GURU SEBAGAI PENYELTDIK: FAKTOR-FAKTOR …

Kajian Tindakan yang paling aktif ialah guru dari sekolah menengah, khususnya guru siswazah. Ditambah denganrumusan daripadasoalan-soalan terbuka,...

0 downloads 20 Views 268KB Size
GURU

SEBAGAI

PENYELTDIK:

FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI KEKERAPAN AKTIVITI KAJIAN TINDAKAN DI SEKOLAH

Kertas projek ini diserahkan kepada Sekolah Siswazah untuk memenuhi sebahagian daripada keperluan pengajian Ijazah

Sarjana

Sains

(Pengurusan),

Universiti Utara Malaysia

Oleh: Lee Soon Guan

0 LEE SOON GUAN, 1997. Hak cipta terpelihara

KEBENARAN

MENGGUNA

D a l a m m e n y e r a h k a n k e r t a s p r o j e k ini s e b a g a i m e m e n u h i sebahagian daripada keperluan pengajian peringkat sarjana, Universiti Utara M a l a y s i a ( U U M ) ; saya b e r s e t u j u m e m b e n a r k a n p i h a k perpustakaan UUM mempamernya bagi tujuan rujukan. Saya turut bersetuju bahawa kebenaran untuk membuat salinan, keseluruhan atau sebahagian daripadanya, bagi tujuan akademik; boleh diperolehi daripada penyelia saya, atau semasa ketiadaan beliau, daripada Dekan Sekolah Siswazah UUM. Sebarang penyalinan, penerbitan atau penggunaan ke atas keseluruhan atau sebahagian daripada kertas p r o j e k ini bagi tujuan perniagaan adalah tidak dibenarkan tanpa k e b e n a r a n b e r t u l i s d a r i p a d a saya. Di samping itu, pengikhtirafan kepada saya dan UUM seharusnya diberikan dalam sebarang kegunaan bahan-bahan yang terdapat dalam kertas projek ini. Permohonan untuk kebenaran membuat salinan atau kegunaan lain, sama ada s e c a r a k e s e l u r u h a n a t a u s e b a h a g i a n d a r i p a d a k e r t a s projek ini, perlu dialamatkan kepada: Dekan Sekolah Siswazah, Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Jitra, Kedab D.A.

ABSTRAK

Kajian Tindakan, iaitu satu kaedah penyelidikan yang telah terbukti keberkesanannya di dalam bidang pendidikan; merupakan satu topik penyelidikan yang masih belum diterokai di Malaysia. Projek p e n y e l i d i k a n ini b e r t u j u a n m e n g e n a l pasti f a k t o r - f a k t o r y a n g mempengaruhi kekerapan aktiviti Kajian Tindakan di sekolah. Sampel purposif bagi kajian ini ialah sekumpulan 32 orang guru dari seluruh Negeri Kedah, yang telah mengikuti Kursus Kajian Tindakan 1996, anjuran Pusat S u m b e r P e n d i d i k a n N e g e r i ( P S P N ) . K u m p u l a n g u r u ini, y a n g t e l a h b e r j a y a m e n j a l a n k a n sekurangkurangnya satu projek Kajian Tindakan yang lengkap dikenali sebagai guru Kajian Tindakan. Soal s e l i d i k bagi t i n j a u a n ini d i r e k a bagi m e n g u k u r s t a t u s semasa guru Kajian Tindakan dari empat a s p e k b e r i k u t : p e r s e p s i terhadap Kajian Tindakan, kemahiran menjalankan Kajian Tindakan, kesesuaian iklim sekolah, dan kekangan yang dihadapi. Seterusnya keempat-empat faktor di atas dikorelasikan dengan bilangan projek Kajian Tindakan yang telah dijalankan oleh setiap responden. Dapatan kaj ian menunjukkan hanya faktor kemahiran mempunyai perhubungan positif dengan kekerapan menjalankan Kajian Tindakan. Perbandingan ciri demografi pula mendapati guru Kajian Tindakan yang paling aktif ialah guru dari sekolah menengah, khususnya guru siswazah. Ditambah dengan rumusan daripada soalan-soalan t e r b u k a , kajian ini t e l a h b e r j a y a m e n g e m u k a k a n b e b e r a p a c a d a n g a n k e p a d a pihak-pihak yang terbabit dengan Kajian Tindakan, khususnya pihak Penyelidik’ ini d a p a t agar gerakan ‘Guru Sebagai PSPN, direalisasikan.

