THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
IN READING COMPREHENSION
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
DEBORA ANGGREINI SIHITE
Registration Number: 8106112029
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING STRATEGIES AND PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
IN READING COMPREHENSION
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
DEBORA ANGGREINI SIHITE
Registration Number: 8106112029
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
Sihite, Debora Anggreini. Registration Number: 8106122029. The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Prior Knowledge on Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. State University of Medan. 2013
ii ABSTRAK
Sihite, Debora Anggreini. 8106122029. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan Pengetahuan Dasar dalam Membaca. Tesis. Program Study Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2013
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Jesus Christ, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like to express her sincere gratitude, Jesus Christ the almighty who has given her blessing health, strength and patience in the process of
completing this thesis in the title the effect of teaching strategies and prior knowledge on students’ achievement in reading comprehension as a partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence
without the help of a great many people. At first, in particular, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M. Pd., and Dr. Didik
Santoso, M. Pd., her first and second adviser for their so generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on supervising and guiding this thesis.
Secondly, the writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., his
secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Sir Farid who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process of his study in the postgraduate program. Special thanks to the all lecturers of the English Applied
iii
Thanks are due to her proposal reviewers and examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. I Wayan Dirgayasa
Tangkas, M.Hum., for their appropriate and helpful commentaries and constructive suggestions.
She would also very much like to express her gratitude to the all at schools
of SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa who have generously given their time and chance, and supplied her with contribution for conducting research of this study,
particularly Yensi Susani, S.Pd, the headmaster of SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa. This work is also dedicated to the all teachers and students of SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa who have provided their time and chance in supporting
this thesis.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like dedicate her
love and sincerest gratitude to her parents, B. Sihite and R. Purba, her husband Abner Siahaan, her daughter Ayu Siahaan, her brothers Ridwan, Boston, Alexander, and sister Hotmida for their sincere and most reliable comfort, and
above all, their love and support.
Medan, July 2013 The writer,
iv
1.1 The Background of the Problem………. …1
1.2 The Research Problems ………...…7
2.1.1 The Achievement in Reading Comprehension……...………. 9
2.1.1.1 Levels of Comprehension in Reading ………... ..12
2.1.1.2 The Assessment of Reading Comprehension…...……….…... ..13
2.1.2 Teaching Strategies…....…...……...……….…... ..13
2.1.2.1 Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) Strategy …………... ..16
2.1.2.1.1 Definition of DRTA Strategy………..………..16
2.1.2.1.2 The Principle of DRTA Strategy …..………....17
2.1.2.1.3 The Design of DRTA Strategy ………..………...18
2.1.2.1.4 The Procedure of DRTA Strategy in Teaching Reading………...19
2.1.2.1.5 The Strength and Weakness of DRTA Strategy ……….………..20
2.1.2.2 Reciprocal Teaching Strategy………. 21
2.1.2.2.1 Definition of Reciprocal Strategy………..……....21
2.1.2.2.2 The Principle of Reciprocal Strategy...……….22
2.2.2.2.3 The Design of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy………...24
2.1.2.2.4 The Procedure of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy in Teaching Reading ………....25
2.1.2.2.5 The Strengths and Weakness of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy…....25
v
2.1.3.1 High Prior Knowledge of Students on Learning...………...28
2.1.3.2 High Prior Knowledge of Students on Learning..………....28
2.2 Relevant Studies……….……….29
2.3 Conceptual Framework…………..………..31
2.3.1 The Differences of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension That Taught By Using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) Strategy and Reciprocal Teaching Strategy………..31
2.3.2 The Difference of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension that has high prior knowledge and that has low prior knowledge………...32
2.3.3 The Interaction between Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy and Reciprocal Teaching Strategy and Prior Knowledge in Students’ Achievement on Reading Comprehension……....34
2.4 Hypothesis of the Study ………...36
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……….………….. ..37
3.1 Research Design .………..………..37
3.6.3 Difficulty Index of the Test………..………...………. ..50
3.6.4 Discrimination Index of the Test Items………..…………50
3.7 Technique of Analyzing The Data……….……….…………52
3.8 Statistical Hypotheses………..…………. ..53
CHAPTER IV: DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS……….………. 54
4.1 Description of Data .………..……….. 54
