be said that the item is valid (Arikunto, 2003).

3.3.2.4 Difficulty Test (Item Facility)

This test was done to measure how far the test item relevant to the participants’ ability; whether the test items were too easy or too difficult for the participant. According to Heaton (1955) in order to find out how easy or difficult certain items established in the test, it can be analyzed using item difficulty index or facility value.

Therefore, items with facility value around 0.50 were considered to be ideal, with an acceptable range being from around 0.30 to 0.70.

The following is the formula of difficulty index:

FV = Facility/ Index of difficulty R = The number of correct answers

N = The number of students taking the test

3.3.2.5 Discrimination Test

Arikunto (2006) states that discrimination index is used to indicate how far a single test item can differentiate the upper group from the lower group of the class. The procedures to find the discrimination index are: (1) Arranging the students’ total scores and dividing the scores into two groups of equal size (the top half and the bottom half), (2) Counting the number of the students in the upper group who answer each item correctly, then counting the number of lower group students who answer the item correctly, (3) Subtracting the number of correct answer in the upper group to find the difference in the proportion passing in the

upper group and the proportion passing the lower group, and (4) Dividing the difference by the total number of students in one group.

The following formula is used to calculate the discrimination index of an item:

√

rpbi = point biserial correlation

Xp = mean score on the test for those who get the item correct Xq = mean score on the test for those who get the item incorrectly Sx = standard deviation of test scores

p = the proportion of test takers who get the item correct (facility value) q = the proportion of test takers who get the item incorrectly.

3.3.2.6 Reliability Test

Fraenkel & Wallen (1990) state that reliability refers to the consistency of the scores obtained from one administration of an instrument to another and from one set items to another. To test the reliability of the instrument, Alpha Cronbach in SPSS 16.0 for Windows was performed. Then it was interpreted based on the following categorization:

3.3.2.7 Pre-test Data Analysis

Pre-test and post-test were given to the experimental and control groups in the same procedures. A hypothesis started with the alpha level at 0.05. The data

were collected through pre-test and post-test computed one by one using SPSS 16.0 for Windows.

The steps taken in analyzing pre-test and post-test were: normal distribution test, homogeneity variance, and independent t-test. The details of statistical procedures are as follows:

3.3.2.8 Normality of Distribution Test

A Normality test was conducted to ensure that the students’ scores were normally distributed, it was computed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in SPSS 16 for Windows. Before the test, the null hypothesis was established; Ho: the data taken from samples which are distributed normally. The level of significance then was set at 0.05.

3.3.2.9 Variance Homogeneity Test

The variance homogeneity test was intended to find whether the variance score of both experimental and control groups were homogenous or not. The data were calculated using Levene Test in SPSS 16 for Windows. The null hypothesis was stated before conducting test, which was Ho: the variance score of both experimental and control groups being homogenous. The level of significance was 0.05.

3.3.2.10 Independent t-Test

Lastly, the data taken from pre-test were analyzed using independent t-test to ensure that the score of the two groups (experimental and control group) were not significantly different. It was also intended to ensure that the two groups had equal ability and could be used as samples in this research.

The null hypothesis was Ho = there is no significant different between experimental and control mean scores on pre-test (Experimental Group = Control Group). With the level of significance of 0.05, the computation of independent t-test was then conducted using SPSS 16 for Windows.

3.3.2.11 Post-test Data Analysis

The post-test data analysis was quite the same as the pre-test data analysis. The primary distinction lied on the purpose. The purpose of the pre-test was simply to see both groups’ difference prior to the treatment while the purpose of the post-test was to see whether the treatment made any significant difference in students’ achievement. Another distinction was that there was no effect size calculation in pre-test but it was employed in the post-test to see how effective the treatment was. The analysis of post-test are elaborated in the next chapter.

3.3.2.12 Effect Size

An effect size test was conducted to find out the level of effect of the treatment given after the calculation of t-test is done. The purpose of the test is to determine how significant the impact of the treatment of the experimental group’s

score is. According to Collidge (2000), effect size refers to the effect of the influence of independent variable upon the dependent variable. The formulation effect size can be seen as follows:

√

Where:

r = effect size t = t- test value

dƒ = degree of freedom (the amount of samples minus 2. dƒ = N1+N2-2) The value of effect size will be interpreted to the following scale:

Table 3.5 Scale of Effect Size

Effect Size r Value

Small .100

Medium .243

Large .371

3.3.2.13 Dependent t-Test

Dependent t-test was used to analyze the effectiveness of using DRTA by comparing the mean score on pre-test and postest of each group. Dependent test was calculated by SPSS 16 for Windows. If the obtained is bigger than t-critical value at level 0.05, it means that the use of DRTA is effective.

