A Journal

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND LEARNING

STYLES ON THE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN READING

COMPREHENSION

Teguh Satria Amin

LTBI PPs Universitas Negeri Medan

ABSTRACT

The objectives of this experimental research are to investigate whether 1)

students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Direct Reading
Thinking Activity (DR-TA) strategy is higher than taught by using Know, What to
Learn, and Learned (KWL) strategy. 2) students’ achievement in reading
comprehension with impulsive learning style is higher than students’ achievement
in reading comprehension with reflective learning style, and (3) there is
interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on the students’
achievement in reading comprehension. Then, the experimental reaearch design
was with 2x2 factorial design. The population of this research was the students of
grade XI of Private Senior High School of SMA Harapan Mandiri Medan in 2012
– 2013 academic year. The total number of the population was five classes
containing of 200 students. There were two classes containing of 70 students
chosen as sample of this research by apllying cluster random sampling technique.
The experimental group 1 was treated by using Direct Reading Thinking Activity
(DR-TA) and the experimental group 2 was treated by using Know, What to
Learn, and Learned (KWL). Next, students’ achievement in reading
comprehension text was measured by using reading comprehension test which
consisted of 40 items which was firstly tried out. The questionnaire was
conducted to find out the students’ learning style upon impulsive and reflective.
The data were analyzed by applying two-ways analysis of variance (2x2 ANAVA)
at the level of significant α = 0,05. The findings of this research show that (1) the
students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Direct Reading
Thinking Activity (DR-TA) strategy is higher than that taught by using Know,
What to Learn, and Learned (KWL) strategy, with Sig. = 0.01 < 0.05 (69 > 65.6);
(2) students’ achievement in reading comprehension with impulsive learning style
is lower than that with reflective learning style, with Sig. = 0.87 > 0.05 (66.61 <
67.84); (3) there is interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on
the students’ achievement in reading comprehension with Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05.
Morever, Scheffe Test result also showed that impulsive learning style students
got higher achievement if they were taught by using Direct Reading Thinking
Activity (DR-TA) strategy while reflective learning style students got higher
achievement if they were taught by using Know, What to Learn, and Learned
(KWL) strategy. The analysis revealed that the teaching strategies significantly
affect the students’ reading achievement.

Keyword: DR-TA, KWL, Impulsive Learning Style, Reflective Learning Style,

Reading Comprehension

ABSTRAK

Teguh Satria Amin. Pengaruh Strategi Pengajaran dan Gaya Belajar

terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Membaca. Thesis. Linguistik Terapan
Bahasa Inggris. Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2013

Penelitian eksperimen ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah: 1) hasil belajar

siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan stategi Direct Reading Thinking
Activity (DR-TA) lebih tinggi daripada hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan dengan
strategi Know, What to Learn and Learn (KWL), 2) hasil belajar siswa dalam
pemahaman membaca yang memiliki gaya belajar impulsive lebih tinggi daripada
hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang memiliki gaya belajar
reflective, 3) ada interaksi antara strategi pengajaran dan gaya belajar siswa
terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca. Desain penelitian eksperimen ini
adalah dengan factorial design 2x2. Populasi penelitian meliputi seluruh kelas XI
SMA Harapan Mandiri Medan tahun ajaran 2012 – 2013 dengan jumlah siswa
sebanyak 200 siswa. Dua kelas yang berisikan 70 siswa diambil sebagai sample
dalam penelitian ini dengan menggunakan teknik cluster random sampling.
Kelompok eksperimen pertama diajarkan dengan strategi pengajaran Direct
Reading Thinking Activity (DR-TA) dan kelompok eksperimen ke dua diajarkan
dengan strategi pengajaran Know, What to Learn and Learn (KWL). Kemudian,
hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca teks diukur dengan menggunakan
test pemahaman membaca yang terdiri dari 40 item yang diujikan terlebih dahulu.
Angket gaya belajar siswa diberikan untuk menentukan siswa sesuai dengan gaya
belajar mereka, impulsive dan reflective. Data diukur dengan menggunakan
ANAVA dua jalur pada taraf signifikasi α = 0.05. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan
bahwa (1) hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang diajarkan dengan
strategi Direct Reading Thinking Activity (DR-TA) lebih tinggi daripada hasil
belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang diajarkan dengan strategi Know,
What to Learn and Learn (KWL) dengan hasil hitung Sig. = 0.01 < 0.05 (69 >
65.6); (2) hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca yang memiliki gaya
belajar impulsive lebih rendah daripada hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman
membaca yang memiliki gaya belajar reflective dengan hasil hitung Sig. = 0.87 >
0.05 (66.61 < 67.84); (3) ada interaksi antara strategi pengajaran dan gaya belajar
terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam pemahaman membaca dengan hasil hitung
Fhitung = Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05. Setelah melaksanakan uji lanjut dengan
menggunakan uji Scheffe, hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa siswa yang
memiliki gaya belajar impulsive memperoleh hasil belajar yang tinggi dalam
pemahaman membaca bila diajarkan dengan strategi Direct Reading Thinking
Activity (DR-TA) dan siswa yang memiliki gaya belajar reflective memperoleh
hasil belajar yang tinggi jika diajarkan dengan strategi Know, What to Learn and
Learn (KWL). Analisis ini menunjukkan bahwa strategi pengajaran berpengaruh
signifikan terhadap pencapaian siswa dalam pemahaman membaca.

