Kuliah Minggu Ke-8

Pensyarah: Hajah Halimah Harun

Aktiviti 1:
Minggu ini sekali lagi beberapa kumpulan dipanggil untuk membentang kertas proposal mereka. Di antara kumpulan yang telah membentangkan kertas kerja mereka ialah:

Kumpulan 1: Ketua kumpulan Hafizah
Skop Subjek:
Tajuk:

Kumpulan 2: Ketua kumpulan Najwa
Skop Subjek: Bahasa Arab
Tajuk: Meningkatkan penghafalan dan Penguasaan Dhomir Bahasa Arab menggunakan Teknik Berlagu di Kalangan Murid Tahun 2

Kumpulan 3: Ketua kumpulan Ong Chee Keong
Skop Subjek: Geografi
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Pembelajaran Geografi Tingkatan 3 melalui Kaedah Eksplo-Geo

Kumpulan 4: Ketua kumpulan Anis Firdaus
Skop Subjek: Unit Beruniform
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Tahap Penglibatan Pelajar Perempuan dalam Aktiviti Unit Beruniform Kadet Polis

Kumpulan 5: Ketua kumpulan Nurul Huda Taridi
Skop Subjek:
Tajuk:

Kumpulan 6: Ketua kumpulan Mohammad Azizi
Skop Subjek: Bahasa Melayu
Tajuk: Mempertingkatkan Pencapaian Pelajar Tingkatan 5 terhadap Petikan Melayu Klasik Menggunakan Kaedah Think-Pair-Share

Kumpulan 7: Ketua kumpulan Nor Atifah
Skop Subjek: Bahasa Inggeris
Tajuk: Mempertingkatkan Perbendaharaan Kata dan Sebutan dalam Bahasa Inggeris melalui Role Play Simulation

Komen pensyarah secara keseluruhan ialah, setiap kumpulan mempunyai kelemahan yang sama iaitu:

1. Tiada rujukan - tidak menyatakan sumber maklumat diperolehi dengan tepat. Kebanyakkan kumpulan hanya membuat andaian semata-mata, tidak merujuk kepada sumber yang sahih.
2. Gagal membezakan rasional kajian dan tujuan kajian dilakukan. Rasional kajian adalah sebab kenapa kajian dibuat sedangkan tujuan kajian menyatakan untuk apa kajian dilakukan.

Format Laporan Kajian Tindakan ialah:
Bab 1: Latar Belakang Kajian
- rasional
- tujuan
- objektif
- persoalan kajian

Bab 2: Kajian Literatur
- kajian lepas sama ada kajian yang serupa ataupun lain

Bab 3: Prosedur Kajian
- harus terperinci
- RPH
- contoh BBM
- langkah-langkah kajian yang dijalankan

Bab 4: Pengumpulan data
- terdapat banyak cara pengumpulan data (rujuk Pengumpulan data) tetapi wajib
menggunakan teknik pemerhatian kerana kajian tindakan adalah kajian jenis kualitatif

Bab 5: Dapatan Kajian

Aktiviti 2: KUIZ

Soalan kuiz:

1. Bezakan kajian tindakan dan kajian eksperimen.
2. Apakah persoalan kajian yang terdapat dalam cadangan kajian tindakan yang telah dibuat?
3. Apakah baseline data?
   

Kuliah Minggu Ke-7

Pensyarah: Hajah Halimah Harun

Aktiviti 1:
Beberapa kertas proposal yang telah dihantar pada minggu lepas dipilih untuk dibentangkan oleh kumpulan yang menyediakan kertas proposal tersebut. Terdapat lima kertas proposal yang dipilih iaitu:

Kumpulan 1: Ketua kumpulan Latiffi
Skop Subjek: Sejarah
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Penghayatan Pelajar dalam Mata Pelajaran Sejarah melalui Komik

