Tugasan 2-kajian Tindakan Gb5032

Nur Baiti Anum Mohamad Shafie (P48615) DPLI UKM (08/09)

ACTION RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Task 2: Three journals were selected and downloaded from e-journal databases. These journals were concerning action research in education. Journal 1

Similarities

•

•

This is a

Journal 2

•

This is a

Journal 3

•

This is a

collaborative

collaborative action

collaborative

action research.

research.

action research.

It was carried out in classroom settings

•

It was carried out in classroom settings

•

It was carried out in classroom settings

Differences 1) Sample / Participants:

1)Sample / Participants:-

1)Sample / Participants:

- Undergraduate students (age approximately 19 years old) with total number of 1160 students; 598 males and 562 females.

- 24 preservice teachers. All females, EuroAmerican and resided in the same area.

- Junior/middle school students. In total 118 students were involved. (50 males & 68 females).

2) Design / Procedure:

2) Design / Procedure:

2)Design / Procedure:

- Participants recruited - 24 preservice teachers were from 164 Faculties at enrolled in an introductory early childhood education Midwest University. were selected. - 15 Instructors agreed to Participants were be the research team. randomly assigned into - This research used groups consisting of 3-4 surveys approach. Two members each. types of survey administered during the - Each group was required course semester; Student to implement a 6 week survey and Faculty survey. project to a small group of preschool-aged children - Student surveys were (age 3 years old). administered late in the semester in order to - This research was provide basis for rating conducted in 2 stages; classroom experience. 1) Stage 1: participants - 3 issues were asked in were invited to involve in a student survey items; retrospective interviews at classroom community, the end of the course. 10 interactive learning and agreed to be interviewed. autonomy support. 2) Stage 2: aimed to - Faculty survey items minimize the variability focused on academic across the team. Criteria incivility and for selection were; each team consist of the same collaborative learning. number of preservice - Data from both surveys teachers, they taught the were collected and same age children and analyzed using software taught the same number of called EQS to validate the practicum days across the scales of student survey.

- This research used quasi-experimental, pre/posttest design which took place within two consecutive phases covering two consecutive units of a biology course. - There were four groups of participating students. Each group was represented by a different pre-existing general biology class and students in each class were consistent throughout both phases of the study - The four classes were: Class 1 (3rd/4th graders), Class 2 (parents), Class 3 (peers), and Class 4(teacher). The same instructor taught biology for all classes. This study was conducted in 2 phases. 1) Phase 1: All groups were assigned to participate in writing-to-

Calculation RMSEA and semester. Chi square were made to observe the effectiveness - Instruments / analytical tools used were journals, of measured parameters. video tapes, transcription of audio tapes, discussions and retrospective interviews.

learn activities. This to provide them with writing experience.

2) Phase 2: all groups were required to joined writing-to-learn activities. However, at this phase the groups - The course included wrote for different practicum and lectures audiences and it dealt (weekly) and divided into with the circulatory and 3 phases over a15 weeks. respiratory system. 1) Phase 1: Orientation weeks in which preservice teachers kept daily journal, making observation, audio taped and transcribed children’s’ conversation, critiqued video tapes of master and novice teachers, and created topic and concept in order to choose relevant project topic. 2) Phase 2: Implementation of collaborative project. Utilization of classroom documentation for guidance and informing their cycle of inquiry. 3) Phase 3: Interpretation of the project for preparation of writing and oral analyses. - Retrospective interviews were semi-structured and conducted at the end of the course. 10 preservice teachers were interviewed. - Data obtained from the

Written assignments were assessed on these criteria: grammatical quality, coherence, accuracy and completeness in meeting the requirements and in describing the structures of the two systems. Assessment was based on an instructor-created rubric - All groups were administered with an identical pre- and posttest. - All tests were graded by the instructor, with random conceptual questions being graded by a science colleague in order to assure interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was calculated by randomly selecting 10 different responses from the student tests and comparing the scoring of the instructor with that of the second rater. The scores for each question were compared to

analysis of journals, video tapes, and transcription of audio tapes, discussions and retrospective interviews. - Data were cross-tabulated and recorded in charts and matrices using constant comparative method across time to organize behaviors of individual preservice teachers as well as team.

determine the percentage of times the two independent scorers agreed on the student score.