4.1.1Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using DRTA Strategy………..……….. 55
4.1.2Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using Reciprocal Strategy………..……….. 57
4.1.3Students’ Achievement with High Prior Knowledge……… 59
4.1.4Students’ Achievement with Low Prior Knowledge………. 61
4.1.5Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Prior Knowledge taught by Using DRTA Strategy………. 63
vi
4.1.7Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Prior
Knowledge taught by Using Reciprocal Strategy..………. 67
4.1.8Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Prior Knowledge taught by Using Reciprocal Strategy..………. 69
4.2 Requirement of Data Analysis……… 71 4.2.1Normality Test……… 71
4.2.2Homogeneity Test……….. 72
4.2.2.1 Groups of Teaching Strategies and Prior Knowledge……… 73
4.2.2.2 Group of Interaction……… 74
4.3 Testing of Hypotheses……….. 75 4.3.1Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students taught by DRTA And Reciprocal Strategies……….. 76
4.3.2Reading Comprehension Achievement of Students with high Prior Knowledge and Low Prior Knowledge……….. 76
4.3.3The Interaction Between Teaching Strategies and Prior Knowledge On Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension…………...……. 77
4.4 Discussion……… 80 4.4.1Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using DRTA Strategy is higher than taught by using Reciprocal Strategy……. 80
4.4.2Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Prior Knowledge is higher than with Low Prior Knowledge……… 81
4.4.3The Interaction Between Teaching Strategies and Prior Knowledge On Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension…………...……. 83
4.5 Limitation of Research……… 84 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS………… 85
5.1 Conclusions……… 85
5.2 Implications……… 86
5.3 Suggestions……… 88
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension in SMP Yayasan
Perguruan Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa 2008-2012………. 3
Table 2 Factorial Design 2x2….…..………. 38
Table 3 Specification of Reading Comprehension Test ……….. 42
Table 4 Specification of Prior Knowledge Test.….………. 44
Table 5 Procedure of the Treatments………...……… 45
Table 6 Difficulty Index Criteria………...……… 56
Table 7 The Discrimination Index Criteria………...……… 57
Table 8 The Summary of Data Description………...……… 54
Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using DRTA Strategy………...……… 56
Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using Reciprocal Strategy………...……… 58
Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Scores of Students Having High Prior Knowledge 60
Table 12 Frequency Distribution of Scores of Students Having Low Prior Knowledge 62
Table 13 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having High Prior Knowledge Taught by using DRTA………...……… 64
Table 14 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having Low Prior Knowledge Taught by using DRTA………...……… 66
Table 15 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having High Prior Knowledge Taught by using Reciprocal…...……… 68
Table 16 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Having Low Prior Knowledge Taught by using Reciprocal…...……… 70
Table 17 Summary on the result of Normality Test………... 72
Table 18 Result Homogeneities of Teaching Strategies and Prior Knowledge……….. 73
Table 19 Summary on the result of Homogeneity Test on group of interaction By using Barlett-Test………... 74
Table 20 Result of Homogeneity Test on Interaction Group………. 74
Table 21 Two-Way ANOVA with 2x2 Factorial Design………... 75
Table 22 Summary on calculation result of Two-Way ANOVA………... 75
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using DRTA ……. 57 Figure 2 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension Taught by using Reciprocal…. 59 Figure 3 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with High Prior Knowledge…. 61 Figure 4 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension with Low Prior Knowledge…. 63 Figure 5 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
with High Prior Knowledge Taught by using DRTA ……….…………. 65
Figure 6 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
with Low Prior Knowledge Taught by using DRTA ……….…………. 67
Figure 7 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
with High Prior Knowledge Taught by using Reciprocal...……….…………. 69
Figure 8 Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
with Low Prior Knowledge Taught by using Reciprocal ..……….………….………. 71
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
A. Reading Comprehension Test ……….. 93
B. Prior Knowledge Reading Test……….. 99
C. Lesson Plan of DRTA Strategy………. 107
D. Lesson Plan of Reciprocal Strategy ………. 109
E. The Computation of Reading Comprehension Test………. 111
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Problem
Reading is an essential skill for all students at all levels started from elementary school to university. It is supported by Brown (2000: 185) stating that
reading is arguably the most essential skill for success in all educational contexts and remains a skill of paramount importance as one creates assessment of
language ability. Reading also has one overriding purpose to get meaning from a text. By giving reading activity in the language learning, teacher actually activates students’ schemata. If the students have limited knowledge, they automatically
will not be able to write something or speak something even though they master the structure of English well.