Kumpulan 2: Ketua kumpulan Hafiz Hassan
Skop Subjek: Bahasa Melayu (Kesusasteraan Melayu)
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Kefahaman dan Minat Pelajar dalam Kesusasteraan Melayu (Puisi) melalui Permainan Mencari Harta Karun

Kumpulan 3: Ketua kumpulan Ahmad Fadli
Skop Subjek: Biologi
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Penggunaan Kata Kunci Melalui Kaedah Reka Cipta Lagu dalam Mata Pelajaran Biologi Tingkatan 4

Kumpulan 4: Ketua kumpulan Junaidon
Skop Subjek: Pendidikan Jasmani
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Kemahiran Menyangga dalam Permainan Bola Tampar

Kumpulan 5: Ketua kumpulan Faizal
Skop Subjek: Bahasa Inggeris
Tajuk: Meningkatkan Penguasaan Sebutan Bahasa Inggeris pada Pelajar Sekolah Tahun 2.

Kesemua kumpulan yang terpilih ini diminta membentangkan kertas proposal mereka. Kemudian para pelajar lain diminta untuk menyoal mana-mana bahagian dalam proposal yang menjadi keraguan dan inginkan kepastian. Para pelajar juga diminta memberi komen dan cadangan yang berpatutan untuk tujuan penambahbaikan kajian tindakan yang dicadangkan.

Aktiviti 2:
Dalam aktiviti ini, setiap pelajar diminta untuk menulis luahan hati tentang kajian tindakan dan dihantar pada waktu itu juga.

Tugasan tambahan:
Lakukan penambahbaikan kertas proposal yang telah dibuat terutamanya dari segi prosedur pelaksanaa, pengumpulan data dan analisis data.

Pengumpulan Data

Pengenalan:

• Terdapat pelbagai teknik penggumpulan data.
• Walaupun menggunakan pelbagai teknik yang baik, ia tidak menjanjikan kualiti dapatan kajian
• Penyelidikan tindakan tidak akan menjadi kecuali ia dilakukan dengan sempurna
• Maka, usaha untuk memastikan kualiti yang tertinggi dalam penyelidikan perlu dipelajari dengan gigih

Tiga sebab kualiti tinggi perlu dicapai:

1. Tanggungjawab kepada pelajar
2. Keperluan kepada kecekapan diri dan orang lain
3. Keperluan untuk membuat tindakan dan berubah kepada perkara manfaat (menambah ilmu pengetahuan) dengan melakukan penyelidikan tindakan

Kriteria kualiti:

• Serupa dengan kriteria dalam jenis penyelidikan yang lain
• Dua kriteria kualiti iaitu kesahan dan kebolehpercayaan
• Kedua-dua konsep ini kritikal kepada kualiti penyelidikan

Apakah itu kesahan?
Kesahan (validity) merujuk kepada kebenaran data. Dengan mengetahui sama ada data sebenarnya mengukur atau mencerminkan fenomena khusus yang dikaji.

Apakah itu kebolehpercayaan?
Kebolehpercayaan (realibility) pula berkaitan dengan ketepatan data. Masalah kebolehpercayaan dalam pendidikan selalu berlaku apabila data diambil daripada sampel yang terlalu kecil. Maka untuk penambahbaikan data penyelidikan tindakan, kita perlu selalu bertanya kepada diri kita sendiri;
a) adakah maklumat ini merupakan perwakilan tepat kepada realiti?
b) bolehkah saya berfikir tentang sebarang sebab untuk syak kepada ketepatan data?
Kedua-dua persoalan ini perlulah dijawab sejujurnya oleh seseorang penyelidik agar kebolehpercayaan kajian yang dibuat tidak menimbulkan keraguan.

Seperti yang diketahui umum, terdapat lima tahap kajian tindakan:
Tahap 1: Mengenalpasti masalah
Tahap 2: Perancangan tindakan
Tahap 3: Mengumpul data
Tahap 4: Analisis data
Tahap 5: Perancangan untuk tindakan seterusnya (untuk kitaran seterusnya)

Seterusnya, semasa mengumpul data;
a) Apakah jenis data yang perlu kita kumpul untuk menjawab persoalan kajian?
b) Bagaimana hendak memastikan data kita diperolehi daripada pelbagai perspektif?