Kata kunci: DR-TA, KWL, Gaya Belajar Impulsive, Gaya Belajar Reflective,
Pemahaman membaca

A. Introduction
1. Background

The purpose of reading is to connect ideas in the page to what you’ve

already known. By reading the students are able to gain information and to

improve their knowledge. And then by reading, they can get the informations

again if they forget next time than they just listen to them. The main goal of

reading process is comprehension. According to Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan

Pendidikan (KTSP) about the standard competence in reading, it refers to enable

the learners to comprehend the meaning (intention) of both interpersonal and

transactional written text formally in the forms of recount, narrative, procedure,

descriptive, and report in the context of daily life. It is supported by the data from

Balitbang, "English as a formal subject is given to Senior High School (SMA)

level, which the goals are translated as follows: "The goals of teaching and

learning English for this level are improving the four English skills. They are the

mastery of the receptive skills (reading and listening) and the mastery of the

productive skills (speaking and writing), within a specified word level and

relevant grammatical structures and notions, in the context of the specified themes

which are enclosed for Senior High School (SMA) students" (Balitbang

Depdiknas, 2002).

English has always been one subject tested in National Examination,

which is supported by Government Regulation No. 19/2005 about Standards of

National Education (SNP). In English National Examination, the test items are

derived from the Graduate Competence Standard for National Examination

(Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Ujian Nasional/SKLUN) which is the form of the

intersection between main/sub main part of 1994 curriculum, Competence

Standard, Content Standard and Basic Competence in 2004 curriculum. Since the

school year 2003/2004 the English National Examination (Ujian Nasional Bahasa

Inggris) in Indonesia has included listening and reading skills with number of the

problems were 15 listening questions and 45 reading questions. The time allotted

to do the exam was 120 minutes. It means that there are more reading

comprehension test. Even in the SNMPTN test, the English section has more

reading comprehension test form. Therefore the Senior School Students must have

a good skill in reading comprehension.

The fact shows that the result of teaching learning English is still low.

Sukyadi, et., al (2003:2) stated that research on reading skill in Indonesian

students, particularly in reading comprehension are still far from satisfactory.

Sixty nine percent (69%) of 15-year-old Indonesian students have worst reading

performance internationally; and around 37.6% of them only afford to read the

texts without understanding the meaning of it. Only 24.8% out of them are able to

correlate the texts with their prior knowledge. The finding indicated the students

have an ability in reading comprehension.

The same problem also happened to the students of SMA Harapan Mandiri

Medan. It is revealed by reading comprehension score test of students grade

eleven (XI) during 2012/2013 academic year. From the data, it can be seen that

out of 189 students, first, there were only 51 students got score 70 to 90. It means
that it is only 27% students that got high score in reading comprehension. And

second, there were only 53 students got score 70 to 90. It means that it is only

28% students got high score in reading comprehension.

