P.point seminar hasil

of 52

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
PDF
52 pages
0 downs
21 views
Share
Description
1. INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Problem The Reading Problems The Causes of the Problems The Solution of the Problems The Reasons of the Solution 2. B. Identification…
Transcript
  • 1. INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Problem The Reading Problems The Causes of the Problems The Solution of the Problems The Reasons of the Solution
  • 2. B. Identification of the Problem Lack of interest in reading Lack of vocabulary Lack of background knowledge about the text Teaching strategy
  • 3. C. Focus of the Problem Reading strategy DRTA To improve reading comprehension of narrative text
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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.
  • 6. 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
  • 7. G. Definition of the Key Terms 1. Reading Comprehension 2. Narrative Text 3 . Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)
  • 8. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE A. Review of the Related Theories B. Review of the Related Findings C. The Conceptual Framework
  • 9. 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.
  • 10. 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.
  • 11. 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)
  • 12. 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.
  • 13. 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
  • 14. PLAN ACTION OBSERVATION REFLECTION CYCLE CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH (CAR) Kemmis & Mc Taggart (1988 : 11) METHOD OF THE RESEARCH A. Type of the Research
  • 15. The second week of April - the third week of May 2012 SMAN 1 Solok Selatan 27 students of grade X5 B. Research Setting
  • 16. C. INTRUMENTS Observation Field notes Interview Task and Test
  • 17. 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.
  • 18. 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
  • 19. 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.
  • 20. E. Techniques of Collecting the Data The direct observation, field notes, interview TASK and TEST
  • 21. F. Techniques of Analyzing the Data The Quantitative Data. Task and test The qualitative data from observation sheets, field notes interview
  • 22. For analyzing the data from the individual score Note: S = Student’s score X = Number of correct answer N = Number of items
  • 23. 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
  • 24. Note : P = Percentage f = Frequency of students’ obtained score N = Total Number of Students The formula of percentage of students’ reading score
  • 25. The qualitative data will be described using the steps offered by Gay and Airasian (2009: 449-456). Data managing Reading/memoing Classifying Describing Interpreting
  • 26. 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
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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%
  • 29. 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
  • 30. 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.
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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)
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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 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%
  • 35. 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
  • 36. The Result of Reading Test (table 9) Cycle 2 The 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
  • 37. 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.
  • 38. 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
  • 39. 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
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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 General Detailed Main Unstated Supporting Schematic Information 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%
  • 42. 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
  • 43. The Result of Reading Test (table 11) Cycle 3 The 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
  • 44. 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
  • 45. 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
  • 46. 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
  • 47. B. Discussion  DRTA : Richardson and Morgan (1997) Gipe ( 2001) Khalek (2006) Yusuf (2008) Rika Widyantara (2009) Yusriati (2011)
  • 48. 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)
  • 49. C. Limitation of the Research  Not all students could be interviewed.  The time allocated for this research was limited
  • 50. 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.
  • 51. 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
  • Related Search
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks