You are on page 1of 9

IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION THROUGH

DIRECTED READING.THINKING ACTIVITY (DRTA) STRATEGY

Santi Erliana
Islanic StnteCollegeof PalangkaRntla
santierliana@vahoo.com

Abstract: This paper highlights the findings of a studv which was under-
taken at Islamic State College of Palangka Raya. The aim of the study was
to describe how the Directed Reading Thinking Activity (henceforth DRTA)
strategy can improve reading comprehension. The clata were taken from ob-
servation, field notes,questionnaire,and achievementtest.The result reveals
that the DRTA not only improves students' comprehension but also increas-
es their motivation in learning.

Key words: Comprehension, DRTA, expository, reading skill, text

Arnorrg the four language skills, reading is stand what they reacl(Goldman & Rakestraw,
thc. most important one since every aspect of 2000). Literary texts aim to appeal reacler's
lifc involves reading. For example road signs, emotion and imagination, r,r,hileinformation-
traffic regulation, menus in restaurants, la- al (factual)texts aim to show, tell or persuade
bels on ctrns, printed advertisements, news- the audience(Anderson& Anderson,2003:3).
papers, magazines, insurance forms, and so The nature of textsaffectscomprehensionand
forth (Burns et al., 1996:4).The ability to mas- clifferenttext tvpes must be read in diffe.rent
te.r this skill cletermines students' mastery of ways (Pearson& Camperell,1994). Therefore,
other skills since the successin reading is very the teachingof readingshould emphasizethe
inrportant to students in both academic and teaching of both literary and informational
vocational advancement and for the stuclents' texts(NAEP CoverningBoard,2008:7).
psvchological well being (Carnine, et al., Among the two categories,reaclernee.cls to
1990:3).lts importance makes reading receive work harder in reacling for infonnation (in-
t-r special focus in many second or foreign- formational texts)than in reaclingfor plearsure
language situations (Richards and Renandva, (literary texts).Carnine et arl.(1990:339)state
2002:273). that in the attempt to comprehcnd expository
'Ihe
most important object in reading ac- materials reacleris expecteclto extract, inte-
tivitv is text. Anderson & Anderson (2003:1) grate, and retain significant rnain icleasand
clefine fe.tf as something constructed when details presenteclin the rnate.rialand to learn
a person speaksor writes to communicatea many specializeclvocabularv terms. It is be-
message.The reading activity begins when causc expository uses new orp;anizational
a reaclertries to understand the meaning of structures,uses more clifficult to decocleand
tl-retransferredmessage.In general,there are understanclvocabulary, useshigher denseof
tw,o main categoriesof text: literary and in- concept,and introduces unique typographic
formational. Literary and informational texts features.As thc result, expositorvis consid-
are rnarked by distinct structural characteris- ered to be more difficult than narrative. Ac-
tics that readersrely on as thev seekto uncler- cording to Mason and Au (7990:126), stuclents

lorrrttttlon Etrglish(rsn Forci.JrtLtttguugt,,Vttlutrtt,'1,Ntnttbt'r 1, Mtrclr 20111 49