Untuk menjawab persoalan ini, kita boleh merujuk kepada jenis alat-alat pengumpulan data:

• Pemerhatian (boleh dilakukan dengan bantuan video tape)
• Nota guru dan komen
• Kerja pelajar
• Refleksi pelajar
• Jurnal pelajar
• Ujian
• Tinjauan soal selidik
• Temuduga (audio tape)

(sumber: nota kuliah Pn.Sakinah)

Proposal Kajian Tindakan

Nama Pengkaji:

Mohammad Fairus Khazali Ismail

Jovinia Jowinis

Nurul Hafizah Che Mat

Elenser Uning

Aisyatulasyiqah Mohamed

Tajuk:

PENGGUBAHAN LAGU UNTUK MENINGKATKAN PENCAPAIAN SUBJEK SEJARAH

1. Refleksi Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Lalu

Sepanjang saya mengajar mata pelajaran sejarah di Tingkatan 3 Wardah, saya mendapati pencapaian para pelajar dalam subjek ini adalah kurang memberangsangkan. Dalam kebanyakan kes, hasil daripada keputusan ujian-ujian penilaian lepas menunjukkan para pelajar keliru dalam menjawab soalan yang mempunyai kaitan di antara fakta dengan tarikh. Dalam ujian Penilaian 1, iaitu soalan-soalan yang meminta pelajar untuk membuat perkaitan antara peristiwa, fakta dan tarikh, saya dapati hanya 41% sahaja pelajar yang dapat menjawab dengan tepat. Manakala dalam ujian Penilaian 2, bagi jenis soalan-soalan yang sama, didapati hanya 38% pelajar sahaja yang dapat memberi jawapan yang tepat. Hasil daripada tinjauan yang saya buat, didapati para pelajar di kelas ini agak sukar dalam mengingati fakta-fakta serta tarikh-tarikh peristiwa penting. Apabila ditanya kepada para pelajar mengenai masalah utama dalam menjawab soalan sejarah, kebanyakan daripada mereka menyatakan bahawa terlalu banyak fakta yang perlu diingat. Maka, hal ini telah mendatangkan masalah kepada para pelajar.

Kenapa perkara ini boleh terjadi di kelas tersebut? Adakah kaedah menghafal tradisional tidak sesuai digunakan di kelas tersebut? Perlukah diadakan pendekatan yang berbeza dalam memastikan pelajar kelas tersebut mampu menyaingi kelas-kelas lain yang lebih tinggi pencapaiannya?

Pelbagai pendekatan telah saya gunakan dalam menangani masalah ini namun tidak memberikan hasil seperti yang diharapkan. Saya berpendapat lemahnya teknik menghafal di kalangan pelajar ialah disebabkan oleh pengabaian guru termasuklah saya terhadap kepentingan semangat patriotik di kalangan para pelajar. Sekiranya saya tidak membetulkan keadaan ini, saya pasti pelajar kelas ini tidak dapat menjawab dengan betul semua soalan yang mengaitkan fakta dengan tarikh yang akhirnya akan menyebabkan keemerosotan gred pencapaian sejarah di sekolah saya.

2. Fokus Kajian

Walaupun saya mengesan banyak masalah yang dihadapi oleh pelajar saya, saya hanya akan memfokuskan kajian ini kepada masalah-masalah untuk mengingat nama, peristiwa dan tarikh. Pelajar –pelajar saya didapati hanya mampu untuk mengingat dan mengaitkan fakta dan tarikh hanya pada tahap yang terhad sahaja. Namun, saya juga mendapati bahawa para pelajar boleh mengingat lirik-lirik lagu yang pada kebiasaannya kita dengar di radio. Maka, saya berpendapat bahawa penggunaan teknik lagu-lagu tersebut dalam proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran boleh diaplikasikan dalam usaha meningkatkan prestasi para pelajar dalam subjek ini.

