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
thc. most important one since every aspect of
lifc involves reading. For example road signs,
traffic regulation, menus in restaurants, la-
bels on ctrns, printed advertisements, news-
papers, magazines, insurance forms, and so
forth (Burns et al., 1996:4).The ability to mas-
te.r this skill cletermines students' mastery of
other skills since the successin reading is very
inrportant to students in both academic and
vocational advancement and for the stuclents'
psvchological well being (Carnine, et al.,
1990:3).lts importance makes reading receive
t-r special focus in many second or foreign-
language situations (Richards and Renandva,
2002:273).
'Ihe
most important object in reading ac-
tivitv is text. Anderson & Anderson (2003:1)
clefine fe.tf as something constructed when
a person speaksor writes to communicatea
message.The reading activity begins when
a reaclertries to understand the meaning of
tl-retransferredmessage.In general,there are
tw,o main categoriesof text: literary and in-
formational. Literary and informational texts
are rnarked by distinct structural characteris-
tics that readersrely on as thev seekto uncler-
stand what they reacl(Goldman & Rakestraw,
2000). Literary texts aim to appeal reacler's
emotion and imagination, r,r,hileinformation-
al (factual)texts aim to show, tell or persuade
the audience(Anderson& Anderson,2003:3).
The nature of textsaffectscomprehensionand
clifferenttext tvpes must be read in diffe.rent
ways (Pearson& Camperell,1994). Therefore,
the teachingof readingshould emphasizethe
teaching of both literary and informational
texts(NAEP CoverningBoard,2008:7).
Among the two categories,reaclernee.cls to
work harder in reacling for infonnation (in-
formational texts)than in reaclingfor plearsure
(literary texts).Carnine et arl.(1990:339)state
that in the attempt to comprehcnd expository
materials reacleris expecteclto extract, inte-
grate, and retain significant rnain icleasand
details presenteclin the rnate.rialand to learn
many specializeclvocabularv terms. It is be-
causc expository uses new orp;anizational
structures,uses more clifficult to decocleand
understanclvocabulary, useshigher denseof
concept,and introduces unique typographic
features.As thc result, expositorvis consid-
ered to be more difficult than narrative. Ac-
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
making another prediction. The emphasisof
this comprehension strategy is in the abil-
ity to make prediction. The DRTA provides
the teacheropportunity to guide students to
think like good readersdo - anticipating,pre-
dicting, and then confirming and modifying
their ideas with the story as it unfolds (Bla-
chowich & Ogle,2008).
The focus of this article is in providing the
answer to question"[i'ow can Directed Read-
ing Thinking Activity (henceforth DRTA)
improve students'comprehensionin reading
expository text?" It is aimed at describing the
irnplementationof DRTA strategyin improv-
ir-rgthe reading comprehensionof the second
sernesterstudents at the English Education
Study Program of STAIN Palangka Raya in
arcademicy ear 2009/ 2010.
METHOD
The study emploved Collaborative Class-
room Action Research(CAR) designs uncler
the proceclure of (a) identifying classroom
problcrn(s), (b) planning, (c) implcmenting,
(cl) observing, ancl (e) cvaluating. The sub-
jects of the studv were thirty-three stttdents
of the seconclsemesterof the English Educa-
tion StuclvProgram of STAIN PalangkaRaya
in 200c)/2010academicyear. The data were
both qualitative and quantitative. The quali-
t.rtive c'lataderived from the students' active
participation during the implementation of
the str;'rtegv,while the quantitative clatawere
taker-rfrom the result of reading achievement
test conducted at the encl of each cyclc. The
instruments used in collecting the data were
achievementtest,observation,field notesand
questionnaire.
The result of preliminarv study conducted
bv the researcherin March 2010showed that
the studentshad problemsin identifying top-
ic and main ideas, distinguishing major and
minor details,recognizingauthor's organiza-
tion the text structure,drawing inference,and
identifving literal information from the text.
on Englisltnsa ForeigtrLnngungt',
lourrtLtl
Among narrative,descriptive,and expository
texts,the latestwas consideredto be most dif-
ficult. The identified causeswere becauseof
the lack of background knowledge, the lack
of knowledge of reading strategies,the lack of
use of reading strategies,the lack of students'
active involvement during the teaching and
learning process, and the lack of students'
awarenessof the reading process.
In order to solve the classroom'sproblem,
together with the collaborator teacher the
researcherdesigned the lesson plan and the
criteria of successof the study at the planning
phase;implemented the DRTA strategy in two
cycleswith four rneetingsfor cycle1 and three
meetings for cycle 2; recorded and collected
data dealing with the teaching and learning
activitiesof ReadingComprehensionll using
Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA)
in the classroornand data about any aspector
event that occursin the teachingand learning
processat the obsen,ingphase;ancl evaluates
the strength and the weaknessof the strate-
gy implenrented in the class at the reJlectittg
phase.