ira v e rnore trouble cornpreher-rclin g expos iti on rerluirementsof comprehension,consequent-
be'cause(1) they do not have much experierrce ly English teachers; parrticularly the read-
reading expositorv texts, (2) teachers do not ing teachers,needs to provicle appropriate
usuallv teach studenis strategies needed for teaching ancl le;rrning process of exposi1611,
understancling expository texts, ancl (3) stu- texts by selecting and ;rclapting.rppropriate
dents may not have sufficient backgrouncl teaching strategy that meets the requirement
krrowleclge of the topic of the selection, or of of comprehensionand is effective irr solvir-rg
thc structure of the text. problems in reading expc-rsitory materials.
On the contrary, nruch of the re.ading rve From the nrany strategiesin teaching ex-
do is for information-sometimes for school pository texts, Stauffer's (1969) Directed-
ptlrposes ancl other tirnes for our or.l.n.For itr- IleadirreThinking Activitr' (DRTA) is tlre most
stance,in reading newspapers ancl magazines; appropriate strategv that meets the require-
browse the World Wide Web; reading bro- ment of comprehension(builclschemata,pro-
chures and manuals; and followinc directions vide opportunitiesin using reading strategy,
on appliances and in rc-cipes (Blachovt,icz & ancicnable the stutlentsto plarn,monitor, ancl
Ogle, 2008:91).ln fact, Srnith's (2000)study on evaluatetheir reading process)anrl is suitable.
the reacling practice.sby students and adults for reading informational text (Blachowich&
inrlicertesthat the.rnajoritv of reaclinc done bv Ogle, 2008).The DRTA (Stauffer, 1969)is a
middle ancl high school students as well arsby group-inquirl' reading approach for guidir-rg
arc-lultsis informational in nature. reaclersthrough a text cluring the first tin"re
In addition, in order to comprehend a text they read it ir-r;r classroorn.It comprises the
rr.aclernee.clsto recognize w,orc-lsand to conr- three'stages in reading (ple-, rvhilst- ancipost)
p.rre whart is written in the text with when it with three pl'Ltrses particularly at the whilst-
is usec'l irr conversation (to clecode), to a-rcti- reading stage:pre-reading phase, guide.d si-
vate and builtl what a re-aderalre..rclyknow's le-nt-re.adingphase,and post-reading (prove)
(schem.rta), to integrerte the schenrata with phase.Tankcrslcy(2005)statesthat the DRTA
lt'[-rat is untlcrstor-rc1from the clisccturse,to exterrdsreading to higher-orclerthought pro-
utilizc reacling strartegiesin tacklin5;reading cessesand provides lecturers with a great
prolrlenrs, .rnr'l to br. atwtlre.of their reacling clealabout eachstudent'sideas,thought pro-
pr()ccss.These requiremer-rtsshould bc t-.starb- cesses, prior knowledge.rndthinking skills.
lislrccir.t'ithincvcrl process of teaching read- This text comprehension strategy serves
inu. Appart'ntlv it takcs greater w,ill, plan ancl s€vercllpurposes: (a) e)icits students' prior
clt teru.rirr.rtiorr
of te;rchersto r-neett[ris gotrl. knowledge of the topic of the text; (b) encour-
llesearchers h;rve founcl that teaching reacl- agesstudentsto monitor their comprehension
inu strattgics is important to cleveloping irr- whik they are reading, and (c) sets.rpurposr.
cre.rscclsturltrrt comprehension. At the sante for reacling.The stuclentsrearcito confilm and
tinrc, thev havc founcl rnany teatcherslack a revise predictions they trre making through
solicl founciation for teaching these reading three phases,nan-rely:pre-reading, guidecl
conrprehe.r-rsionstratcgie.s(Natiou;rl Reading silerrtrearding,and post-re.acling. ln the appli-
P.rncl, 2005) Tirerefore, teachers neecl tcl bc c.-rtionof this strategy,,learners make specu-
p l'ep.rrecl,th rou gh profcssional clevelopmerlt, lation on what the writer will say in the text
on how, to clesigr-reff-ective comprehensiorr (e.g.making preclictionof the topic, the con-
stratr.sits ancl how to teach these strategiestcr tent,what tl-rete.xtwill be alrout,ancln,hat will
thcir stuclents.Improving readirrg skills is a happen next).During the reading process,tl-re
top prioritv for all eclucators (McKown & Bar- learnerswill stop in cert;rinpart of the text in
nett, 2007:4).Itegarding the proble.rnsand the order to prove or to verifr. their first predic-