3. Objektif Kajian

Selepas kajian ini selesai dijalankan, pelajar-pelajar diharap akan mencapai objektif-objektif berikut:

i. Objektif Umum

Meningkatkan markah pelajar dalam subjek Sejarah

ii. Objektif Khusus

· Membantu meningkatkan daya ingatan para pelajar dalam subjek Sejarah

· Meningkatkan minat pelajar dalam subjek Sejarah

· Meningkatkan peratus pelajar yang mendapat markah yang cemerlang bagi subjek Sejarah

4. Kumpulan sasaran

Kajian ini melibatkan 30 orang pelajar tingkatan 3 Wardah.

5. Tindakan yang dicadangkan

5.1 Tinjauan masalah

Sebelum intervensi untuk menyelesaikan masalah dijalankan, beberapa tinjauan terhadap masalah yang tersebut dijalankan untuk pemahaman yang menyeluruh. Tinjauan dilakukan dengan mengutip data seperti yang berikut.

· Pemerhatian dibuat berdasarkan markah ujian bulanan sejarah bulan Januari dan Februari

· Borang kaji selidik bagi mengetahui masalah pembelajaran sejarah

5.2 Program ‘Irama Sejarah ’

Cara pelaksanaan;

i) Guru meminta pelajar untuk membuat pembacaan awal berkenaan tokoh-tokoh sejarah tanahair

ii) Pelajar dibahagikan kepada 6 kumpulan kecil

iii) Pelajar diminta untuk memilih satu lagu kegemaran dan mengubah lirik lagu tersebut yang menceritakan tentang tokoh dalam negeri-negeri yang terpilih

iv) Setiap kumpulan diminta untuk mempersembahkan lagu gubahan mereka pada akhir kelas dan memberikan lirik lagu kepada semua pelajar di dalam kelas tersebut

v) Semua pelajar diminta untuk menyanyikan lagu-lagu gubahan tersebut dengan bantuan lirik

vi) Pada kelas seterusnya, pelajar diminta menyanyi tanpa lirik bagi mengukuhkan ingatan mereka terhadap fakta-fakta tersebut.

vii) Selepas seminggu, satu ujian penilaian berkenaan topik tersebut dijalankan bagi menguji ingatan pelajar.

6. Jadual Pelaksanaan Kajian

Bil	Aktiviti	Tarikh Pelaksanaan
1	Mengenal pasti masalah dan pengumpulan data awal	Hari pertama – hari ke-14
2	Menulis kertas cadangan kajian	Hari ke-15 – hari ke-20
3	Merancang tindakan	Hari ke-21 – hari ke-25
4	Melaksanakan tindakan	Hari ke-26 – hari ke-40
5	Ujian penilaian untuk mengesan pencapaian murid	Hari ke- 47
6	Refleksi kajian	Hari ke- 49
7	Menulis laporan kajian	Hari ke-50 – hari ke-57
8	Pembentangan dapatan kajian	Hari ke-60

7. Kos Kajian

Bil	Jenis bahan	Kuantiti X harga seunit	Jumlah Kos
1	Kertas A4	3 x RM 10.00	RM 30.00
2	Kertas Mahjong	6 x RM 0.60	RM 3.60
3	Marker	6 x RM 2.50	RM 15.00
4	Printer catridge	2 x RM 55.00	RM 110.00
		JUMLAH	RM 158.60

Kuliah Minggu Ke-6

Pada kuliah minggu ini oleh Hajah Halimah Harun, aktiviti yang telah kami lakukan adalah seperti di bawah.