ii

ABSTRACT

Action Research, a proven research methodology in the field of education, is still a new research topic in Malaysia. The purpose of this research project is to determine factors affecting the frequency of action research carried out in schools. The purposive sample for this research is a group of 32 teachers from throughout the state of Kedah; who have attended the 1996 Action Research Course, organized by the State’s Educational Resource Centre (SERC). This group of teachers, who have successfully completed at least one action research project are known as Action Researcher. Questionnaire for this survey is designed to measure the current status of Action Researcher in the following aspects: perception on Action Research, skills in carrying out Action Research, school climate condusiveness, and personal constraint. These factors are then correlated to the number of Action Research projects undertaken by each respondent. Results show that only skills factor has a positive correlation with the number o f A c t i o n R e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s undertaken. Demographic comparison r e v e a l s t h a t t h e m o s t a c t i v e A c t i o n Researcher are from secondary school, especially graduate teachers. Taking into account the conclusion derived from open-ended this r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t h a s c o m e o u t w i t h s o m e questions; recommendations to the relevant authorities, especially SERC on ways to realize the “Teacher As Researcher” movement.

iii

PENGHARGAAN

Pertama sekali, saya ingin merakamkan setinggi-tinggi penghargaan kepada kedua-dua ‘ayah angkat’ Program IAB/UUM iaitu Dr. Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid, Pengarah Institut Aminuddin Baki dan Profesor Madya Dr. Ibrahim Abdul Hamid, Dekan Sekolah Siswazah Universiti Utara Malaysia; kerana telah merintis jalan membuka peluang kepada golongan pendidik seperti saya, mempertingkatkan martabat dan tahap profesionalisme kerjaya. Jutaan terima kasih diucapkan kepada Profesor Madya Tn. Haji Abdul Razak Ismail, selaku penyelia yang banyak memberi tunjuk ajar, bimbingan, d o r o n g a n s e r t a s o k o n g a n d i s e p a n j a n g p r o j e k penyelidikan ini. Terima kasih tak terhingga juga kepada Prof. Nerida F. Ellerton dari Universiti Edith-Cowan, Australia; Dr. Kim Phaik Lah dari Universiti Sains Malaysia, En. David Ng Foo Seong dari Institut Aminuddin Baki, dan En. Thangavelo Marimuthu dari Maktab Perguruan Sultan Abdul Halim; di atas bantuan dan sokongan moral yang dihulurkan. Seterusnya, penghargaan dan terima kasih saya ucapkan kepada En. Mohd Sharif Marikan, selaku pegawai penyelaras Projek PIER dan Kumpulan Guru Kajian Tindakan Negeri Kedah yang begitu bermurah hati m e m b e k a l k a n s e g a l a m a k l u m a t y a n g saya p e r l u k a n . T i d a k dilupakan Pn. Fuziah Abu Hassan, juga dari Pusat Sumber Pendidikan Negeri Kedah yang banyak membantu di dalam penyediaan instrumen kajian dan pentadbiran soal selidik. Akhir sekali, kepada kedua ibu bapa, isteri tersayang, serta anak-anak: Ching Ern, Ling Harn dan Ming Yau; terima kasih di atas kerj asama, d o r o n g a n d a n p e n g o r b a n a n y a n g t e l a h d i h a r u n g i . Sesungguhnya, kejayaan ini hanya bermakna sekiranya dapat dikongsi bersama kalian.