50 llotrrtrrtlttttErtglishnso ForciqrtL.rtttgrrngr:,
Vttltrnrc'1
, Nurrfucr1, Mnrch 2011
tion. After that they will begin reading after Among narrative,descriptive,and expository
making another prediction. The emphasisof texts,the latestwas consideredto be most dif-
this comprehension strategy is in the abil- ficult. The identified causeswere becauseof
ity to make prediction. The DRTA provides the lack of background knowledge, the lack
the teacheropportunity to guide students to of knowledge of reading strategies,the lack of
think like good readersdo - anticipating,pre- use of reading strategies,the lack of students'
dicting, and then confirming and modifying active involvement during the teaching and
their ideas with the story as it unfolds (Bla- learning process, and the lack of students'
chowich & Ogle,2008). awarenessof the reading process.
The focus of this article is in providing the In order to solve the classroom'sproblem,
answer to question"[i'ow can Directed Read- together with the collaborator teacher the
ing Thinking Activity (henceforth DRTA) researcherdesigned the lesson plan and the
improve students'comprehensionin reading criteria of successof the study at the planning
expository text?" It is aimed at describing the phase;implemented the DRTA strategy in two
irnplementationof DRTA strategyin improv- cycleswith four rneetingsfor cycle1 and three
ir-rgthe reading comprehensionof the second meetings for cycle 2; recorded and collected
sernesterstudents at the English Education data dealing with the teaching and learning
Study Program of STAIN Palangka Raya in activitiesof ReadingComprehensionll using
arcademicy ear 2009/ 2010. Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA)
in the classroornand data about any aspector
METHOD
event that occursin the teachingand learning
The study emploved Collaborative Class-
processat the obsen,ingphase;ancl evaluates
room Action Research(CAR) designs uncler
the strength and the weaknessof the strate-
the proceclure of (a) identifying classroom
gy implenrented in the class at the reJlectittg
problcrn(s), (b) planning, (c) implcmenting,
phase.
(cl) observing, ancl (e) cvaluating. The sub-
There were three phasesof activitv in e'ach
jects of the studv were thirty-three stttdents
meeting: pre-reading stage, whilst reading
of the seconclsemesterof the English Educa-
stage,and post reaclingstage.Stuclents'par-
tion StuclvProgram of STAIN PalangkaRaya
ticipation in eachstagewas reflectedthrough
in 200c)/2010academicyear. The data were
their responsesand intereststoward step by
both qualitative and quantitative. The quali-
step activity in the three phasesof the DRTA
t.rtive c'lataderived from the students' active
strategy itself: pre-reading stage, guicled
participation during the implementation of
silent-reading stage and post-reaclingstage.
the str;'rtegv,while the quantitative clatawere
The better the technique implemented the
taker-rfrom the result of reading achievement
more active the students participate in the
test conducted at the encl of each cyclc. The
activities.By the end of each cycle, students'
instruments used in collecting the data were
reflectionon the implernentecltechniquewas
achievementtest,observation,field notesand
captured through questionnaire.
questionnaire.
The result of preliminarv study conducted FINDING AND DISCUSSION
bv the researcherin March 2010showed that The findings presentedin this sectioncom-
the studentshad problemsin identifying top- prised the stepsin conducting Reading Com-
ic and main ideas, distinguishing major and prehension II subjcct using DRTA strategy
minor details,recognizingauthor's organiza- and the students' active participtrtion during
tion the text structure,drawing inference,and the class.Basedon the results of the achieve-
identifving literal information from the text. ment test,overall progressof observationre-