Aktiviti 1

1. Sediakan kertas bersaiz A4.

2. Sila tuliskan butiran berikut dalam kertas tersebut:

• nama
• no. matriks
• bidang pengajian (major dan minor)
  
• kelulusan Sarjana Muda
  
• alamat
• status perkahwinan
  

3. Sila jawab soalan berikut.

• Mengapa ingin menjadi guru?
• Siapakah guru paling disukai (nama dan subjek yang diajar) dan nyatakan sebab.
• Siapakah guru paling dibenci (nama dan subjek yang diajar) dan nyatakan sebab.
• Perihalkan tugas seorang guru.

4. Di belakang kertas tersebut, sila lukiskan gambar sepohon pokok. Sertakan juga tandatangan
dan tarikh lahir.


Aktiviti 2

Pilih pasangan dan rumuskan salah satu daripada kertas kajian tindakan yang dibentangkan dalam Seminar Pendidikan Serantau pada minggu lepas.

Tajuk: Pemberian tugas membuat peta pekiran untuk meningkatkan prestasi belajar siswa pada poko bahasan Termokimia di kelas XI SMA Negeri 12 Pekanbaru.

Nama Pembentang: Abdullah

Aktiviti 3

Bagi aktiviti ini, kami perlu membentuk kumpulan dengan 5 orang ahli. Kemudian, dalam kumpulan, kami dikehendaki untuk menyediakan satu kertas cadangan (proposal) kajian tindakan yang boleh dilakukan dalam bilik darjah. Tajuk yang dipilih perlulah ditunjukkan kepada Hajah Halimah untuk memastikan kesesuaian tajuk dan untuk mengelak daripada melakukan kajian tindakan yang sama dengan kumpulan lain.

Ahli kumpulan:

• Jovinia Jowinis
• Elenser Uning
• Aisyatulasyiqah Mohamed
• Nurul Hafiza Che Mat
• Mohammad Fairus Khazali Ismail

Tajuk yang dipilih:
Pengubahan Lagu untuk Meningkatkan Pencapaian Subjek Sejarah

Tarikh akhir hantar: 28 Mei 2009

Second: Comparison of Articles

I am sure that all of you already gain some knowledge and explanation (in previous post) regarding the three articles that i will be analyzing and compare in this post. Yes, in this post, I will compare among the articles in term of why the researchers did the action research, the materials used, participants, data sources, data gathering and data analysis.

Why the researchers do action research?
Article 1 (by Cohen & Byrnes, 2007) and Article 2 (by Keaton, Palmer, Nicholas & Late, 2007) described about action researches which were done to improve current practice in the classroom whereas in Article 3 (by Bintz & Dillard, 2007) the action research was done to see the role of teachers as reflective practitioners. Due to the difference, we will see the different approach in the action researches.

Research Questions
Article 1:
Does direct instruction teaching in letter-sound associations, blending sounds and segmenting sounds in words, followed by playful extensions assists students in identifying letter-sounds, developing a sight vocabulary, and in increasing the number of correct spelling approximations in writing?

Article 2:
What is the best method of teaching vocabulary to third grade students?

Article 3:
- Who decides the curriculum?
- Who selects what themes and topics to be studied?
- Who decides how learning is conducted?
- Who decides what questions get asked and answered?
- How is learning evaluated and assessed?

The research question is the central focus of the investigation. As we can see here, Article 1 and Article 2 have only one research question whereby Article 3 has five research questions. Well, if we refresh back to the previous post of the overview of the articles, we might realize that Article 1 and Article 2 discussed about action research that only involved a short period of time (Article 1 - 4 weeks, Article 2 - 12 weeks) and action research described in Article 3 took a long period of time (3 years). The research questions of the article suit the time frame of the action research as more questions might need more time for data gathering sessions and data interpretation (Macintyre, 2000). The researchers must ask themselves how to answer the questions and what kind of evidence need to be collected to show the improvement that has occurred.

Setting
Article 1:
Conducted in a kindergarden classroom.

Article 2:
Conducted in a 3rd grade classroom.