In fact, the knowledge will not be reached by students if they lack of comprehending a text. It is because the reading is not only as the process of communication between the reader and the writer through written symbol in the
text but also as an activity which must enable the students as the readers to grasp the information implied in the text by activating their thinking process so that the
reading comprehension is earned.
The above ideas principally respond to Irwin (1986: 9) stating that comprehension is an active process to which each reader brings his or her
individual attitudes, interests, expectations, skills, and prior knowledge. It is as the process of using one’s own prior experiences (reader context) and the writer’s
2
clues (text context) to infer the author’s intended meaning. This process can involve micro processes, integrative processes, macro processes, and elaborative
processes. These processes work together and can be controlled and adjusted by the reader as required by the reader’s goals (metacognitive processes) and the total
situation in which comprehension is taking place (situational context).
In addition, Light and McNaughton (2012) utter that the reading comprehension require the learner to decode or recognize by sight the words in
the written text, understand the meaning of the words/ sentences, relate meaning of the sentence(s) to the rest of the text, activate prior knowledge and experience about the topic, use this prior knowledge to infer meaning and support
understanding, monitor understanding of the text continually.
In Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (Educational Oriented
Curriculum) 2006, reading is one of language skills that must be taught in English classes of Junior High School students. Through the teaching and learning of reading, the students are expected to be able to comprehend the reading passages
they read well. The objective of reading instruction in Junior High School is to develop the students’ reading skill in order they can read English texts effectively
and efficiently.
In reality, reading is not as easy as people think; it is not easy to have ability of drawing a meaning from a text and interpret the information
appropriately. There are so many students who are able to read out loud some texts in the class with the appropriate pronunciation but they do not know what
3
then consult the unknown vocabularies, continue with the meaning of each sentences. The students need twice, three times or even more to read a text and
comprehend a text to get the meaning or information from the text.
The same problem also happened to the students of SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa. It is found that students’ achievement in reading comprehension
score of eleven grade students at SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa only 30% got high score in reading comprehension. This is actually the phenomenon teacher
faced in the class included in SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa. The detailed data can be seen in the following table:
Table1. Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension in SMP Dwi Tunggal Tanjung Morawa 2008-2012
Academic Year KKM Highest Score Lowest Score Average
2007/2008 65 78 40 59
2008/2009 68 80 45 62.5
2009/2010 70 85 50 67.5
2010/2011 75 90 50 70
(Source of Daftar Kumpulan Nilai (DKN) SMP Dwi Tunggal)
The result shown by the table indicates that the students’ achievement in
reading comprehension is still satisfactory. It is concluded that the students’ achievement do not meet Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (The minimum Passing
Grade; MPG) determined which 75 are as long as the academic year 2011-2012.
Considering the condition above, it is necessary to find factors may affect the students’ reading comprehension achievement. The low level of the students’
4
Alexander (1988) identifies some factors that influence reading comprehension, they are: reading material, the total program of reading instruction, the children
own personality, attitudes, interest, motivation, habits and their out of school environment.
As cited above, the teachers should have effective reading instruction strategies to improve students’ reading comprehension, because effective reading
instruction strategies beyond literal and inferential comprehension by challenging
students to make inferences about text, to think critically about the material they read, and to creatively transform the text they encounter into other format and form. Moreover, effective instruction in comprehension should be designed in
way that challenge students to think creatively and to display their creative thinking to work in ways that are engaging, authentic, and enjoyable. And the
effective strategies are chosen by the researcher in this study that can be used by teacher to accommodate these skills and improve the students’ reading
comprehension are directed reading thinking activity (DRTA) and reciprocal
teaching.
Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) is a strategy that is intended
to develop students’ ability to read critically and reflectively. The directed reading thinking activity attempts to equip readers with the ability to determine the purposes of reading, the ability to extract, comprehend, and assimilate
information, the ability to make predictions to examine reading materials based on the purposes of reading, the ability to pass judgments, and finally the ability to
5
facilitate reading comprehension (Dougherty Stahl, 2004 and Riley, 2006). The findings also prove that the directed reading thinking activity yielded statistically
significant effects on fluency as measured by a timed maze task and effects on reading comprehension. The value of directed reading thinking activity is to make predictions before reading each section. Requiring students to make predictions
encourage use of context clues and establishes a purpose for reading. This cycle requires students to use their background knowledge to set purposes for reading
and develop their questioning ability. Verifying predictions while reading extend thoughts and promotes interactive learning. The power of the directed reading thinking activity strategy increases when the teacher guides students to check their
predictions after reading (Allen, 2004).
While the reciprocal involves explicit instruction by the teacher in the students’ use of the strategies, such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and
summarizing, to develop their reading comprehension. Reciprocal teaching is based on meta-cognitive strategy instruction (Hashey & Connors, 2003).
Reciprocal teaching has been heralded as effective in helping students improve their reading ability in pre-post trials or research studies (Pearson & Doyle, 1987).
As the students become more familiar with the use of the strategies, the teacher plays a less prominent role and the students develop the ability to work co-operatively with their peers (Wisaijorn, 2010). In the area of reading
comprehension interventions, reciprocal teaching has been proven to increase the reading comprehension abilities of students (Lederer, 2000).
One of the internal factors which also affect reading processes is readers’
6
to comprehension (Daniels & Zemelman, 2004). Good readers are active in constructing meaning through the process of interacting with what they read and
connecting this knowledge with what they already know (Anderson, et al 1985). These connections, or associations, help to elucidate meaning and deepen comprehension. Successful reading comprehension depends primarily on the integration of readers’ prior knowledge with the information in the text (Goldman
& Bisanz in Kandeou 2003). Experts or novices Van den Broek, et al (2002) argue that readers’ prior knowledge is one of many factors that affect learning from
texts. The findings are first, readers with high or low knowledge, readers possessing or lacking misconceptions, all remember information from the texts
they read largely as a function of the interactions between their prior knowledge and the features and ideas contained within the text. Second, a reader’s prior
knowledge is subject to incorrect assumptions and beliefs.
According to underlying facts, this study is intended to discover the use of the two strategies and students’ prior knowledge of text in teaching reading and to find out which of the two strategies and students’ prior knowledge have
significantly affect on the students’ reading comprehension. It means that the
7
1.2 The Research Problem
In relation with the background, therefore it is concluded that the problems of this research are formulated as the following:
1. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategies significantly
higher than taught by using Reciprocal Teaching strategies?
2. Is the students’ achievement in reading comprehension for those students with high prior knowledge significantly higher than those students with
low prior knowledge?
3. Is there any significant effect between teaching strategies of reading and
prior knowledge?
1.3 The Objective of the Study
The primary objectives of this study are to answer the questions that
mentioned in the problem of the study, they can be listed as follows:
1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in reading comprehension taught by using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategy is
significantly higher than Reciprocal Teaching strategy.
2. To find out whether students’ achievement in reading comprehension with
high prior knowledge is significantly higher than with low prior knowledge.
3. To find out whether there is a significant interaction between teaching
8
1.4 The Scope of the Study
Achievement in reading comprehension is caused by many factors namely
internal and external factor, including teaching strategies and prior knowledge. In this study, the researcher restricts the study to two teaching strategies, namely Directed Reading Thinking Activities (DRTA) Strategy and Reciprocal Teaching
Strategy in reading comprehension. Then, the researcher will identify the level of students’ prior knowledge text. By knowing the level of prior knowledge of the
students whether they have high or low prior knowledge, it is expected that this research will give clear description on the effect of teaching strategies and prior knowledge on students’ achievement in reading comprehension.
1.5 The Significance of the study
First of all, findings are expected to be useful for development of theory and practice. Theoretically, this study will give positive input for teaching in
overcoming problem in area of reading comprehension either to the teachers, students, or researchers through value finding in the area of teaching reading.