on Englisltnsa ForeigtrLnngungt',
lourrtLtl Volurnel-, Nurnher1, Mtrclt 20111 51
sults, reflections from questionnaire,results writer's organizatiorr and text structure by
of the field notes and results of students' utilizing the text structure strategyand being
worksheet,it r.r,as concludedthartthe students aware of hor.r,tl-retext orgarnized.
had successfullyirnproved their achievement Besides,the procedure of DRTA with re-
in ternr of reading comprehensionarrd their structuring \ /as proven to be effective.in
learning participation in term of active and providing opportunity for the. stuclents to
positive engag€-ment in learning process. thirrk like gooclrearlersdo: activateanclbuild
Bv the end of the C1,cle2, the students schemata, and utilize effective strategies
gaineclsignificantirlprorrement in theachieve- duling readirrg.h-rthe first place, the DRTA
lnent, reflecting that the processof leanring was effectiveir.ractir.atingand building stu-
h.rcl effectively touchecl the nrain causesof derrts' schemata.Under the teacher's ciirect
their reading clifficulties.The ir.rcrc.ased
atril- instruction stuclents'schematawere truilt bv
ity to recognize stlucture' used by writer in pictures and key w.ords vocatrulariesgiven
organizing expositorv text in the restructur- at the pre-readingactivities.This procedure
ing activitv h.rs relcvancv to the increaseof was in line with Anderson's (7999:72)tlreorv
their reaclingcomprehcnsion.The following that before asking the stuc-lents to reacl rearl-
is the improveme.ntof students' scorcsfrom ing teacherneedsto establishbackground so
pre-test,cvcle-1anclcvclc-2. that thev have sufficient information to un-
derstandthe text. Within the processof learn-
Figure 1 Students' Scoresin Pre-test,Cycle-l, ing using DRT'A, thc sturlents utilize r.r,htrt
and Cycle-2 they havc known about the text ancl tr1' to
As in the.figure abor-e,there.was clecrcase find its relatior-rr,viththe existing infonnatior-r
in the number of stuclentswhose scoreat the. the tc'xt provide-sas thev verifv the.precise-
poor ancl fair certegr>ry. In the pre-test,thc.re ness of their prediction. By cloing this, the
we.re7 stuclentsw,hosescorL.are at the.poor stucicntsconstruct mearningbv using all the.
cate'gorr'.Horr'r'r'er,irr cycle-1, thesenumbers av.rilable resolrrcesfronr both the text .rncl
clccreasc.clinto 5. Moreover, there were 5 stu- i crus kn ow leclge (Yazclanparn ah, 2007:64).
pre'u,
clentsw,hosescoreirnprovc'dflom the-fair cat- This scher.nata builclingactivitv gained posi-
e€lorvanclreachecithe target score.Therer.n,as tive respouse from the stuclents- particularlv
also a slight ir-rcrr.ase
in studentswhose score the low proficient reaclers-trs the numbe.rof
achievedthe ver-vgooclcategon' (from one to stuclentsraised harrclsto sttrteoral prec-liction
two stuclcnts).The irnprovementcontinuesas iucrcase during tl-reirnplementation of the
therewere fourteen(14)studentswhosescore DRTA (frorn 56i%to 76.5%,). With the te.rcher's
inrproverl frornfnir togoor/categoryirr cycle-2. L'ncoura gement, tl-restudc.ntswere motiva tecl
Mearrwhile, there r,r'erefour (14) studer-rts to state their previous krron,leclge(;rctivate
wlrose scoresirnproved from the Ttoorintoinir theil schen-rata) ancl r-nakingpre-assessnte.nt
categorv.Therc was only one student u'hose of what information to be clelivcreclbv the
score remains at the lToorcategory although writer in the text.
there w'as .r slight improverner-rt(fror-n59 tc-r Besides trctivtrting schenrattr,good reacl-
64). Moreover, there were l0 strrdentswhose ers utilize strategies during rcacling. Sttrhl
scoreimplovecl fronr goor/to t,crt/gttctd. (2004:598)state.sthtrt stlategies in leaciing
This improvement showeci the utiliz;r- can be tools in the assimilation,refinement,
tion of DRTA solved students' problems in and use of content, rrnrl it is believe-clas the
comprehendin5lexpositorv text through er-r- rcacleris activel_vengagein particular cogrri-
abling thc stur-lentsin iclentifl,ing the to1'ric, tive strate.gies(activating prior knorvleclge,
mairr idea, literrrlinformation within the text, predicting, organizing, questioning, summir-

52 llotrrnol trit Errg/is/ittsLtI)ttrciqrrLortgurrge,


Vt,lutnt,7, Nuntltt,r1, Nlrrrch201I
izing, and creating a mental image),he/she standing and memory of the text, and this is
will be likely to uuc-lerstandancl recall rnore not done without guidance." In other words
of what they read. the students do not automatically utilize ef-
The procedure of learning reading trsing fectir.estrategiesduring reading. Moreover,
DRTA provides opportunity for the students Meyer et al.'s (1980)believe "good readers
to utilize reading strategies.First of all, the employed a text structure strategY,which is
materials were arranged in order to tnake a strategyentailed searchingfor the primary
the'studentsaware of the main cotnponentof thesis of or text structure thartsubsumed or

Table 1 Progressof Students' Inaolaernent in Two Cycles


Pl6rgressPercentages
Stages Indicators
cle 1 Cvcle 2
Prc-rendirtg Respondingto schematabuilcling activitv 48"/n 76.5"6
performed by the teacher
a. Sitting in grotrp 100'll, 1009r,
b. Raisinghands to formulate prediction 56o/,' 76.5%
orally
c. Discussinglist of prediction with their 82%, 85.5%
Whilst-reacling partnersand raising hands to statepre-
ferred prediction
d. Rearding silentll'and highlight/unclerline 94.3"i, 96.5o/n
sentencesconfirming/rejecting thcir pre-
diction
e. Rtrisinghand to evalttatetheir predictions 52')i, 70.s'.)i,
using inforrnaticlnfrotn the text to sup-
port their opinions
f. Raisinghands to identify text's ideas 35nl' 69.5",t,
Posf-rtntlirtg
org.rnizartion
g. Completing the DR-TA graphic or5;anizer 0 (-) 100
h. Raisinghands to answer colnpre'hension 521,' 70.5'1,,
questionsoralh'
Overallresults 64.037, 83.00'x,
*) This activity onlv occurred in Cycle-2