Article 3:
Conducted in a 4th grade classroom.

As seen above, all the studies were conducted in the classroom and there is only slight different of the students' grade.

Participants
Article 1:
Kindergarden students which were made up of 13 regular education students and 2 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students.

Article 2:
The participants were 16 third grade students, 6 girls and 10 boys which were equally distributed into 2 groups: story with instruction group and traditional group.

Article 3:
Two in-school teachers (a literacy coach and a 4th grade teacher) and a university professor (as a researcher)

Two studies were participated by the students and only the one study was using educators as the participants. By this, we would realize that the approach of the studies would be different as the participants were from different group of people: the students and the educators. The two studies that involved students were more on taking some actions to the students and examine the effects of the actions, whereby, for the study with educators as the main participants, the educators were reflecting their own teaching and day by day discussing and planning to make teaching better and suit students.

Methodology
Article 1:
a) Materials
Peer Assisted Learning Strategies for First Grade Readers (PALS) were used together with the playful extensions: an alphabet manipulative game, dry erase marker boards, overhead alphabet tiles and blackboard blending games. Apart from that, Big Books, language experience charts and independent reading were used to enhance the direct instruction lessons.

b) Data collection
Students were assessed in skills of alphabet recognition, letter-sound associations, sight word recognition and specific stages of writing development. Writing samples were evaluated according to the Five Stages of Writing Development to determine the specific stages of writing for each students. This was done pre-test, before the implementation of the project and also for post-test, after implementation.

c) Data interpretation
The pre-test helped in dividing the students into 3 groups, high, average and low performing groups. After 12 weeks, the post-test was done.

d) Procedure
Teacher directed lesson were conducted for group A, B, and C three times a week for 15-20 minutes per lesson for 12 weeks. Five activities presented during the lessons; Letter-Sound Practice, Phonological Segmentation and Blending, More Letter-Sound Practice, Sounding Out and Reading Words Fast. Along with these activities, playful extensions followed each lessons. Post-test were carried after the end of the project.


Article 2:
a) Materials
Six books were selected and these books had not been read to the children during the academic year. Six tier two vocabulary words were taken from each books and taught to both groups of students .

b) Data sources
Audio-tape of pre-tests and post-tests as well as students conversations during lessons. Writing samples were also being used.

c) Data analysis
- From the audio-tape, the mean scores for both groups were calculated for accurate usage of the 6 weekly targeted vocabulary words and the number of words used in a sentence to describe the 6 weekly targeted words.
- Writing samples were scored for correct word usage in a sentence each Friday and rated numerically, with a value 0f 6 (used all the weekly words accurately) and 0 (did not use any of the word meaning correctly). Means scores were calculated.
- Graphs were used to report the means scores.

d) Procedures:
- The instructional approaches between the two groups differed.
- The story with instruction group was read a book throughout the week, given time for discussion and three days of direct word learning strategies each week. The students were taught targeted words in context by having discussions about the words that were encountered in the story.
- The traditional group did not participate in the read aloud and was given daily worksheets to complete four days each week. The vocabulary instruction only involved direct, explicit instruction of the worksheet task as the they worked with packets and teachers taught and assigned tasks.
- Pre-test was orally administered to both groups each Monday and post-test on Friday after the intervention. This went on for four weeks.


Article 3:
a) Data Sources
Recording of ongoing classroom observations, ongoing reflective conversations and journal consisted of notes recorded and shared during the debriefing sessions about the teachers collaborative teaching based on classroom observations and reflective conversations.

b) Data Collection
Recorded classroom observations, reflective conversations, debriefing sessions journal. These data were collected for three years which in these three years, both of the teachers planned, implemented and assessed a variety of classroom projects as well as conducting debriefing sessions to reflect and plan.