iv

ISI

KANDUNGAN

Muka swat KEBENARAN MENGGUNA

1

ABSTRAK

ii

ABSTRACT

iii

PENGHARGAAN

iv

IS1 KANDUNGAN

V

SENARAI GAMBARAJAH SENARAI JADUAL

BAB 1: PENGENALAN

... Vlll

ix

1

1.1 Pengenalan Kajian Tindakan 1.1.1

Permulaan Kaj ian Tindakan

4

1.1.2 Perkembangan Kajian Tindakan Dalam Bidang Pendidikan

5

1.1.3

Perkembangan Kajian Tindakan di Malaysia

6

1.1.4

Perkembangan Kajian Tindakan di Negeri Kedah Darul Aman

7

1.1.5 Perkembangan Pasta 1 9 9 6

8

1.2 Latar Belakang Kajian

9

1.3

10

Pernyataan

Masalah

1.4 Objektif Kajian

12

1.5 Kepentingan Kaj ian

13

1.6 Batasan Kajian

14

1.7 Definisi Istilah

15

BAB 2: TINJAUAN KARYA

18

2.1 Sejarah Kajian Tindakan 2.1.1 Era Sebelum Kurt Lewin

19

2.1.2 Era Kurt Lewin

20

2.1.3 Kejatuhan Sekitar Tahun 1960-an

21

2.1.4 Kebangkitan Semula Tahun 1970-an

22

2.2 Konsep Kajian Tindakan 2.2.1 Prinsip-prinsip Asas

Kajian ‘Tindakan

24 28

2.2.2 Variasi Kajian Tindakan 2.3 Kajian Tindakan Dalam Pendidikan 2.3.1

Ciri-ciri

Kajian

Tindakan

Pendidikan

2.3.2 Proses Kajian Tindakan Pendidikan 2.4

Penyelidikan 2.4.1

Dalam

Bidang

30 34

Pendidikan

Kritikan Ke Atas Kajian Saintifik

36

2.4.2 Kesesuaian Kajian Tindakan Dalam Penyelidikan Pendidikan

40

2.5 Faktor-faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Aktiviti Kajian Tindakan

46

2.6 Rumusan

57

BAB 3: METODOLOGI KAJIAN

59

3.1

60

Kerangka

Konseptual

62

3.2 Hasil Yang Dijangkakan 3.3 Instrumen Kajian 3.3.1 Bahagian I: Data Peribadi

64

3.3.2 Bahagian II: Faktor-faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Aktiviti Kajian Tindakan

65

3.3.3 Bahagian III: Sumbang Saran

70 71

3.4 Populasi dan Sampel Kajian vi

3.5 Kesahan dan Kebolehpercayaan Instrumen Kajian

72

3 . 6 P e n t a d b i r a n Soal Selidik

74

3 . 7 Analisis D a t a 3.7.1 Pengkodan Data

76

3 . 7 . 2 Analisis Kuantitatif

77

3 . 7 . 3 Analisis Kualitatif

79

BAB 4: HASIL KAJIAN

80

4 . 1 Analisis R e s p o n d e n

81

4 . 2 K e p u t u s a n Analisis Deskriptif

83

4.3 Keputusan Analisis Korelasi

89

4.4 Keputusan Analisis Perbandingan

90

4.5 Keputusan Analisis Kandungan

92

BAB 5: PERBINCANGAN DAN RUMUSAN

98

5.1 Perbincangan

98

5.2 Implikasi Kajian

116

5.3 Rumusan

123

5.4

127

Cadangan Bagi Penyelidikan

128

RUJUKAN LAMPIRAN

LAMPIRAN

LAMPIRAN

A: Kursus Kajian Tindakan 1996 (Jadual Bagi Sesi Bengkel)

142

B: Kursus Kajian Tindakan 1996 (Jadual Bagi Sesi Refleksi)

143

C: Soal Selidik Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kekerapan Aktiviti Kajian Tindakan Di Sekolah

144

vii

SENARAI

GAMBARAJAH

Muka surat

Gambarajah l-1

Kitaran Kajian Tindakan Kurt Lewin

5

2-l Model Kajian Tindakan Elliott

26

2-2 Model Elliott bagi perkembangan guru

48

3- 1

60

Kerangka konseptual kajian

viii

SENARAIJADUAL Jadual

Muka surat

2-l

Definisi befungsi bagi Kajian Tindakan

24

2-2

Perbandingan di antara Kajian Tindakan Pendidikan dengan Penyelidikan Tradisional