essavs. Intentionally, the teacher provicles/ bound large chunks of information into clus-
marks the introciuctot'\' sentences,thesis state- ters of relatecl cletails corresp'ronding to the
nrc-nt,controlling ideas, major atrd minor de- mcrcrostrlrcturesin reading. Al-rother reacling
tails, anrl concludinS; sentetrces.During retrcl- ir-rchunk activitv occurs rn'hen the stuclents
ing, the stuclents le'trrned to move their eyes conrpletr- thc gr.rphic orgatrizers. Thev have
c.ffectivelv onlv the important iuformation. cletennined of rvhat the'v neecl to kuolt' in
Alor-rgrvith titne, the'stuclents were gracluaiil' the' text (use' of structure) atrd conrplete the
able to read in chunk. This procedure was graphic organizer. Tl-ris activitv enables stu-
givc-n on the basis of Brolr'tt et al.'s (1995:256) der-rtsremeurber the importaut infortlratiou it-t
statement that "able reac'lerswith the rnost the tcxt. The'stuc-lcntsactivelv involvecl dur-
rcading abilities coorclinate the use'of nrulti- ing this activitv bl' 94.3'),,in tht' first cvclc anc-l
ple reading strategies to improve their under- 96.5'/,,in the secotrclcvcle.

I t t t r r t r t rt rl l E n g / l s / rn s t t F t t r c i ; q Lr tt t r r g t t t t g V r , N l n r c l t2 0 1 I |
t ' ,o l t n r t c7 , N r t t t r l t c 1 53
Then, alons with the three phases of DRTA, 2 clisplavecl good impacts to the group. The
the stuclents autornaticallv utilize reacling students enthusi.rsticallt' forrnulated ancl ver-
strategies such as anticipating, predicting, ified prediction orally. The following is the
confirming and morlifying their ideas with resume of stuclents' involvement cluring the
the text. They anticipate rvhat inforrnation learrning process in cvcle-1 ancl cvcle-2.
to be encounter in the text using their prior From the table above, the students real-
knowleclge through preclicting, confirming ize.clthe importtrnce of restructuring activitl'
their pre-cornprehension r,vith the infomr.r- (item e and f) as thev effectively raisecl hand
tion proviclc'd bt, thc text, and nroclifving in identifying the use of particultrr structure
their ic{easas thev fincl their prediction cliiier- ir-r expositorv text in f.rciiitating their corn-
cnt from the existing information found jn the prehension ancl in cornpleting the graphic
text. The uscr[ie of the re.aclingstrate-giesen- orgirnize.rs. This fincling reconrmends that
able's them to be efficient re.rders. This effec- tl-re procedure oi DITTA inrproves stuclents'
tiveness of the proccclureof DRTA supported self confidence. Students' self conficlence irn-
bv the' stuclents 96'ln iu the' first questionnaire prove.clas thel' given opportunitt, to practice
in cvcle 1 rrnd 100"; in thc cluesticlnnaireirr interacting with the. text trnd identifving key
the seconc'lcr.cle.Tlris is in line n'itl'r Jr.nnings col-nponel"rtsof the text. Ur-rder the teacher's
ancl Shc.prherrl's(1c)!)8)finciing th.rt the DRTA clirect instruction thrclugh nroc-leling ancj
helps stuclents become.rwcrr€ of tl-rereacling gtriclance in the fonns of leading questions,
stratc'gies, unclerstancl the le-ac-lir-rg
process, thc. students wc.re ablc. to scrutinize tlre text
ancl der,,elopprcc-lictionskills. The-r'acid that efficiently and effectively a. thel' ftave cleter-
tl-ris stratc'gr, stimulates stuclents' thinking mined and achievablc goal ;rncl clear steps
zrrrrlnrakes tlrcm liste.nto the opir-rionsof oth- in thc e.ffolt to accornplish the goal. The irl-
ers ancl rnorlifv their own in light of aclc'lition- provellerlt in self confidence ref-lectec-lin the
.rl information. increase of numbc.r of stuclents who raisecj
Another ciiectiveness of thc prroceclurcoi their harridsto fornrulate.pre.diction oralll., ttt
DITTA in enarbling the stuclents to rlo w,hat vcrifv the prccisenessof their prediction oral-
othcr soocl rr-aclersrlo is in enabling thc stLr- l1', ancl to confirnr their comprel-rension. The
clents rnonitor the.ir comple.hension. Bt, Lreirrg students a-rtlrnitterl this effectivcuess b1, 89%
cr-rt-tstcrntlv
a\vcrreof the connections thcv nrake in thc first ct'cle arnc-l
100%,in the second cycle.
bctn'een tcxt know,le.clgearrcl r,r,orlclknor,r,l- Ftrrthernrore, thcv recorrllttend this strategv
ec1ge,the stuclents nronitor their courllrt'hen- to be userl in reading anv kinds of re;rcling
sior-rby comparirrg the fclrn-rulaterl1-'recliction mtrterial bv other stuclents.
r,r,itlrthe eristing inform.rtion usec'lin the tert. Beside'stlieir self conficlence, the students'
Morrison (2004) believes th.rt langu.rge.lc.arn- rnotivations to learn were trlso improved dur'-
e.rsnr.cc1to be taught cornprchension rnor-ritor- ir-rgthe irnplementation of the DI{'fA strategv.
ing tccl-rnitluesancl he recorlmencls DRTA .rs Through the teercher'sactil.e involr.ement by
one.of the techniquc in helping the students giving direct instruction, stuclcnts were moti-
to r-uonitor thc-ir cor-nprchr.nsicrn. vatec-lto be.activeh' involr,ed irr all the stages
In regard w,ith tl-restucL.r-rts'pt-rrticipation of thc retrding process. This is reflected in the
in the teaching and lc;rrning proccss of each increase of percentage of their involventent
cvcle, the' d.rta obtainecl from observatiolr in the learning process r,r'hich incleased sig-
'fhis
showecl positive rcsults. The lor,r, proficient nificantly from 58.1,1'1,,
to 79.2n/,,. fincling
stucle.nts' involverlent in Ct,cle 2 gracluzrllv su1-rportsAbi Sanrara's (2006) statement that
imp1cl1,cl-lmuch trc.tter th.rn in the previous thc DRTA is an eiiective strategv for te.arching
cvcle. TI-rechanges on the ploce-duresin Cvcle reading comprehension because it helps stu-