It will not happen like the condition above, if teachers want to teach by

appliying some reading comprehension strategies. So it is necessary to apply

strategies for helping students in reading. The objective is to create the reading

itself to be meaningful and interesting. The National reading panel (2000)

identified seven strategies to enhance reading comprehension. One of them is

Directed Reading-Thinking Activity and Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL).

Not only strategies that are needed in reading comprehension but also

learning styles. A learning style is a preference for the way a person learns and

remembers what he or she has learned (Wayman, 2003). Human development and

cultural experiences of home, school, and society form learning style, a composite

of psychological, affective, and cognitive behaviors, which is a relatively reliable

indicator of how a person responds to, interacts with, and perceives the learning

environment. A person's learning style creates ways of thinking and of

representing information (Ouellette, 2000). The learners who have impulsive

learning style tend to draw conclusion quickly by their personal judgment, while

reflective learning style tends to be more accurate but rather time consuming by

considering anything related to new information and the prior knowledge.

With reference to the findings, the writer would like to conduct a study on

the use of the two strategies and students' learning styles in teaching reading and

to find out the effect of the two strategies and students' learning styles on the

students' reading comprehension of SMA Harapan Mandiri Medan.

 2. Problem

Based on the above background, the problems of the study can be stated as

follows:

a. Is the students' reading comprehension achievement taught by using

Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy significantly higher

than that taught by using Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) strategy?

b. Is the students' achievement in reading comprehension with impulsive

learning style higher than reflective learning style?

c. Is there any significant interaction between Directed Reading-Thinking

Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to Learn, Learned (KWL) and learning

styles to students' achievement in reading comprehension?

3. Objective

On the basis of the above problems, the objectives of this study are to find

out:

a. Whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by

using DRTA strategy is higher than that of taught by using KWL strategy,

b. Whether reading comprehension achievement of impulsive learning style

is higher than reading comprehension achievement of reflective learning

style, and

c. Whether there is interaction between teaching strategies and learning

styles on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

4. Theoretical Frame
 Reading comprehension means understanding what has been read. It's an

active, thinking process that depends not only on comprehension skill but also on

the students' experiences and prior knowledge.

To understand reading comprehension one should by analyzing what

comprehension involves and how it relates to the entire reading process. The word

‘comprehension' itself can be said as a social kind of thinking process. The reader

comprehends by actively construction, the acting internally from interacting with

the material that is read.

Grabe and Stoller (2002:17) states that reading for general comprehension

is, in its most obvious sense, the ability to understand information in a text and

interpret it appropriately. William (1984:3) states that comprehension is the minds

act or power understanding what has been written. From quotation above, it

means that is terms of comprehension reader are expecting to understand fully.

Thus, it is clear that reading and comprehension are regarded as one activity,

which cannot separate each other. Reading is an activity that one does. For

example a reader who understands what he has read, he can answer the question

about it or he can reproduce the gist what he has read.

Reading has different levels of comprehension. Each level of

comprehension has its own indicators to be assessed by the teacher (Day & Park,

2005). The achievement of those indicators will be reflected by students’ ability to

master skills in each level comprehension. They are Literal Comprehension,

Interpretive Comprehension, Critical Comprehension.

Directed Reading-Thinking Activity, or DR-TA, is a technique developed

by Russell Stauffer (1969). DR-TA encourages students to make predictions while

they are reading. After reading segments of a text, students stop, confirm or revise

previous predictions, and make new predictions about what they will read next.

The directed reading/thinking activity (DRTA) encourages readers to

engage actively in a three-step comprehension cycle.

1. Sample the text.

2. Make predictions.

3. Sample the text to confirm or correct previous predictions.

K-W-L is the creation of Donna Ogle in 1986 and is a 3-column table that

helps capture the before, during, and after components of reading a text selection.

An instructional strategy known as K-W-L, developed by Ogle (1986) has been

implemented in classrooms. Students' prior knowledge is activated by asking them

what they already know; then students set goals focusing on what they want to

learn; and after reading, students discuss what they have studied.