There were three phasesof activitv in e'ach
meeting: pre-reading stage, whilst reading
stage,and post reaclingstage.Stuclents'par-
ticipation in eachstagewas reflectedthrough
their responsesand intereststoward step by
step activity in the three phasesof the DRTA
strategy itself: pre-reading stage, guicled
silent-reading stage and post-reaclingstage.
The better the technique implemented the
more active the students participate in the
activities.By the end of each cycle, students'
reflectionon the implernentecltechniquewas
captured through questionnaire.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
The findings presentedin this sectioncom-
prised the stepsin conducting Reading Com-
prehension II subjcct using DRTA strategy
and the students' active participtrtion during
the class.Basedon the results of the achieve-
ment test,overall progressof observationre-
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/
marks the introciuctot'\' sentences,thesis state-
nrc-nt,controlling ideas, major atrd minor de-
tails, anrl concludinS; sentetrces.During retrcl-
ing, the stuclents le'trrned to move their eyes
c.ffectivelv onlv the important iuformation.
Alor-rgrvith titne, the'stuclents were gracluaiil'
able to read in chunk. This procedure was
givc-n on the basis of Brolr'tt et al.'s (1995:256)
statement that "able reac'lerswith the rnost
rcading abilities coorclinate the use'of nrulti-
ple reading strategies to improve their under-
bound large chunks of information into clus-
ters of relatecl cletails corresp'ronding to the
mcrcrostrlrcturesin reading. Al-rother reacling
ir-rchunk activitv occurs rn'hen the stuclents
conrpletr- thc gr.rphic orgatrizers. Thev have
cletennined of rvhat the'v neecl to kuolt' in
the' text (use' of structure) atrd conrplete the
graphic organizer. Tl-ris activitv enables stu-
der-rtsremeurber the importaut infortlratiou it-t
the tcxt. The'stuc-lcntsactivelv involvecl dur-
ing this activitv bl' 94.3'),,in tht' first cvclc anc-l
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,
the stuclents autornaticallv utilize reacling
strategies such as anticipating, predicting,
confirming and morlifying their ideas with
the text. They anticipate rvhat inforrnation
to be encounter in the text using their prior
knowleclge through preclicting, confirming
their pre-cornprehension r,vith the infomr.r-
tion proviclc'd bt, thc text, and nroclifving
their ic{easas thev fincl their prediction cliiier-
cnt from the existing information found jn the
text. The uscr[ie of the re.aclingstrate-giesen-
able's them to be efficient re.rders. This effec-
tiveness of the proccclureof DRTA supported
bv the' stuclents 96'ln iu the' first questionnaire
in cvcle 1 rrnd 100"; in thc cluesticlnnaireirr
the seconc'lcr.cle.Tlris is in line n'itl'r Jr.nnings
ancl Shc.prherrl's(1c)!)8)finciing th.rt the DRTA
helps stuclents become.rwcrr€ of tl-rereacling
stratc'gies, unclerstancl the le-ac-lir-rg
process,
ancl der,,elopprcc-lictionskills. The-r'acid that
tl-ris stratc'gr, stimulates stuclents' thinking
zrrrrlnrakes tlrcm liste.nto the opir-rionsof oth-
ers ancl rnorlifv their own in light of aclc'lition-
.rl information.
Another ciiectiveness of thc prroceclurcoi
DITTA in enarbling the stuclents to rlo w,hat
othcr soocl rr-aclersrlo is in enabling thc stLr-
clents rnonitor the.ir comple.hension. Bt, Lreirrg
cr-rt-tstcrntlv
a\vcrreof the connections thcv nrake
bctn'een tcxt know,le.clgearrcl r,r,orlclknor,r,l-
ec1ge,the stuclents nronitor their courllrt'hen-
sior-rby comparirrg the fclrn-rulaterl1-'recliction
r,r,itlrthe eristing inform.rtion usec'lin the tert.
Morrison (2004) believes th.rt langu.rge.lc.arn-
e.rsnr.cc1to be taught cornprchension rnor-ritor-
ing tccl-rnitluesancl he recorlmencls DRTA .rs
one.of the techniquc in helping the students
to r-uonitor thc-ir cor-nprchr.nsicrn.