54 ] ltttrn tLtlrrl E rt.r/ls/rris n Ft,r'ciqrtLntr,lutrsc,Voltrntt 1, N unrbe


r 1, Mn rclr 20 11
dents setreading puryosL.sby making predictions, strategy can improve reading skill of the sec-
reaclmore activelyand enthtsiastically,and remem- ond semesterEnglish Department studentsof
ber nrore information fronr what they read. Islamic State College of Palangka Rar.a.The
During the tezrchingand learrringprocess, research findings shor.r,edthat affirmative
the teacher'sinvolvement during the teach- development of the students' reacling com-
ing and learning processwas very importarnt prehension was rendered from the rncrease
to provide help for the students in achiev- of languageproficiency in relation to exposi-
ing the goal of the learning: to comprehencl tory writer's organization thev recognized
the content of expositorv text. However, the through sequentialactivitiesof the DRTA.
'l-rc.lp'
provided by the teacherhere does not The achievementgain showed encourag-
me're'l)/ test students'ntemorv of the text read. ing result as indicateclby the increasingmearn
Instead,the proceclureleads the stuclentsto score which n,as 70 in prelin"rintrrystudy
processthe text by providing guidanceanclat and steadilv increased72.93in Cycle 1 and
the same time gradu.rlly releasethe responsi- reached80 in Cycle 2, revealing that twenty
bility to the students. eight (84%)of the students scored above av-
Finally, the proce'dureof teachingreading erageof 75 out 100 points. Five (157")of the
trsing DRTA and graphic organizerproduces studentsscoredbelow minimum target of 75
intlepenclentreaders.First of trll, the students points which to someextentraisedbetter th.rn
r-rti Iizeclreading strartegiesindependentlvernd their prerriousresults.In regarcln'ith the stu-
corrfidently.Therefore-., it supported Kamil's clents'particip-rattion
in the teachirrgand learn-
(2003:5)definition of strategiesin readin€las ing processin the two cycles (six meetings),
those directed and intended by the students the analysis of observation,field notes, and
in orc-lerto build independencein reading. questionnairedata demonstratedpositive re-
The.n,as the teachergracluallyreleasedthe re- sults in that the students actively eneaged in
sponsit-rilitvto the stuclents,the procedure of the learning process.
DITTA can be inc-lepenclently utilizecl by' the Tl-reimpror;ernentof the achievementtests
stuclentsthemseh'c'sindepenclently.This is and learning ptrrticipationwere encompassed
supportirrg Richardsonand Morgan's (1997) through three stagesof DRTA strategyname-
fincling that the DRTA engagesstudents in ly, pre-reading, whilst-reading, and post-
higher order thinking skills and that thcse reading stages.ln the pre-reading stage the
skills include making connections betwec.n students w,ere introducec'lto promote their
interre'latedelements of the text, justifying language proficiencv in the schernattrt-ruild-
thought processesancl dralving logical con- ing activitv bv the clisplavof pictures ancl in-
clusions.They r-naintainthat these skills can troduction of new/contextual vocalrularies
sct tl-repathway tor.t.ardindependent re'ad- on the whiteboard.
ing, fosterlearnerresponsibilitvanclimprove
In the whilst-reading stage, the teacher
reaclingcomprehension.This findir-rgis in line
initiated the three phasesof DRTA: preclict-
n'itli the principle of teachingreading state.cl
ing, guidcd-silent reacling,ancl post-readirig
bv Blachowicz and Oglc. (2008) that "goocl (prove) phases. Activities at the precliction
tr..rchersknow their stuclents.rnd proviclethe st.rge.arc-:(1) lr,riting the title- of tlre text to
nec.clcdguidance trtrclsupport as thev con-
be read on the whiteboard, (2) grouping the
sciouslvmove from clirectinstructionto a re-
class,(3)giving modelingof how to statepre-
leaseof responsibilitvto their students".
diction, (4) clelivering the DRTA rvorksheet,
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION (5) asking the students to formulate predic-
The conclusion an'ives at the description tion orally, (6) rvriting the students' predic-
of hon, Dirccted ReaclingThinking Activitt, tion on the whiteboard and (7) asking the stu-