Journal 1:

This research was done to test a model using variables that represented increased peer interaction within classroom community and interactive learning as mediators of the relation between students’ incivility in different collaborative learning context. Incivility (rudeness or bad manners) in a classroom is not unusual to educators; however it is getting worst from time to time. It was suggested that teacher needs to possess a strong autonomy support for handling incivility among students. Autonomy support includes “warmth strategies” such as emotional support, offering choices and control over students’ own learning (student centered). Participants involved were from 18 different college classrooms. They asked to complete a student survey at the end of the semester in which they have to give response on issues of classroom community, interactive learning and autonomy support. Faculty survey was completed by faculty members based on two issues; academic incivility and collaborative learning. Data from the survey was analyzed and a path analysis was conducted to construct a model of variable relationship in informal groups. It was found out that autonomy support did predicting intolerance of incivility in a classroom adopting group work. Perhaps the instructors were intolerant to incivility in a classroom although students were more comfortable to take class time to discuss about their assignments and projects. Instructors need to give more space and freedom to their students; let them to have more choice, control and support them using autonomy support. It gives advantages to instructors in the sense students will respect them and having no much trouble controlling class environment. This research offers a new perspective on the relationships between collaborative learning, teacher autonomy support, and student incivility, but is not without limitations. Perhaps if more instructors responses to the survey, much data can be collected and analyzed to see the most effective intervention to control incivility as well as to examine specific types of behaviors that lead to instructor assessments that incivility exists and/or their tolerance of incivility. Finally,

future research could examine the specific tasks involved in formal and informal collaborative learning to examine any specific pedagogical differences related to incivility.

Journal 2: The research was conducted as a collaborative project work in which will be utilized as a professional tool for preservice teachers to learn to teach, reflect and make decision together, which is related to children’s needs, abilities and interests. The study was done collaboratively among preservice teachers (with no teaching experience) and aimed to help novice teachers to improve themselves via reflective actions. It was a brilliant approach since individual behavior or reflection can be enhanced through groups and collaboration. The ability of self regulating one’s teaching behavior is an advantage however via trusted partnership, preservice teachers are able to reflect on each other behavior which is an added value; it does help in improving themselves. Collaborative action research is a unique research; it needs commitments and interest in research. It is also serves as a tool for sharing professional experience and teaching practice. This research used lots of analytical tools for validating and analyzing the observations on assigned classroom. For instance, these preservice teachers used their documentation as guidance for their inquiry cycles. Their cycle of inquiry took 15 week to be completed, as in each step (plan, action, reflect and revise) reflection of action was done. After reflection, improvement of teaching strategies and tools were carried out to enhance the delivery of lectures in classroom. Interestingly, this research used retrospective interviews which required teachers to recall back what they have taught, their teaching strategies and communication during the lesson. Analysis of data was made in two categories; individual level and team level as well as between teams to give insight of the effectiveness of the collaborative approach. Through constant observations, documentation, and reflection, implemented teaching strategies were redefined and improvised to meet the situation as well as students’ needs, abilities and interests. Overall, this research opens a window for research activities among novice teachers as it proved that collaborative research is an effective and efficient means for improving themselves,

through reflection of action and making collaborative decision for the sake of their students. Perhaps if this research was done in long period of time (more than one cycle), it is able to gives us deep insight into how collaborative action research is able to help novice teachers to preparing themselves into real teaching career and encourage them to engage into continuous commitment towards making their own research.

Journal 3:

This study was done to determine if the audiences for which students write explanation of Biology concepts affects their understanding on these concepts. It was based on previous research that writing-to-learning activities can have positive effects on students’ achievement particularly in science classroom. These activities are able to widen students’ view on scientific perspectives, deepen their understanding as well as improving their metacognitive awareness. Proper guidance for writing is critical since it help students to understand how to write properly according to the audience they are intended to be addressed, manipulating writing skills as well as writing versatility. This study focused on 2 factors; cognitive model of writing and the design of writing-tolearning activities in the science classroom. As mentioned by the authors, audience awareness is a critical component of all good writing. It is also important for the writer to recognize his or her audiences for the writing to be accepted and effectively delivered. When writing in science, one need to recognize and familiar with the language ~ science language, which is unique in term of the terminologies and jargons. This is the ultimate weakness of the students. Due to this limitation, students are unable to express their opinions and share what they have in their mind regarding on science and issues in science, let alone recognizing who are the potential audiences. Conventional method of writing science is very rigid. Students are usually translating science language into their familiar language for them to understand the concept learnt and, then again they translate into language that their teacher (intended audience) understands (science language). This generally affected how they write their reports or assignments.

Methods for this study was carefully designed and involved variety of subjects (i.e. gender, grades and race) which were assigned into four groups with different audience. This approach was used to preparing students in recognizing their audience. This study was done in two phases to validate the method as well as data collection. If in phase 1 students were prepared to write to certain audience, in phase 2 they were assigned to write to randomly selected audiences. An assessment tasks was given as an administered pre- and post-test measures. Data was analyzed using specified statistic measures. From the statistical analysis, writing –tolearning activities affected students’ performance; they understand the concept learnt better as they produced good writing. This study was very structured and well designed. Participants and methods for the study were carefully selected to avoid bias. However, the authors did not stated how long does this study took therefore it is difficult to determine when the study was completed and how long does it take for the intervention to works. In the end, teachers bear a responsibility to introduce and implement more writing-to-learn activities as it helps to improve students understanding of concepts in science. More research should be conducted to improvise pedagogical aspect of this strategy in future.