In regard w,ith tl-restucL.r-rts'pt-rrticipation
in the teaching and lc;rrning proccss of each
cvcle, the' d.rta obtainecl from observatiolr
showecl positive rcsults. The lor,r, proficient
stucle.nts' involverlent in Ct,cle 2 gracluzrllv
imp1cl1,cl-lmuch trc.tter th.rn in the previous
cvcle. TI-rechanges on the ploce-duresin Cvcle
54 ] ltttrn tLtlrrl E rt.r/ls/rris n Ft,r'ciqrtLntr,lutrsc,Voltrntt 1, N unrbe
2 clisplavecl good impacts to the group. The
students enthusi.rsticallt' forrnulated ancl ver-
ified prediction orally. The following is the
resume of stuclents' involvement cluring the
learrning process in cvcle-1 ancl cvcle-2.
From the table above, the students real-
ize.clthe importtrnce of restructuring activitl'
(item e and f) as thev effectively raisecl hand
in identifying the use of particultrr structure
ir-r expositorv text in f.rciiitating their corn-
prehension ancl in cornpleting the graphic
orgirnize.rs. This fincling reconrmends that
tl-re procedure oi DITTA inrproves stuclents'
self confidence. Students' self conficlence irn-
prove.clas thel' given opportunitt, to practice
interacting with the. text trnd identifving key
col-nponel"rtsof the text. Ur-rder the teacher's
clirect instruction thrclugh nroc-leling ancj
gtriclance in the fonns of leading questions,
thc. students wc.re ablc. to scrutinize tlre text
efficiently and effectively a. thel' ftave cleter-
mined and achievablc goal ;rncl clear steps
in thc e.ffolt to accornplish the goal. The irl-
provellerlt in self confidence ref-lectec-lin the
increase of numbc.r of stuclents who raisecj
their harridsto fornrulate.pre.diction oralll., ttt
vcrifv the prccisenessof their prediction oral-
l1', ancl to confirnr their comprel-rension. The
students a-rtlrnitterl this effectivcuess b1, 89%
in thc first ct'cle arnc-l
100%,in the second cycle.
Ftrrthernrore, thcv recorrllttend this strategv
to be userl in reading anv kinds of re;rcling
mtrterial bv other stuclents.
Beside'stlieir self conficlence, the students'
rnotivations to learn were trlso improved dur'-
ir-rgthe irnplementation of the DI{'fA strategv.
Through the teercher'sactil.e involr.ement by
giving direct instruction, stuclcnts were moti-
vatec-lto be.activeh' involr,ed irr all the stages
of thc retrding process. This is reflected in the
increase of percentage of their involventent
in the learning process r,r'hich incleased sig-
'fhis
nificantly from 58.1,1'1,,
to 79.2n/,,. fincling
su1-rportsAbi Sanrara's (2006) statement that
thc DRTA is an eiiective strategv for te.arching
reading comprehension because it helps stu-
r 1, Mn rclr 20 11
dents setreading puryosL.sby making predictions,
reaclmore activelyand enthtsiastically,and remem-
ber nrore information fronr what they read.
During the tezrchingand learrringprocess,
the teacher'sinvolvement during the teach-
ing and learning processwas very importarnt
to provide help for the students in achiev-
ing the goal of the learning: to comprehencl
the content of expositorv text. However, the
'l-rc.lp'
provided by the teacherhere does not
me're'l)/ test students'ntemorv of the text read.
Instead,the proceclureleads the stuclentsto
processthe text by providing guidanceanclat
the same time gradu.rlly releasethe responsi-
bility to the students.
Finally, the proce'dureof teachingreading
trsing DRTA and graphic organizerproduces
intlepenclentreaders.First of trll, the students
r-rti Iizeclreading strartegiesindependentlvernd
corrfidently.Therefore-., it supported Kamil's
(2003:5)definition of strategiesin readin€las
those directed and intended by the students
in orc-lerto build independencein reading.
The.n,as the teachergracluallyreleasedthe re-
sponsit-rilitvto the stuclents,the procedure of
DITTA can be inc-lepenclently utilizecl by' the
stuclentsthemseh'c'sindepenclently.This is
supportirrg Richardsonand Morgan's (1997)
fincling that the DRTA engagesstudents in
higher order thinking skills and that thcse
skills include making connections betwec.n
interre'latedelements of the text, justifying
thought processesancl dralving logical con-
clusions.They r-naintainthat these skills can
sct tl-repathway tor.t.ardindependent re'ad-
ing, fosterlearnerresponsibilitvanclimprove
reaclingcomprehension.This findir-rgis in line
n'itli the principle of teachingreading state.cl
bv Blachowicz and Oglc. (2008) that "goocl
tr..rchersknow their stuclents.rnd proviclethe
nec.clcdguidance trtrclsupport as thev con-
sciouslvmove from clirectinstructionto a re-
leaseof responsibilitvto their students".