3.3.2.14 Questionnaire Data Analysis

This study used a set of questions in order to answer students’ perception toward the use of DRTA technique in reading narrative text. In constructing each question in the questionnaire, it is important to determine the data that should be gathered related to the objective of the study (Nunan, 1992). Thus, the questionnaire items were divided into two parts based on students’ feelings and thoughts toward the used of DRTA in teaching narrative text.

Data from the questionnaire were analyzed based the frequency of the students’ answers and their impressions of the application of DRTA were interpreted as well in chapter IV. The results of the questionnaire are put into the percentage below:

In which:

P = percentage

ƒo = frequency of observed n = number of samples

Table 3.6 Criteria of Percentage Percentage of

respondents Criteria

1-25 % Small number of the students 26-49 % Nearly half of the students

50 % Half of the students

51-75 % More than half of the students 76-99% Almost all of the students

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter concludes the present study and offers some suggestions. The conclusion are provided to address the problems of the study which are formulated on the problems of the study. The suggestions are made based on the result of the study and corresponding discussion.

5.1 Conclusions

After analyzing the whole data, this study came up with several conclusions that cover: (1) DRTA is effective in teaching reading narrative text; (2) by using DRTA, students are more active in reading class since they have their prior knowledge; and (3) students are motivated to read more by the application of DRTA.

In addition to those conclusions regarding with the strength of the study, this study also ended up with some of its weaknesses. First of all, the result of the questionnaire is not guaranteed accurate since the questionnaire was distributed at the last minute of the lesson. Second of all, the implementation of quasi-experimental led to a debate that the group with special treatments will be improved.

5.2 Suggestions

Suggestions are directed to teachers and future researchers. Teachers are recommended to use the DRTA to teach reading narrative texts. However, DRTA could also be considered to be carried out in teaching other subjects such as history, Indonesian language, and so on. It can be one alternative technique for teaching students at different levels of schooling such as primarily school or junior high school. Lastly, it is recommended that teachers pay more attention to students who are passive when making predictions during reading activities.

For further researches, the weaknesses of this study could be their reason to conduct a better research. Firstly, they may study the same topic in different research designs to know whether or not the use of DRTA is effective in

improving students’ abilities in other subjects. Secondly, they may also conduct the study on the use of DRTA in reading other genres to see the effect on the use of it. Lastly, they may also conduct this study in longer tome allocation, and at different levels of schooling.

REFERENCES

Almanza, T. (1997). The effects of DRTA and co-operative learning strategies on

reading comprehension. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ed405565

Almasi, C. (2003). Teaching strategic process in reading. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved on June 23, 2012, from http://academia.edu/3694810 Anderson, J. (1969). Efficient reading: A Practical guide. Sydney: McGram Hill

Book Company.

Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (2003). Text types in English 2. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Austalia PTd.

Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur penelitian suatu praktik. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Barron, C. (1990). The impact of the directed reading thinking activity on critical

thinking skills in third grade students. Retrieved on February 23, 2012, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ed352640

Boumova, V. (2008). Traditional vs modern teaching method, advantages and

disadvantages of Each. Retrieved on December 12, 2012, from

http://is.muni.cz/ht/86952/ff_m_bl/MrgDiplomkaBoumova.Pdf Cameron, L. (2001) Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Carrell, P. L & Eisterhold, J. L. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading

pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, M & Silberstein, S. (1994). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic

2013, from

http>//www.ecdenver.edu/academics/colleges/schoolOfEducation/Faculyan dReserch/Documents/MarkClarke.pdf

Conoley, J. C &Kramer, J. J. (2989). The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE:Borus Institution of Mental Instruments

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Feez, S & Joyce, H. (2000). Writing skills: Narrative and non-fiction text type. Putney: Pheonix Education Pty Ltd

Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in

education, sixth edition. New York: Mc-Graw Hill Companies.

Gerot, L & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of fuctional grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprise.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. England: Longman.

Haris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of

reading and writing. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Retrieved from

http://www.uwosh.edu/coehs/wi-test/documents/Reading%20305%20Pikulski%20Fluency.pdf.