Practically, the finding of this research will provide students to improve
their reading comprehension and to be more enjoyable when reading process and also teachers with series of guides of reading strategies (DRTA and Reciprocal)
related with reading comprehension. So, they can practice both strategies in their classroom when they are teaching reading. Then, it is also hoped that the finding of this study will lead the teachers, students, and other researchers to multi-
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on data analysis, hypotheses testing, research findings, and
discussion, it can be concluded that :
1) Reading comprehension achievement of students taught by using DRTA strategy is significantly higher than those taught by using Reciprocal
strategy. It can be concluded that both strategies DRTA and Reciprocal significantly affect Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension
2) reading comprehension achievement of students having high prior knowledge is significantly higher than those having low prior knowledge. It can be concluded that Prior Knowledge significantly affect students’
achievement in reading comprehension
3) Students with high prior knowledge showed significant effect in their
reading comprehension achievement if they were taught by using DRTA strategy while students having low prior knowledge showed significant effect in their reading comprehension if they were taught by using
Reciprocal strategy. It can be concluded that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and prior knowledge on students’ achievement
in reading comprehension.
86
5.2 Implications
The findings of this study gives implication to the students who want to improve their reading comprehension achievement and to the teachers who want
to develop reading comprehension skill of their students when learning and teaching process takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two reading strategies, namely DRTA and Reciprocal. They are applied to students with high
and low prior knowledge in order to know which teaching strategy is more suitable for them in improving their reading comprehension achievement.
The first finding of this research shows that students with high prior knowledge have higher achievement in reading comprehension when they were taught by using DRTA strategy. it implies that English teacher should try to apply
this strategy for it can activate students’ prior knowledge, retrieve information from the text, interpret it, and reflect their understanding by creating their personal
knowledge. This strategy really helps the students become active readers. Moreover, DRTA strategy also can make English teachers become easier in managing learning activity because they just function as facilitator. At the end of
DRTA session, the teachers clarify the findings of the students during reading process. Therefore, this strategy can be a good choice for English teacher in
teaching reading comprehension.
The second finding of this research showed that reading comprehension achievement of students with high prior knowledge is higher than those with low
87
reading comprehension, the teacher should identify their students’ prior
knowledge. The identification of students’ prior knowledge can determine the
teachers in deciding what efforts they will do to make the students pay more
attention when they are teaching reading comprehension. So, understanding that students have different prior knowledge is the key to success in teaching reading comprehension since the teachers can choose which strategy is more suitable to
apply in the classroom.
The third finding of this research reveals that there is significant interaction between teaching strategies and prior knowledge on students’
achievement in reading comprehension. It implies that any teaching strategy applied by the teachers should be related to the levels of students’ prior knowledge. The way the teachers provoke students’ prior knowledge determine
the attitude of the students in learning reading comprehension. Finally, it is
88
5.3 Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions presented in previous chapter, it is suggested that:
1) English teachers are recommended using DRTA and Reciprocal strategy because both strategies can improve students’ reading comprehension
achievement.
2) English teacher should provoke and encourage students based on their prior knowledge to participate more active in the classroom in order that they can
achieve better achievement in reading comprehension.
3) Other researchers can develop further study in the area of DRTA and Reciprocal strategies in order to improve students’ achievement in reading
89
REFERENCES
Alderson, Charles. J. 2000. Assessing Reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), 377–404
Allen, J. (2004). Tools for teaching content literacy. Portland, ME: Sten house Publishers.Anderson, R. C., Herbert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, J. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
Anderson, R. C., Herbert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, J. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
Ary,Donald. 1979. Introduction to Research Education (second Edition). United State of America: CBS College Publishing.
Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research Education (Eight Edition). USA: Wadsworth.
Beer, S., & Howell, L. (2003). Reading strategies for the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bloom, B.1982. Taxonomy of Education Objective, handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay
Brassel, Danny and Rasinsky, Timothy. 2008. Comprehension that Works (Taking Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding To Deep Comprehension). Huntington Beach: Corinne Burton.