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The conclusion an'ives at the description
of hon, Dirccted ReaclingThinking Activitt,
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
strategy can improve reading skill of the sec-
ond semesterEnglish Department studentsof
Islamic State College of Palangka Rar.a.The
research findings shor.r,edthat affirmative
development of the students' reacling com-
prehension was rendered from the rncrease
of languageproficiency in relation to exposi-
tory writer's organization thev recognized
through sequentialactivitiesof the DRTA.
The achievementgain showed encourag-
ing result as indicateclby the increasingmearn
score which n,as 70 in prelin"rintrrystudy
and steadilv increased72.93in Cycle 1 and
reached80 in Cycle 2, revealing that twenty
eight (84%)of the students scored above av-
erageof 75 out 100 points. Five (157")of the
studentsscoredbelow minimum target of 75
points which to someextentraisedbetter th.rn
their prerriousresults.In regarcln'ith the stu-
clents'particip-rattion
in the teachirrgand learn-
ing processin the two cycles (six meetings),
the analysis of observation,field notes, and
questionnairedata demonstratedpositive re-
sults in that the students actively eneaged in
the learning process.
Tl-reimpror;ernentof the achievementtests
and learning ptrrticipationwere encompassed
through three stagesof DRTA strategyname-
ly, pre-reading, whilst-reading, and post-
reading stages.ln the pre-reading stage the
students w,ere introducec'lto promote their
language proficiencv in the schernattrt-ruild-
ing activitv bv the clisplavof pictures ancl in-
troduction of new/contextual vocalrularies
on the whiteboard.
In the whilst-reading stage, the teacher
initiated the three phasesof DRTA: preclict-
ing, guidcd-silent reacling,ancl post-readirig
(prove) phases. Activities at the precliction
st.rge.arc-:(1) lr,riting the title- of tlre text to
be read on the whiteboard, (2) grouping the
class,(3)giving modelingof how to statepre-
diction, (4) clelivering the DRTA rvorksheet,
(5) asking the students to formulate predic-
tion orally, (6) rvriting the students' predic-
tion on the whiteboard and (7) asking the stu-
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-
cessedon June,8'h2009).
Mever, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J.
1980.Use of Top Level Structure in
Text: Key for Reading Comprehen-
sion of Ninth-Grade Students. Rentl-
i ng Resear ch Quarterly, 76, 72-703.
Morrison, L. (2004).Comprehension moni-
toring in first and second language
reacling. The CanatliLtnModern Lan-
gltageReaieur, 61(1),77-106.
NAEP Coverning Board.(2008).Rending Frame-
utorkfor the2009 National Assessrnentof
EducntittrtnlProgress. WashingtonDC:
U.S.Departmentof Eciucation.
Pearson,P.D., & Camperell, K. (1994).Com-
prehensionof Text Structures.In R.B.
Ruddell,M.R. Ruddell,and H. Singer
(Eds.).Tlrcoreticnl Modalsnttd Processcs
ttf Rendittg(ltlr cd.).Ne.wark,DE: In-
ternartionalReadin g Association.
Richardson, J.5., and Morgan, R.F. (1997). Yazdanpanah,K. (2007).The Effect of Back-
Readingto Lenrnin the ContentAreas.
Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Cornp.rn\,.
Richards, I C. & Renanclver,W. A. (2002).
Ittltrnll ttn English LtsLtFttreignLangungc,)'oltrnu,7, Nunrber 1, NInrch 2011 |
Metltodologyin LanguageTeaching:An
Antlnlttgy of Current Practice.Cam-
bridge University Press.
Smith, M. C. (2000).The real world reacling
practicesof adults. Journalof Literncr.l
Research, 32,25-32.
Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, Practice and
Promise: Comprehension Strategy
Instructiorr in Primarl' Grades. TJtc
Rendfutg Tenclrcr,57 (7): 598-609.
Stauffer,R. C. (1990).Directing reading ma-
turity as a cognitive process.In Cil-
let, J. W., & Temple, C. Understanding
ReadirtgProblems:As-sr'55111317; and In-
struction (Third Eclition).New York:
Harpsr Collins.
Tankersley, K. (2005). Literat:y Strategiesfor
Grndes4-12: Rcinforcingtlrc Threatlsof
Rcndir rg. Alexandria,VA: Association
for Supervision and Culriculum De-
velopmsnl.
ground Knowledge and Reading
ComprehensionTest ltems on Male
and Female Performance..T/le Reatl-
hrgNIatrix,7 (2),64-80.
57