Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Minggu 6

Minggu 6: Pengumpulan Data (Kuliah oleh Puan Sakinah)
Kajian tindakan memerlukan: berfikir secara sistematik, sentiasa muhasabah diri (reflect) dan sentiasa memperbaiki diri (action).
Pengenalan:-
Terdapat pelbagai teknik pengumpulan data. Namun begitu penggunaan teknik yang baik tidak menjamin kualiti dapatan sesuatu kajian. Penyelidikan perlu dilakukan dengan sempurna dan penyelidik perlu berusaha untuk memastikan kualiti yang tinggi dalam penyelidikan.
Tiga sebab KUALITI itu penting:-
  1. tanggungjawab kepada pelajar
  2. keperluan kepada kecekapan diri & orang lain
  3. keperluan untuk membuat tindakan & berubah kepada perkara yang bermanfaat ( menambah ilmu pengetahuan dengan melakukan kajian tindakan)

Kriteria kualiti:-

  • 2 faktor penting dalam penyelidikan adalah: Keshan (validity) dan kebolehpercayaan (reliability)
  • faktor-faktor tersebut amat kritikal kepada kualiti penyelidikan

1) Kesahan (validity)

Merujuk kepada kebenaran data; dengan mengetahui samada data sebenarnya mengukur dan mencerminkan fonemena yang dikaji (it is suppose to measure what it is suppose to measure).

2. Kebolehpercayaan (reliability)

Merujuk kepada ketepatan data atau consistency. Kebolehpercayaan selalu dipertikaikan apabila sampel kajian terlalu kecil. Untuk penambahbaikan data, soalan-soalan berikut perlu diteliti:

" adakah matlamat ini merupakan perwakilan tepat realiti?"

"bolehkah saya fikir sebarang sebab untuk syak kepada ketepatan data?"

5 tahap penyelidikan kajian tindakan:-

  1. kenalpasti masalah
  2. perancangan tindakan
  3. mengumpul data
  4. analisis data
  5. perancangan untuk tindakan seterusnya

Mengumpul data:-

  • apakah jenis data yang perlu dikumpulkan untuk menjawab persoalan kajian?
  • bagaimana hendak memastikan terdapat pelbagai perspektif? (dapatkan dari pelbagai sumber atau triangulation)

Alat-alat pengumpulan data:-

  • pemerhatian (video tape)
  • nota guru dan komen
  • kerja pelajar
  • refleksi pelajar & kerja pelajar
  • jurnal pelajar
  • ujian
  • tinjauan soal selidik
  • temuduga (audio tape)

Tugasan:-

Kemaskini proposal yang telah dibuat sebelum ini khususnya di bahagian pengumpulan data.

<2423915 Proposal Kajian Tindakan

Minggu 6:



Minggu 6: Proposal Kajian Tindakan
(Kuliah oleh Hajah Halimah)

Pada minggu ini kuliah kajian tindakan diberikan oleh Hajah Halimah Harun. Sebelum itu, beliau meminta semua pelajar untuk memcatatkan biodata masing-masing di atas sekeping kertas (butiran seperti nama, alamat, status perkahwinan, kenapa mahu jadi guru, tugas-tugas guru dll).kemudian setiap pelajar dikehendaki melukis sebatang pokok mengiku kreativiti masing-masing serta menulis tarikh lahir masing-masing pada pokok yang telah dilukis.
Kemudian, kertas-kertas tersebut dikumpulkan. Hajah Halimah menunjukkan beberapa lukisan yang telah dilukis oleh para pelajar. Beliau bertanya apakah tujuannya melukis pokok tersebut. Kebanyakkan pelajar berpendapat lukisan pokok itu menggambarkan keperibadian seseorang. sebagai contohnya, lukisan pokok yang besar menggambarkan seseorang yang berkeyakinan tinggi dan tegas. Begitu juga sebaliknya.
Hajah Halimah juga bertanya tentang tugas guru. Apakah sebenarnya tugas seorang guru? Rata-rata berpendapat tugas seorang guru adalah untuk mendidik. Tetapi Hajah Halimah berpendapat untk mendidik seseorang itu tidak perlu menjadi seorang guru. Beliau menyatakan tugas guru adalah untuk berkongsi maklumat dengan para pelajar.
"Education is a sharing profession"
Para pelajar kemudiannya diminta untuk membuat kumpulan 2 orang dan membincangkan @ mengulas tentang satu tajuk pembentangan di Seminar Pendidikan Serantau yang lalu. Kemudian beberapa kumpulan telah diminta untuk membentangkan dapatan masing-masing. Terdapat beberapa kumpulan yang terkeliru antara kajian tindakan dan kajian eksperimental. Salah faham tentang konsep kajian tindakan ini telah diterangkan oleh Hajah Halimah iaitu setiap kajian tindakan mesti mempunyai 4 langkah iaitu plan, action, observe and reflect bertujuan untuk menambahbaik sesuatu amalan pengajaran, strategi pengajaran dan meningkatkan kefahaman pelajar.
Aktiviti seterusnya melibatkan pmbentukan kumpulan (5 orang) yang terdiri daripada campuran pelajar-pelajar yang berlainan jantina, kaum dan kursus. Setiap kumpulan perlu berbincang untuk menghasilkan tugasan berikut:
Tugasan: Buat proposal kajian tindakan (5 orang).
Hantar proposal dalam kotak surat 15 pada hari Khamis 28/05/2009.
Kumpulan kami telah memilih tajuk "Meningkatkan penguasaan Bahasa Inggeris menggunakan kaedah Role play simulation" dan tajuk ini telah di approve oleh Hajah Halimah.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Tugasan 2: Ulasan Jurnal (cont)