c) Data Analysis
Grounded in principles of naturalistics and using methodology of grounded theory to analyze the data. The teachers used two questions to guide the data analysis: a) what are we learning about ourselves as teachers? and b) what are we learning about curriculum and curriculum development by implementing an integrated literacy and social studies curriculum? One of the teacher wrote the result of the analysis for each year in narrative form.

d) Procedure
- For 3 years, the teachers had planned, implemented and assessed a variety of classroom projects in their teaching. The teachers collected a variety of informal assessment data including classroom observations, teacher notes, anecdotal records and short vignettes based on their informal observations of and interactions with students. They evaluated, discussed and reflected on these data to see what worked and what did not in order to reevaluate past lessons and plan future ones.
- To answer the research questions, the researchers analyze and discuss the data collected by the teachers using the principles of naturalistic inquiry and grounded theory. The researchers discussed five areas: curriculum control, curriculum source, curriculum choice, curriculum content and curriculum evaluation. Each of this area was based on the research questions.

Discussion regarding the methodology:
In Article 1 and Article 2, both of the action researches used administration of intervention to improve the current problems detected by the researchers. Before giving intervention, the researchers administered pre-test to the participants and then after some time, the researchers administered post-test to compare the result and to see any improvement. Apart from the results of the tests, other data were also analyzed. Action research is cyclical in nature (Taylor, Wilkie & Baser, 2006), however, as we realized, the researchers only did the interventions for one cycle. It is not stated in both the articles that the interventions were modified and administer again in the second cycle. The reason for this, might be due to the results of the intervention which showed positive changes.
Different from action research that was done in Article 3, the teachers were continously reflecting, planning, taking action, observing and evaluating the effects of the actions done in their class for three years in order to see the changes of their practice and beliefs about curriculum and curriculum development. Everytime they undergo debriefing, they record their reflections in a journal. This is a correct practice as teachers able to make connections as they write about their project, keeping balance of retrospection (looking back) and introspection (looking within oneself) in order to participate in the learning exprience (Taylor, Wilkie & Baser, 2006). As less point might be left out, journal can be used as data as it contains the information that might help in an investigation, such as in this action research.
In term of data analysis, Article 1 and Article 2 were quantitative studies as both used simple statistics to analyze the data and present the data. But, in Article 3, the action research was a qualitative study. For the first part when the teachers analyzed and wrote their observations of the student achievement, no formal evaluation instruments were used. All were based on their own informal achievement and interactions with students. Then when this findings were discussed by the researchers, they were guided by the naturalistic inquiry and grounded theory. In the end of the study, the researchers produced a hypothesis; teachers as reflective practitioners continually try to understand what they currently believe about learning, articulate to themselves and others why they believe what they do and use teaching as a powerful tool to enhance student learning and promote their growth.

References:
Macintrye, C. 2000. The Art of Action Research in the Classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Taylor, C., Wilkie, M. & Baser, J. 2006. Doing Action Research. A Guide for School Support Staff. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

First: Review of Articles

Article 1:
Cohen, L. & Byrnes, K. 2007. Engaging Children with Useful Words: Vocabulary Instruction in 3rd Grade Classroom. Reading Horizons Journals 47 (4): 271-293. http://proquest.com [12 May 2009].

This article discussed on an action research regarding emergent literacy development of kindergarden children which the researchers wanted to explore the effectiveness of direct instruction with playful extensions which was integrated into Peer Assisted Learning Strategies for First Grade Readers (PALS) in developing emergent literacy in a kindergarden classroom. This study was done to create an effective literacy programme for kindergarden students and in indirectl will help facilitate teacher in planning lessons aligned with the students' academic needs. As mentioned, the researchers followed PALS with playful extensions of PALS lessons which were integrated throughout the study to maintain the children's interest and motivation. The playful extensions included: an alphabet manipulative game, dry erase marker boards, overhead alphabet tiles and blackboard blending games. In this study, kindergarden students, 13 regular education students and 2 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students were assessed in skills of alphabet recognition, letter-sound associations, sight word recognition and specific stages of writing development. According to this assessment they were divided into 3 groups, high, average and low performing groups. For 12 weeks, teacher-directed lessons along with playful extension were conducted for the 3 groups. Data analysis was done and the results shows that the students of low performance in the pre-test made the greatest gains in identifying letter-sounds and in applying letter-sound knowledge to making spelling approximations in writing. The high performance students made the greatest gains in sight word recognition.