33

2-3

Keputusan kajian tiga negara oleh McKernan

53

4-1

Analisis responden

81

4-2

Kekerapan menjalankan aktiviti Kajian Tindakan

82

4-3

Skor min persepsi terhadap Kajian Tindakan

83

4-4

Skor min kemahiran menjalankan Kajian Tindakan

84

4-5

Skor min kemahiran menurut tahap penguasaan

85

4-6

Skor min iklim sekolah

86

4-7

Skor min kekangan-kekangan yang dihadapi

87

4-8

Skor min kekangan menurut susunan kepentingan

88

4-9

Korelasi di antara pembolehubah-pembolehubah kajian

89

4- 10 Keputusan uj ian-t

90

4-l 1 Keputusan ujian ANOVA

91

ix

Sekolah Siswazah (Graduate School) Universiti Utara Malaysia

PERAKUAN KERJA KERTAS PROJEK (Certification Of Project Paper) Saya, yang bertandatangan, memperakukan bahawa (I, the undersigned, certify tha.t) LEE calon untuk Ijazah (candidate for the degree of)

SOON

GUAN

Sarj ana Sains ( Pengurusan )

telah mengemukakan kertas projek yang bertajuk (has presented his/her project paper of the following title) GURU

SEBAGAI

KEKERAPAN

PENYELIDIK: FAKTOR-FAKTOR

AKTIVITI

KAJIAN

TINDAKAN

DI

YANG

MEMPENGARUHI

SEKOLAH.

seperti yang tercatat di muka surat tajuk dan kulit kertas projek (as it appears on the title page and front cover ofproject paper) bahawa kertas projek tersebut boleh cliterima clari segi bentuk serta kandungan, clan meliputi biclang ilmu dengan memuaskan. (that the project paper is accepta,ble in form and content, and th.at a satisfactory knowledge of the field is covered by the project paperg. Nama Penyelia ~~~~~~~ of Sr~pervisor~: Prof. Madya Abdul Razak b. Tandatangan ’ (Signa tare) Tarikh (Date)

Ismail

BAB 1 PENGENALAN

Dalam ucapan perasmian Seminar Kebangsaan Penyelidikan Pendidikan 1993, Dr. Wan Zahid berkata; Dalam konteks untuk mengenal pasti pencapaian matlamat Falsaf” Pendidikan Negara, Kajian Tindakan perlu dijalankan di peringkat sekolah, terutama oleh guru-guru yang terlibat dalam kegiatan pengajaran di bilik-bilik darjah. Pihak guru-guru besar perlu menggalakkan guru-guru menjalankan Kajian Tindakan kerana me1ah.G kegiatan tersebut, pihak guruguru berkenaan boleh memperbaiki proses pengajaran mereka. (Prosiding Seminar, hlm. 15)

Saranan beliau adalah berikutan daripada usaha Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia untuk mempertingkatkan aktiviti penyelidikan di kalangan guru sekolah. Pada tahun 1993, Projek PIER (“Programme for Innovation, Excellence and Research”) telah dimulakan, dan salah satu tujuan utamanya ialah memupuk budaya penyelidikan di kalangan pengurus

pendidikan dan pendidik, melalui

Kajian Tindakan. Projek PIER berlangsung dari tahun 1993 hingga 1996 dan meliputi seluruh Malaysia.

Pada t a h u n 1 9 9 5 pula, Majlis Penyelidikan Pendidikan Malaysia (MAPPEMA) telah ditubuhkan untuk mempergiat dan menyelaras aktiviti-aktiviti penyelidikan

dan

penilaian

pendidikan. Ini disusuli oleh penubuhan Forum

Penyelidikan Pendidikan di semua negeri pada tahun berikutnya. Salah satu strategi yang telah dikenalpasti oleh MAPPEMA ialah meneruskan aktiviti-aktiviti Kajian Tindakan di sekolah, khususnya oleh guru-guru yang pernah terlibat dengan Projek PIER.

The contents of the thesis is for internal user only

RUJUKAN 1.