A learning style is a preference for the way a person learns and remembers

what he or she has learned (Wayman, 2003). Brown (2000: 114) categorized

learning styles in to three types. The first type is cognitive styles. Cognitive styles

are sub-grouped into six areas: field dependent, field independent, analytic,

global, reflective, and impulsive. The second type is sensory styles which are

divided into two categories: perceptual and environmental style. Perceptual

consist of visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic. Environmental consist of

physical and sociological. The third type is personality styles. The personality

styles are sub-grouped into two: tolerance of ambiguity and brain dominant

learning style which consist of left-brain dominant.

 Impulsive learning style is the way individual draw conclusion

impulsively or directly as soon as possible without concerning about correctness

or accuracy first (Brown, 2000: 115). Impulsive learners take risks with the

language. They are more concerned with speaking fluently than speaking

accurately, and so make more mistakes. Impulsive learning style tends to give

responses which may not incorporate feedback, and which may not result in

learning.

Reflective learning is a learning process which emphasizes thinking about

(reflecting upon) the new learning before using it (Brown, 2000:15). Reflective is

the way of learning in which the learner completely think through (reflects upon)

the new learning before using it, and in which the learner depends less on external

feedback. The reflective learning style consists of absorbing, rather than acting on

new information.

B. Method of Research

In this research, experimental design by using factorial Design 2x2 was

used. A factorial design is one in which two or more variables are manipulated

simultaneously in order to study the independent effect of each variable on the

dependent variable as well as the effect due to interactions among the several

variables (Ary, 2010:310). There were three variables in this study, they were:

independent variables: Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and Know,

What to Learn, Learned (KWL), moderator variables: Impulsive and Reflective

Learning Styles and dependent variable: Reading comprehension. The learning

style was obtained by administering a questionnaire. There were 2 (two) groups of

students in this research namely group that was taught by using Directed Reading-
Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and the group that was taught by Know, What to

Learn, Learned (KWL).

The population of this study was all the second year students of SMA

Harapan Mandiri in the academic year of 2012/2013. The sample of this research

was taken by cluster random sampling. It was taken by using lottery technique. It

included two classes which were taken as sample. The two classes were rechoosen

randomly to determine which one DR-TA class and KWL class. And each of class

consists of 35 students.

In this research, there were two kinds of the data, they were students'

reading achievement and students' learning style. The post-test was given to both

of group, in which the students asked to answer 40 reading comprehension

questions based on the passages which were taken from the National Examinition

Test. The type of the test waas multiple-choice test which were limited only literal

and interpretive comprehension. The learning style's questionnaire was used to see

the learning style of the students who have impulsive and reflective learning style.

Questionnaire was designed in such a way based on the characteristics of the

learning style that the answer of the students would reflect their learning style.

The two groups were given the same materials, which were taught by

different strategies. The first group was taught by Directed Reading-Thinking

Activity (DR-TA) and the second group was taught by using Know, What to learn,

and Learned (KWL). The procedures of the treatment in the two groups were

described below.

Table. 10 The Procedures of the Treatment in the Two Groups

DR-TA KWL
During planning, teacher divided the Asked the students to make KWL chart
text into appropriate segments which before they are reading certain text.
could be single paragraphs or several
pages, depending on the content.
Directed student’s attention to title, Told the students the topic that is going
pictures, headings, graphs, etc. to be learnt. Then, asked them to fill
K column with their prior knowledge
(what they have already knwon
about the topic).
Following this, asked questions such Asked the students to write down what
as these which: they want or need to know about the
Identified purposes for reading: The topic in W column.
teacher facilitated a discussion on
possible purposes for reading the
text. Attention was drawn to
background experience and clues
in the text. Purposes are often
stated publicly as predictions
Read the text: Before reading, the
teacher segmented the text into
meaningful sections with stopping
points for discussion. Students
read asection of text
independently. The teacher
monitored and assisted
students’reading as needed.
Develop comprehension: The teacher
facilitated a discussion that
required the students to verify or
revise their predictions based on
an evaluation of text and prior
experience.
Skilled training: This could include
writing, seeking additional sources
of information, or providing
instruction in competencies that
the teacher perceived as student
needs during monitoring student
reading.