I t t t t r t t nol r r E r r { ' l s / r n - s n F L , r c L
i tn' nt t g u n g r ' , \ ' o l t r t r t t ' T , N u t r r ,hMc tr t' rl c l t 2 0 I l l 55
dents to discussthe prediction listed on the REFERENCE
whiteboarcland to statetheir prefercnce. Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (2003). Terf
The activities at the seconclphase of the Trlpesin Englislt1. South Yarra: Mac-
DRTA (guicled silent-reaclingphase) are (1) niil lan Education Australia.
delivering the text to read, (2) asking students Arrderson,N. J. (1999).ExploringSecotrtlLnn-
to reac-lthe text purposefully, ancl (3) giving gLtngeRendirtg:,lssucsand strntegias.
modeling of how to verify prediction. Then, Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
the activities at the post-reading phase are: Blaclrowicz,C. & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading
(1) asking studentsto confirnr their prediction Conrytrclm tsi ott: St r ntegi es .for I rrdt'7tr'r1-
ancl (2) asking studentsto verify their preclic- tlent Lcttrngv5 ()ttLtcrl.). Lonclon: The
tion bv showing sentencesor information Guilford
provided in the text supporting or rejecting Brown, R., Cox-Ogar1,L., El-Dinary, P. 8., &
their prediction. Pressley,M. (1995).A Transactional
Foilolt ir-rg the DRTA, restructuring and StratcgiesApprotrchto Reac-lingStrat-
comprehensionquestionswere acldedat the egies. RentlirtgTcnclrcr,36. (online)
post-readingactivity. The stepsat tl-rerestruc- (http:// www.newsfirstsearch.oclc.
turing are (1) asking student to identifv the org, accessedon February 6th2010).
use of particular structure used in the tc-xt,
;lrcl (2) asking studcnts to complete the pro- Burns,P. C., Iloe, B. D., & Ross,E. P. (1996).
incornpletegraphicorgarrizers.Finally, stu-
vicle-'c1 Tencling Rcntlingirt ToLltq'sElcrrterr'
clents'cornprchension towarclthe textwas evalu- tnrt1 Scl:L.to/.(Sixth Eclition). Boston:
atecltl-rrough oral comprehensiou q uestions. Houglrton Mifflin.
To follow up the conclusion,somesugges- Carnine, D., Silbe'rt,J., & Kameenui, E. J.
tions are proposeclto the Englisl-rstudents, (1990).Directlnstructictrr RenLlittg()'
te;rchers/lecturersanclother researchers. The Ed.).Columbus:Merri[1.
Directecl I{e;'rclingTliinking Activity (DRTA) Colclman,S., & Rakcstraw,J. (2000).Struc-
rvas effectir,eand suitable to improve reac'l- tural Aspectsof ConstructingMean-
inp;cor-nprehension in terms of provicling the ing From Te'xt.In R. Barr, M. Kamil,
studerrtsopportunitvto utilizereadingstrate- P. Mosenthal,and P.D. Pearrson, ecls.,
gies,to enh;rnccstudents'self corrfidence,and HL'rntlLtoolcof RcndirtgRcsc'nrc/1. White
to produce' independent learners. [-{owe.",er, Plains,NY: Longn-ran.
sincc the DRTA is effectivefor reading botlt Jerrnings,C. and Shepherd,l. (1998).Lifernctl
literarv and infonnational, the students sug- nrtdtlu' Kctl Lcnrrtirtg Are,ts:Sltccc-.sIt/
gesteclapplving the strategv indepenc-lentlv Clnssroont Strntcgics. Australiat:Elea-
not onh, in the classroom but also outsicle' nor Curtain Ptrblishing.
wherever tl-revarrereaclinp;any type of te'xt. Kamil, M. L. (2003).Adolcscertts ttnd Litt't'rtctt:
For English te'acher/lecturer, rcgarcling Rcttding for tlrc 21't CcrttunT.Alliance
the effcctivenessof DRTA they are recolrt- for Excellent Ec-lucertion.(onlinc),
rlended to teach reaclirrgusing DRTA ancl all4ed.or5; accessec-lon
(http :/ / w r,r.'r,r,'.
also in improving rcaclingcomprehensionor April 18'r'2009).
other skills (e.g.listening,speaking,anclwrit- Mason,J M & Au, K. H. (1990).RendingIn-
ing). Finallv, for other rcsearchers,the devc'l- structiort,for Todnry(2"'tEdition).Har-
opment of appropriate procedure of DRTA lrerCollins'
strategv in another action research can be McKown, B. A. & Barnett,C. L. (2007).lrt4tt'1'ri,i11o
conducted rt,ith different reaclingmicroskills RcntlingContprclmrsion tlrough H iglrcr-
.rrrcldifferent level of proficiencv. O rdcrTlinkhrg Skills.(online)(http:/ /

