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 Journal 2 Journal 3

Similarities • This is a • This is a • This is a

collaborative collaborative action collaborative
action research. research. action research.

• It was carried out • It was carried out in • It was carried out

in classroom classroom settings in classroom
settings settings
Differences 1) Sample / Participants: 1)Sample / Participants:- 1)Sample / Participants:
- Undergraduate students - 24 preservice teachers. - Junior/middle school
(age approximately 19 All females, Euro- students. In total 118
years old) with total American and resided in students were involved.
number of 1160 students; the same area. (50 males & 68 females).
598 males and 562
females.

2) Design / Procedure: 2) Design / Procedure: 2)Design / Procedure:

- Participants recruited - 24 preservice teachers - This research used

were from 164 Faculties at enrolled in an introductory quasi-experimental, pre-
Midwest University. early childhood education /posttest
were selected. design which took place
- 15 Instructors agreed to within two consecutive
be the research team. - Participants were phases covering two
randomly assigned into consecutive units of a
- This research used groups consisting of 3-4 biology course.
surveys approach. Two members each.
types of survey - There were four groups
administered during the - Each group was required of participating students.
course semester; Student to implement a 6 week Each group was
survey and Faculty survey. project to a small group of represented by a different
preschool-aged children
pre-existing general
- Student surveys were (age 3 years old).
biology class and
administered late in the
students in each class
semester in order to - This research was
were consistent
provide basis for rating conducted in 2 stages;
throughout both phases
classroom experience.
1) Stage 1: participants of the study
- 3 issues were asked in were invited to involve in a
student survey items; retrospective interviews at - The four classes were:
classroom community, the end of the course. 10 Class 1 (3rd/4th graders),
interactive learning and agreed to be interviewed. Class 2 (parents), Class 3
autonomy support. (peers), and Class
2) Stage 2: aimed to 4(teacher). The same
- Faculty survey items minimize the variability instructor taught biology
focused on academic across the team. Criteria for all classes.
incivility and for selection were; each
collaborative learning. team consist of the same
number of preservice - This study was
- Data from both surveys teachers, they taught the conducted in 2 phases.
were collected and same age children and
analyzed using software taught the same number of 1) Phase 1: All groups
called EQS to validate the practicum days across the were assigned to
scales of student survey. participate in writing-to-
Calculation RMSEA and semester. learn activities. This to
Chi square were made to provide them with
observe the effectiveness - Instruments / analytical writing experience.
of measured parameters. tools used were journals,
video tapes, transcription 2) Phase 2: all groups
of audio tapes, discussionswere required to joined
and retrospectivewriting-to-learn
interviews. 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
Written assignments were
weeks in which preservice
assessed on these criteria:
teachers kept daily journal,
grammatical quality,
making observation, audio
coherence, accuracy and
taped and transcribed
completeness in meeting
children’s’ conversation,
the requirements and in
critiqued video tapes of
describing the structures
master and novice
of the two systems.
teachers, and created topic
Assessment was based on
and concept in order to
an instructor-created
choose relevant project
rubric
topic.
2) Phase 2: - All groups were
Implementation of administered with an
collaborative project. identical pre- and post-
Utilization of classroom test.
documentation for
guidance and informing - All tests were graded by
their cycle of inquiry. the instructor, with
random conceptual
3) Phase 3: Interpretation questions being graded
of the project for by a science colleague in
preparation of writing and order to assure interrater
oral analyses. reliability. Interrater
reliability was calculated
by randomly selecting 10
- Retrospective interviews different responses from
were semi-structured and the student tests and
conducted at the end of the comparing the scoring of
course. 10 preservice the instructor with that of
teachers were interviewed. the second rater. The
scores for each question
- Data obtained from the were compared to
analysis of journals, video determine the percentage
tapes, and transcription of of times the two
audio tapes, discussions independent scorers
and retrospective agreed on the student
interviews. score.
- 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 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-to-
learning 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 –to-
learning 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.