Tugasan 2-KAJIAN TINDAKAN GB5032 Tugasan 2-KAJIAN TINDAKAN GB5032 annum83

Tugasan 2: Ulasan Jurnal

Tugasan 2

-Dapatkan 3 jurnal luar negara yang memerihalkan kajian tindakan yang telah dilakukan dalam pendidikan. Lakukan perbandingan (persamaan & perbezaan), penganalisisan, penilaian, perumusan & pengsintesisan dari segi sampel, seting, prosedur kajian, pengumpulan dan penganalisaan data yang dilakukan oleh penulis artikel dan dilaporkan dalam blog individu.
-Disokong oleh sumber bacaan lain ~ buku kajian tindakan (tugasan 1)
-Upload semua artikel dalam yahoogroups mengikut folder individu (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gb5023-jan09/)
Tarikh serahan: 26 Mei 2009.
Selected Journals:
1) Summers, S.J., Bergin, A.D. & Cole, S.J. 2009. Examining the Relationship among Collaborative Learning, Autonomy Support and Student Incivility in undergraduate Classrooms. Learning and Individual Differences. (19). 293-298.

2) Mary Jane Moran. 2007. Collaborative Research and Project Work: Promising Practices for Developing Collaborative Inquiry Among Nearly Childhood Preservice Teachers. Teaching and Teachers Education. 418-431.

3) Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, A. M. 2009. Writing for Different Audiences: Effects on High-School Students Conceptual Understanding of Biology. Learning and Instruction. (19). 354-367.
Three journals were selected and downloaded from e-journal databases. These journals were concerning action research in education.
A) Similarities:
Setting:-
All research were collaborative action research which were carried out in classroom settings.
B) Differences:
Journal 1:
1) Sample / Participants:

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

2) Design / Procedure:

- Participants recruited were from 164 Faculties at Midwest University.
- 15 Instructors agreed to be the research team.
- This research used surveys approach. Two types of survey administered during the course semester; Student survey and Faculty survey.
- Student surveys were administered late in the semester in order to provide basis for rating classroom experience.
- 3 issues were asked in student survey items; classroom community, interactive learning and autonomy support.
- Faculty survey items focused on academic incivility and collaborative learning.
- Data from both surveys were collected and analyzed using software called EQS to validate the scales of student survey. Calculation RMSEA and Chi square were made to observe the effectiveness of measured parameters.

Journal 2:
1)Sample / Participants:-

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

2) Design / Procedure:

- 24 preservice teachers enrolled in an introductory early childhood education were selected.
- Participants were randomly assigned into groups consisting of 3-4 members each.
- Each group was required to implement a 6 week project to a small group of preschool-aged children (age 3 years old).
- This research was conducted in 2 stages;

1) Stage 1: participants were invited to involve in a retrospective interviews at the end of the course. 10 agreed to be interviewed.
2) Stage 2: aimed to minimize the variability across the team. Criteria for selection were; each team consist of the same number of preservice teachers, they taught the same age children and taught the same number of practicum days across the semester.

- Instruments / analytical tools used were journals, video tapes, transcription of audio tapes, discussions and retrospective interviews.
- The course included practicum and lectures (weekly) and divided into 3 phases over a15 weeks.

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 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.
Journal 3:
1)Sample / Participants:

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


2)Design / Procedure:

- 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-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 wrote for different audiences and it dealt with the circulatory and respiratory system.

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 post-test.

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