Student read the segment of the text Teacher and the students discussed what
silently to confirm predictions and the students want to learn. List some
during discussion, the text is used to thought on what the students want or
confirm or disconfirm predictions. expect to learn, generally or
specifically. Tought in terms of what
the students learn, or what the
students want to learn about this.
Turned all sentences into questions
before writing them down and then
made list the question by
 importance.
Students were expected to use the Teacher asked the students to read the
context to figure out vocabulary text.
which might be new or difficult. This
vocabulary could be discussed using
predictive questions such as: What do
you think this word means? Why do
you think so?
The process was repeated until each Teacher asked the students to answer
segment of the text had been read. the students’ question, as well as to
list what new information the
students have learned.
The students made a list of what they
learned in L column and then
checked it again in the W column,
what the students want to learn.
The teacher created symbols to indicate
main ideas, surprising ideas,
questionable ideas and those the
students didn’t understand and then
discussed it with the students.

After giving the treatment, the post test was conducted. This post- test was

the final test in the research, especially in measuring the treatment, whether it was

significant or not. After conducting the post- test, there was scores. The scores

became the data. The data was analyzed to find out the effect of Directed

Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to learn, and Learned

(KWL) on students' reading achievement.

C. Data, Data Analysis, Finding and Discussion

Data of students’ achievement in reading comprehension from every interaction

between teaching strategies and student’s learning styles which obtained the

impulsive and reflective scores, range, mean, median, mode, standard deviation

and variance (see apendix G, page: 104). The values can be seen in Table 13

Table. 13 Summary of Data Description

A1 A2 B1 B2 A1B1 A1B2 A2B1 A2B2
N Valid 35 35 31 39 19 16 12 23
 Missing 4 4 8 0 20 23 27 16
Mean 69.00 65.61 66.61 67.85 70.52 67.19 60.42 68.30
Std. Error of Mean .916 1.150 1.383 .761 1.396 .988 1.654 1.101
Median 68.00 65.00 65.00 68.00 68.00 65.00 61.50 68.00
Mode 65 63a 65a 65 65a 65 60a 68
Std. Deviation 5.418 6.803 7.701 4.755 6.086 3.953 5.728 5.278
Variance 29.35 46.28 59.31 22.60 37.04 15.62 32.81 27.85
3 1 2 7 1 9 1 8
Range 25 35 38 25 23 17 20 25
Minimum 63 50 50 60 65 63 50 60
Maximum 88 85 88 85 88 80 70 85
Percenti 25 65.00 63.00 63.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 58.50 65.00
les 50 68.00 65.00 65.00 68.00 68.00 65.00 61.50 68.00
75 69.00 69.00 69.00 69.00 75.00 69.00 63.75 70.00

The research hypotheses were tested by using Two-way ANOVA (factorial

2x2). The data description is presented in Table 26.

Table. 26 Two-Way ANOVA with 2x2 Factorial Designs

Teaching Strategies DRTA KWL Total

(A) (A1) (A2)

Learning Styles (B)

Impulsive (B1) N11 = 19 N12 = 12 N1 = 31

∑x11 = 1340 ∑x12 = 725 ∑xT1 = 2065
Mean = 70.52 Mean = 60.41 Mean = 66.61
Reflective (B2) N21 = 16 N22 = 23 N2 = 39
∑x21 = 1075 ∑x22 = 1571 ∑xT2 = 2646
Mean = 67.18 Mean = 68.30 Mean = 67.84
Total N1 = 35 N2 = 35 N = 70
∑x1 = 2415 ∑x2 = 2296 ∑x = 4711
Mean = 69 Mean = 65.6 Mean = 67.3

Based on the previous data analysis and in line with the testing hypotheses, the

research findings consist of three parts, they are :

Students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by Directed

Reading Thinking Activity strategy is higher than that of taught by

 using Know, What to learn, and Learned strategy. Based on the result

of the test score that the total means shows that the students’

achievement taught by using DRTA strategy is significantly higher

than that of the students taught by using KWL strategy (69 > 65.6).