56 l t tE r r c l i srl r sr i F o r t ' i g nL n t g u r t g tV' ,o l u t t t t ' l ,N t r r r r b c1r, M n r c l 2


|lortrnno r 0'11
www.eric.ed.gov/ 1ED4962221,ac- Metltodologyin LanguageTeaching:An
cessedon June,8'h2009). Antlnlttgy of Current Practice.Cam-
Mever, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. bridge University Press.
1980.Use of Top Level Structure in Smith, M. C. (2000).The real world reacling
Text: Key for Reading Comprehen- practicesof adults. Journalof Literncr.l
sion of Ninth-Grade Students. Rentl- Research, 32,25-32.
i ng Resear ch Quarterly, 76, 72-703. Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, Practice and
Morrison, L. (2004).Comprehension moni- Promise: Comprehension Strategy
toring in first and second language Instructiorr in Primarl' Grades. TJtc
reacling. The CanatliLtnModern Lan- Rendfutg Tenclrcr,57 (7): 598-609.
gltageReaieur, 61(1),77-106. Stauffer,R. C. (1990).Directing reading ma-
NAEP Coverning Board.(2008).Rending Frame- turity as a cognitive process.In Cil-
utorkfor the2009 National Assessrnentof let, J. W., & Temple, C. Understanding
EducntittrtnlProgress. WashingtonDC: ReadirtgProblems:As-sr'55111317; and In-
U.S.Departmentof Eciucation. struction (Third Eclition).New York:
Pearson,P.D., & Camperell, K. (1994).Com- Harpsr Collins.
prehensionof Text Structures.In R.B. Tankersley, K. (2005). Literat:y Strategiesfor
Ruddell,M.R. Ruddell,and H. Singer Grndes4-12: Rcinforcingtlrc Threatlsof
(Eds.).Tlrcoreticnl Modalsnttd Processcs Rcndir rg. Alexandria,VA: Association
ttf Rendittg(ltlr cd.).Ne.wark,DE: In- for Supervision and Culriculum De-
ternartionalReadin g Association. velopmsnl.
Richardson, J.5., and Morgan, R.F. (1997). Yazdanpanah,K. (2007).The Effect of Back-
Readingto Lenrnin the ContentAreas. ground Knowledge and Reading
Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Publishing ComprehensionTest ltems on Male
Cornp.rn\,. and Female Performance..T/le Reatl-
Richards, I C. & Renanclver,W. A. (2002). hrgNIatrix,7 (2),64-80.

Ittltrnll ttn English LtsLtFttreignLangungc,)'oltrnu,7, Nunrber 1, NInrch 2011 | 57