Hatch, E & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistic: for Applied

lingistics. University of California. Los Angles: Newburry House Publisher,

Jacob, V. A. (1999). What secondary teachers can do to teach reading. Harvard Education Press. Available at

http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/199ja/secondary.shtml.

Kuzu, A. (2008). Views of pre-service teachers on blog use for instruction and social interaction. Turkish Online Jurnal of Distance Education –TOJDE.

Retrieved on January 21, 2011, from http://is.muni.cz/th/86952/ff_m_b1/pdf Linsay, P &Norman, D. (1997). Human information processing: An

introductional to phycology, 2nd edition. Ney York: Academic Press

McGinnis, D. J & Dorothy, E. S. (1982). Analyzing and treating reading

problems. New York: Macmillan Publishing Corporation.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.

Ozckus, D. L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work (Strategies for improving

reading comprehension). Retrieved from Acrobat Reader [Pdf-finder.com].

Panmanee, W. (2009). Reciprocal teaching procedures and regular reading

instruction: Their effects on students’ reading development. Thesis.

Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.go.

Renn, C. (1999). The effects of directed reading thinking activity on second grade

Retrieved on May 5, 2012, from http://psynet.apa.org/journals/edu/96/4/682/

Riley, D. (2006). The effect of directed reading thinking activity on low reading

achievement first grade students. A Dissertation. Retrieved on May 5, 2012,

from

http://www.academia.edu/3694810/The_Effect_of_the_Directed_reading_th inking_activity_on_low_reading

_achievement_first_grade_students_ED502645

Romanov, N. (2011). What is perception?. Retrieved on April 14. 2012, from http://jornal.crossfits.com/2011/06/romanov7perception.tpl.

Rusnak, M. (1983). The relationship between teachers’ questions and students’

response during a directed reading thinking activity. Retrieved on May 5,

2012, from, http://www.readingrockets.org/article/26871/

Sahu, S. & Kar, A. (1994). Reading comprehension and information processing

strategies. Journal of Research in Reading. Retrieved on February 23, 2012,

from http://ww.asp.revues.org/3149/

Spache, G.D. (1964). Reading in the elementary school. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Stahl, K. A. D. (2003). The effect of three instructional methods on the reading

comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. A Dissertation.

University of Georgia. Retrieved on june, 13, 2012, from getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/stahl_katerine_a_200305_edd.pdf.

Stahl, R. J. (1994). Cooperative learning in social studies. A Handbook for

teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive Process. New York: Harper & Row.

Syafrizal. (2000). The correlation between students reading related language

learning strategies and their reading achievement. A thesis. Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia.

Tompkins, G. (2003). Literacy for 21st Century, 3rd Edition. Pearson Education.

Retrieved on February 23, 2012, from http://readingrockets.org/strategies/drta

Urquhart, A. H. & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language. London: Longman.

William, J. P. (1884). Strategic processing of text: Improving reading

comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Arlington:

ERIC/OSEP Digest.

Yoosabai, Y. (2009). The effect of reciprocal teaching on english reading

comprehension in a Thai high school classroom. Dissertation. Retrieved on

December 10, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.go.

Zabrucky, K & Ratner, H.H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on children’s

comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behaviour.

5.2 Suggestions

Suggestions are directed to teachers and future researchers. Teachers are recommended to use the DRTA to teach reading narrative texts. However, DRTA could also be considered to be carried out in teaching other subjects such as history, Indonesian language, and so on. It can be one alternative technique for teaching students at different levels of schooling such as primarily school or junior high school. Lastly, it is recommended that teachers pay more attention to students who are passive when making predictions during reading activities.

For further researches, the weaknesses of this study could be their reason to conduct a better research. Firstly, they may study the same topic in different research designs to know whether or not the use of DRTA is effective in improving students’ abilities in other subjects. Secondly, they may also conduct the study on the use of DRTA in reading other genres to see the effect on the use of it. Lastly, they may also conduct this study in longer tome allocation, and at different levels of schooling.

REFERENCES

Almanza, T. (1997). The effects of DRTA and co-operative learning strategies on reading comprehension. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ed405565

Almasi, C. (2003). Teaching strategic process in reading. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved on June 23, 2012, from http://academia.edu/3694810

Anderson, J. (1969). Efficient reading: A Practical guide. Sydney: McGram Hill Book Company.

Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (2003). Text types in English 2. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Austalia PTd.

Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur penelitian suatu praktik. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Barron, C. (1990). The impact of the directed reading thinking activity on critical thinking skills in third grade students. Retrieved on February 23, 2012, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ed352640

Boumova, V. (2008). Traditional vs modern teaching method, advantages and disadvantages of Each. Retrieved on December 12, 2012, from

http://is.muni.cz/ht/86952/ff_m_bl/MrgDiplomkaBoumova.Pdf Cameron, L. (2001) Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Carrell, P. L & Eisterhold, J. L. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2013, from

http>//www.ecdenver.edu/academics/colleges/schoolOfEducation/Faculyan dReserch/Documents/MarkClarke.pdf

Conoley, J. C &Kramer, J. J. (2989). The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE:Borus Institution of Mental Instruments

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.

Feez, S & Joyce, H. (2000). Writing skills: Narrative and non-fiction text type. Putney: Pheonix Education Pty Ltd

Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education, sixth edition. New York: Mc-Graw Hill Companies.

Gerot, L & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of fuctional grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprise.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. England: Longman.

Haris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE:International Reading Association. Retrieved from

http://www.uwosh.edu/coehs/wi-test/documents/Reading%20305%20Pikulski%20Fluency.pdf.

Hatch, E & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistic: for Applied lingistics. University of California. Los Angles: Newburry House Publisher, Inc.

Jacob, V. A. (1999). What secondary teachers can do to teach reading. Harvard Education Press. Available at

http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/199ja/secondary.shtml.

Kuzu, A. (2008). Views of pre-service teachers on blog use for instruction and social interaction. Turkish Online Jurnal of Distance Education –TOJDE. Retrieved on January 21, 2011, from http://is.muni.cz/th/86952/ff_m_b1/pdf

Linsay, P &Norman, D. (1997). Human information processing: An introductional to phycology, 2nd edition. Ney York: Academic Press McGinnis, D. J & Dorothy, E. S. (1982). Analyzing and treating reading

problems. New York: Macmillan Publishing Corporation.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.

Ozckus, D. L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work (Strategies for improving reading comprehension). Retrieved from Acrobat Reader [Pdf-finder.com]. Panmanee, W. (2009). Reciprocal teaching procedures and regular reading

instruction: Their effects on students’ reading development. Thesis.

Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.go.

Retrieved on May 5, 2012, from http://psynet.apa.org/journals/edu/96/4/682/

Riley, D. (2006). The effect of directed reading thinking activity on low reading achievement first grade students. A Dissertation. Retrieved on May 5, 2012, from

http://www.academia.edu/3694810/The_Effect_of_the_Directed_reading_th inking_activity_on_low_reading

_achievement_first_grade_students_ED502645

Romanov, N. (2011). What is perception?. Retrieved on April 14. 2012, from http://jornal.crossfits.com/2011/06/romanov7perception.tpl.

Rusnak, M. (1983). The relationship between teachers’ questions and students’ response during a directed reading thinking activity. Retrieved on May 5, 2012, from, http://www.readingrockets.org/article/26871/

Sahu, S. & Kar, A. (1994). Reading comprehension and information processing strategies. Journal of Research in Reading. Retrieved on February 23, 2012, from http://ww.asp.revues.org/3149/

Spache, G.D. (1964). Reading in the elementary school. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Stahl, K. A. D. (2003). The effect of three instructional methods on the reading comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. A Dissertation. University of Georgia. Retrieved on june, 13, 2012, from getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/stahl_katerine_a_200305_edd.pdf.

Stahl, R. J. (1994). Cooperative learning in social studies. A Handbook for teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive Process. New York: Harper & Row.

Syafrizal. (2000). The correlation between students reading related language learning strategies and their reading achievement. A thesis. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Tompkins, G. (2003). Literacy for 21st Century, 3rd Edition. Pearson Education. Retrieved on February 23, 2012, from

http://readingrockets.org/strategies/drta

Urquhart, A. H. & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language. London: Longman.

William, J. P. (1884). Strategic processing of text: Improving reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Arlington: ERIC/OSEP Digest.

Yoosabai, Y. (2009). The effect of reciprocal teaching on english reading

comprehension in a Thai high school classroom. Dissertation. Retrieved on December 10, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.go.

Zabrucky, K & Ratner, H.H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on children’s comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behaviour. Retrieved from