Article 2:

Keaton, J.M., Palmer, B.C., Nicholas, K.R. & Lake, V.E. 2007. Direct Instruction with Playful Skill Extensions: Action Research in Emergent Literacy Development. Reading Horizons Journals 47(3): 229-250. http://proquest.com [12 May 2009].

The action research study discussed in this article was conducted by a classroom teacher and a university professor to answer a question: What is the best method of teaching vocabulary to 3rd grade students. Following this questions, they guided by questions: which instructional procedures for vocabulary acquisition support children's use of literacy? Do instructional strategies for teaching vocabulary differ in supporting 3rd grade children in using vocabulary in oral and written communication. For this, 16 third grade students, 6 girls and 10 boys were involved in the study. The children also made up of 12 bilingual children and 4 monolingual children who were equally distributed into 2 groups: story with instruction group and traditional group. The materials used were 6 selected books, from which 6 tier two vocabulary words were taken from each books and taught to both groups of students. (Tier two word according to Beck, McKeown & Kucan (2002) are words children use in everyday conversations and are rarely taught through direct instruction.) Then, in ten week study, the instructional approaches between the two groups differed. The story with instruction group was read a book throughout the week, given time for discussion and three days of direct word learning strategies each week. The traditional group did not participate in the read aloud and was given daily worksheets to complete four days each week. Apart from that, both groups were given different direct word learning strategies everyday. For story with instruction group, the instructional approach was more student-centred and involved discussions. However for traditional group, the vocabulary instruction only involved direct, explicit instruction of the worksheet task. Every week, the analysis were done by administering pre- (on Monday) and post-test(on Friday). The tests were to calculate accurate usage of the 6 weekly targeted vocabulary words and the number of words used in a sentence to describe the 6 weekly targeted words. Then, mean scores were calculated four weeks later. Overall, findings of this study suggested that children used more targeted words in oral and written communications when provided literature and word learning strategies.

Article 3:
Bintz, W.P. & Dillard, J. 2007. Teachers as Reflective Practitioners: Examining Teacher Stories of Curricular Change in a 4th Grade Classroom. Reading Horizons Journals 47 (3): 203-227. http://proquest.com [12 May 2009].

This article describes the study and findings from a classroom-based action research project conducted by two in-school teachers who implementing a new integrated literacy and social studies curriculum and the changes they made in curricular practices and beliefs. There were 3 educators participated: two school teacher who were the reflective practitioners and a university professor as the researcher assisting with data analysis, describing findings and implications. The two school teachers provided the data sources by recording ongoing classroom observations, conducting ongoing reflective conversations and sharing a journal that consisted of notes recorded and shared during the debriefing sessions about their collaborative teaching based on classroom observations and reflective conversations among them. These data were collected for three years which in these three years, both of the teachers planned, implemented and assessed a variety of classroom projects as well as conducting debriefing sessions to reflect and plan. The date then analysed using principles of naturalistic inquiry and driven by the methodology of grounded theory. For this purpose, the teachers used two questions to guide the data analysis: a) what are we learning about ourselves as teachers? and b) what are we learning about curriculum and curriculum development by implementing an integrated literacy and social studies curriculum? The results of the analysis for each year were written in narrative form to describe their personal and collaborative stories of curricular change. Then, based on this, a group of researcher discussed the findings. By this a hypothesis was produced and the researchers believe that teachers must see themselves and their students as creators of curriculum,as reflective practitioners, and as collaborative inquirers. Overall findings suggested that curriculum and curriculum development need more broadly and deeply thinking.