Brown, D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principle of language learning and teaching (5th Edition). London : Longman.
Burn, et all. 1984. Reading Comprehension. Pressley: Lysynchuk.
Buss, Lauren M. 2005. Using Reading Response Journals for Reading Comprehension. Journal for Reading. Vol 8 (1) pp 1-7
Coper, Timothy and Greive, Cedric. 2009. The Effectiveness of the Methods of Reciprocal Teaching. Education Papers and Journals Articles. Vol 1 (3), pp 45-52
90
Danielle, S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (2004). Subjects matter: every teacher's guide to content-area reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dougherty Stahl, K.A. (2004). Proof practice and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher Journal, 57(5), 598-609.
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. Either and Pikley. 2006. Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Comprehension.
London: Longman
Gill-Garcia, A., & Villegas, J. 2003. Engaging minds, enhancing comprehension and constructing knowledge through visual representations. Retrieved from ERIC debate.
Grabe, Stoller, 2002. Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Hacker, D.J & Tenent, A. 2002. Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol 94 (4), 699-718. teaching action research. The Reading Teacher, Vol 57, 224-232.
Holly, Diehl. L. (2005) The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Framework on Strategy Acquisition of 4th – Grade Strunggling Readers. Mogantown, West Virginia University
Irwin, Judith Westphal. 1986. Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kandeou P. Rapp.D.N., & Van Den Broek. P. 2003. The Influence of Readers’ Prior Knowledge on Text Comprehension and Learning from text. Progress in Education Vol .13 (pp 189-209). Nova Science Publishers, Inc: New York
91
Lems, K. et al. 2010. Teaching Reading to English Language Learners. New York: The Guilford press A Division of Guilford Publication, Inc.
Light, Janice and McNaughton, David. 2012. Literacy Instruction for Individuals with Autism cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, and Other Disabilities. Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania State University.
Mary Jo Clark, M. Ed. and Leonore Ganschow, Ed.D.2005 Six Reading Strategies for Adult Educators .Ohio Dept. of Education.
Mc. Neil J.D. 1992. Reading Comprehension::: Practice (3rd Ed) Los Angeles: Harper Collons Publisher
Moore, P. J. 1988. Reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension: a review. Journal of Research in Reading Association. Vol 1,pp 301-312
Oczkus, L.D. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Oxford,R., and Ehrman, M. 1998. Psychological Type and Adult Language Learning Strategies: A Pilot Study. Journal of Psychological Type.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 771-777.
Paris, Scoot G. 1987. Reading and Thinking Strategies. Lexington: DC. Heath. Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A
review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Riggs, Ernestine Gates, & Gil-Garcia, Ana. (2001). Helping middle and high school readers: Teaching and learning strategies across the curriculum. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Riley. D. (2006). The Effect of Directed reading Thinking Activity on low reading Achievement First Grade Students. Dissertation International. 32 (4), 259-262.
Rumerlhart , D. E. 1982. Schemata : the building blocks of cognition. In J. Guthrie (Ed), Comprehension and teaching: research reviews (pp.3026). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domainrelated information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
92
Stephanie Caillies and Guy Denhiere 2002. The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 14 (2), 267-286. Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
Steve . K, Jacqueline .K, James .C. and Amaneh T. (2009). Using Students’ Previous Experience and Prior Knowledge to Facilitate Conceptual Change in an Introductory Material Course. Arizona State University 2009.
Talal, A. H. Al Odman. (2012). The Effect of Directed Reading Thinking Activity
through Cooperative Learning on English Secondary Stage Students’
Reading Comprehensioni in Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science: Vol 2 No 16
Tanya 2003. From Reciprocal Teaching At Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension. International Reading Assosiation.
Travers, John P. 1970. Fundamentals of Educational Psychology. Scrantom, Pensylvania: International Textbook Company.
Van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Gaddy, M., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. C. (2002). Comprehension and memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representation. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Wisaijorn, Patareeya. 2010. Strategy training in the teaching of reading comprehension; Does it work for students whose first language is NOT English?.Ubon Rajathanee: Ubon Rajathanee University.
Yu-Fen, Yang (2010). "Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction". Computers and Education 55: 1193–1201.