Students’ achievement in reading comprehension with impulsive

learning style is lower than those with reflective learning style. Based

on the result of the test score that the total mean indicates that students

with impulsive learning styles have lower achievement in reading

comprehension than that of students with reflective learning styles

(67.8 > 66.6).

There is significant interaction between teaching reading strategies

and learning styles on students’ achievement in reading

comprehension. Students’ achievement in reading comprehension is

influenced by teaching strategies and learning styles. Impulsive

learning styles students showed significant effect on their reading

comprehension achievement if they were taught by using DRTA

strategy. While reflective learning styles students showed significant

effect on their reading comprehension achievement if they were taught

by using KWL strategy.

Based on the findings that obtained from research hypotheses testing, it can be

stated that:
The result of the research has shown that there is teaching methods influence

the results of reading for students of SMA Harapan Mandiri. The result of Two

Way ANOVA computation reveals that both DRTA strategy and KWL strategy

significantly affects students’ achievement in reading comprehension (Sign. =

0.001 < 0.05). Thus, it can be concluded that both DRTA strategy and KWL

strategy are effective to helps students in comprehending the text in reading. The

total means shows that the students’ achievement taught by using DRTA strategy

is significantly higher than that of the students taught by using KWL strategy (69

> 65.6).
So, based on the explanation in applying the two methods in teaching, both

DRTA and KWL methods significantly affect students’ reading achievement. And

it is concluded that Direct Reading-Thinking Activity is more effective in

improving students’ achievement in reading comprehention.

The result of Two Way ANOVA calculation reveals that there is no

significance achievement in reading comprehension between impulsive and

reflective learning styles (Sig = 0.087 < 0.05). The total mean indicates that

students with impulsive learning styles have lower achievement in reading

comprehension than that of students with reflective learning styles (67.8 > 66.6).
But based on the mean of impulsive learning styles and reflective learning

styles in reading comprehension, the achievement in reading comprehension of

the students with impulsive learning styles is lower than that of the students with

reflective learning styles. Perhaps, it was caused by the condition of the students

were not in good condition when the test was done. It might give influence to the

result of the score.

The result of two-way ANOVA calculation indicates that there is

significant interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles. It can be

seen in the table of the two-way ANOVA result with (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05).
Thus, teaching strategy and students’ learning styles influence students’

achievement in reading comprehension. It indicates that impulsive learning styles

students taught by using DRTA and reflective learning styles students taught by

using KWL have the most significant difference among others. The impulsive
learning styles students taught by using DRTA have better achievement in reading

comprehension than impulsive learning styles students taught by KWL. In other

word, impulsive learning styles students have better achievement in reading

comprehension if they are taught by using DRTA strategy. Furthermore, the total

mean reveals that impulsive learning styles students taught by using DRTA get

higher achievement in reading comprehension than reflective learning styles

students taught by using KWL. The mean of reflective learning styles students

taught by KWL is higher than that of taught by DRTA. It indicates that reflective

learning styles students have higher achievement in reading comprehension if they

are taught by using KWL strategy.

D. Conclusion and Suggestions

After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following.

The students’ reading achievement taught by using Direct Reading -

Thinking Activity is significantly higher than that of taught by using

Know, What to Learn, and Learned.

The students’ reading achievement with impulsive learning style is not

significantly higher than that of the students with reflective learning style.
There is interaction between teaching strategies and learning styles on the

students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as the following.

Teachers:
Direct Reading - Thinking Activity (DR-TA) and Know, What to

Learn, and Learned (KWL) can be applied in teaching English

especially for teachers who want to improve their students’ reading

 achievement. It is caused by apllying these strategies can make

students more active and ineterested in reading comprehension.

It is highly recommended for teachers to use Direct Reading –

Thinking Activity strategy for class dominated by students with

impulsive learning style while for class dominated by students with

reflective learning style. Teacher is recommanded to use Know, What

to Learn, and Learned strategy.

Teachers should realizethe students’ charactheristics such as their

learning styles before choosing teaching strategies. Thus, the

strategies applied are matched with what they need. As the result, their

achievements are able to be explored maximally.

Students:

Students can probably apply these strategies when they are having

reading comprehension test so they can have good score.

Based on this research, the students can also know about their learning

styles. It can help them to choose what strategies in reading

comprehension are suitable for them.

Researchers:

Other researchers can develop further study in the area of DRTA and

KWL strategies that will improve students’ achievement in reading

comprehension.
 REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1981). The relationship of cognitive style to the use of grammatical

rules by spanish-speaking ESL students in editing written English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Champaign-Urbana, University of
Illinois.

Aruan, D. M. 2007. Penafsiran Skor Tes. Unpublished. Medan: State University

of Medan.

Ary, D. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. 8th edition. United State of

America: Wardsworth.
Best, John W & James Khan. 2002. Research in Education (7th ed). New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India

Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The

Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. "Styles and Strategies." Principles of Language

Learning and
Teaching. Fourth edition. New York: Longman.

Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading

Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7.

__________. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.

New
York: Longman.

Day, Richard. R and Park, Jeong-suk. 2005. Developing Reading Comprehension

questions. Journal of Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 17 (1) pp 60-73

Doron, S. (1973). Reflectivity-impulsivity and their influence on reading for

inference for
adult students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.

Gerrot, Linda., and Wignell Peter. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar.
Cammeray: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Goodman, K. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer &

R. Ruddell (Eds), Theoretical models and process of reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Grabe, W & F Stoller. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. Harlow: Pearson
Education.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed).
Harlow: Pearson Education.

Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive style of reflection/impulsivity and field

independence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76, 491-501.

Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade

children. Child Development, 36, 609-628.
Keefe, J. (1979). Students learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs.

Reston,

VA: National Association of secondary School Principals.

Knapp, Peter., and Megan Watkins. 2005. Genre, Text and Grammar. Sidney:
University of New South Wales.

Krathwohl, D.R., bloom, B.S., and Maria, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational
objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective
Domain. New York: David Mckay

McKenna, M. 2002 Help for struggling readers: strategies for grades 3-8. New
York: The Guilford Press.

Mc. Neil J. D. 1992. Reading Comprehension. New Direction for Classroom

Practice (3rd ed). Los Angeles: Harper Collons Publisher

Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language Teaching and learning. Boston: Heile and
Heinle Publisher

Ogle, D.M. 1986. K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of text.
Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570

Putri, Rini Fadillah. 2011. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Intrinsic
Motivation on the Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension.
Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study. Post Graduate Program.
UNIMED.2011

Reutzel, Ray D. & Robert B. Cooter, Jr. 1992. Teaching Children to Read: From
Basals to Books. New York: Macmillan Publishing

Richards, Jack C & Theodore S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Strategys in

Language Teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press

Riley. D. (2006). The Effect of Directed Reading Thinking Activity on low

reading Achievement First Grade Students. Dissertation International
Abstracts.32 (4) ,259-262.

Rubin, Joan & Thompson, Irene. 1982. How to Be a More Successful Language
Learner.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Second Edition, 1994.

Scarcella, Robin C. & Oxford, Rebecca L. 1992. "Characteristics of Individual

Learners." The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the
Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sigiro, Albert. 2010. The Effect of Reading Methods and Learning Styles on
Reading Comprehension. Thesis: English Applied Linguistics Study. Post
Graduate Program. UNIMED.2010

Simpson E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the

Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individula differences in Second Language Learning. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298
Stahl, Dougherty K.A. (2004). Proof practice and promise: Comprehension
strategy
instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher Journal, 57(5), 598-
609.
Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New
York: Harper
& Row

Suharsimi, Arikunto. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. 5th

ed. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Suherman. 2012. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Intrinsic Motivation on the
Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. Thesis: English Applied
Linguistics Study. Post Graduate Program. UNIMED.2012

Vockell, Edward. 1983. Educational Research. An introduction. New York:

Longman

Williams. 1984. Reading in the Language Classroom. London: Macmillan.

Willis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task Based Learning. London: Longman

Finocchiario, Mary. Teaching English as Second Language in Elementary and

Secondary school. Retrieved on August 5th 2010,
(http://www.ELTJournal.com)