BUKU

Abdul Rahman Daud (1992). Faktor-faktor Yang Berkaitan Dengan P e n g g u n a a n Aiat Teknologi P e n d i d i k a n D i Kalangan G u r u SekoEah Menengah D i N e g e r i Perlis. Tesis Sarjana, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Alkin, M.C. et al. eds (1992). I:‘ncyclopedia of Educational Research, 6’h. ed. New York: Mac Millan Publishing. Altrichter, H. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T e a c h e r s I n v e s t i g a t e T h e i r W o r k : A n Introduction To The Methods Of Action Research. London: Routledge Anders, D.J. (1966). “Action Research”, him. 317-19 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Beasley, B. (1981). “The reflexive spectator in classroom research (a second reflection, 19Sl)“, hlm. 375-82 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 31d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Bell, G.H. (1985). “ C a n s c h o o l s d e v e l o p k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i r practice?“, h l m . 2 2 7 - 3 2 dim. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Bell, J. (1993). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide For First-Time i n E d u c a t i o n a n d S o c i a l S c i e n c e . 2”d. e d . Researchers Buckingham: Open University Press. Berenson, M.L. & Levine, D.M. (1996). Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and Applications, 6th. ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. B e s t , J . W . & K a h n , J . V . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Reseurch i n E d u c a t i o n , 7fh. e d . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Biklen, B. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods, 2nd- ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

128

Borthwick, A. (1982). “A collaborative approach to school focused inservice for teacher development and curriculum improvement”, hlm. 383-94 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) T h e A c t i o n R e s e u r c h R e a d e r , 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Brock-Utne, B. (1980). “What is Educational Action Research?“, hlm. 253-58 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action R e s e u r c h Reuder, 3’d ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Campbell, D.R. (1995). The Students’s Guide to Doing research on the Internet. Reading: Addison-Westley Publishing. C a r r , W . & K e m m i s , S . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . B e c o m i n g CJritical: E d u c a t i o n , Knowledge and Action Research. Basingstoke: Falmer Press. Chein, S., Cook, S.W. & Harding, J. (1948). “The Field of Action Research”, hlm. 57-62 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Reseurch Reuder, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1985). Research Methods In Educution, ed. London: Croom Helm.

2nd-

Corey, S.M. (1949). “Action Research, Fundamental Research and Eductional Practices”, hlm. 63-65 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Reseurch Reader, 3rd. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Corey, S.M. (1953). Action Research To Improve School Practices. New York: Columbia Teachers College. Covey, S.R. (1989). The Seven Habits London: Simon & Schuster.

qf

Highly Effective People.

Elliott, J. & Adelman, C. (1973). “Reflecting Where the action is: The design of Ford Teaching Project”., hlm. 189-94 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Elliott, J. (1976). “Developing hypotheses about classroom from teachers’ practical construct: An account of the work of the Ford Teaching Project”, hlm. 195-213 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Reseurch Reader, 3rd. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. 129

Elliott, J. (1978). “What is Action Research in School”, hlm. 121-22 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reuder, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. E l l i o t t , J . ( 1 9 9 I). A c t i o n r e s e a r c h f o r e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e . Philadelphia: Open University Press. Freire, P. (1982). “Creating alternative research methods: Learning to do it by doing it”, hlm. 269-74 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’*. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Grundy, S. & Kemmis, S. (1981). “Educational Action Research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview)“, hlm. 321-35 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) T h e A c t i o n R e s e a r c h Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Grundy, S. (1982). “Three modes of Action Research”, hlm. 353-64 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Hall, B.L. (1979). “Knowledge as a commodity and Participatory Research”, hlm. 275-90 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) 7’he Action Reseurch Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Henry, J. & Henry, C. service education McTaggart (eds.) University Press,

(1982). “The Deakin/Wimmera school-based inproject”, hlm. 365-73 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. The Action Reseurch Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin Geelong, Victoria.

Hodgkinson, H.L. (1957). “Action Research - A Critique”, hlm. 75-79 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. S . ed., (1997). I n t e r n a t i o n a l A c t i o n r e s e a r c h : A Casebookfor Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.

Hollingsworth,

Hopkins, D. (1985). A Teacher’s Guide To Classroom Reseurch. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R., eds (1988a). The Action Research Planner, 3rd. ed.. Victoria: Deakin University Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R., eds (1988b). The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. 130

Kemmis, S. (1988). “Action Research in Retrospect and Prospect”, hlm. 27-39 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. London: Falmer Press. Lewin, K. (1946). “Action Research and Minority Problems”, hlm. 4146 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) T h e A c t i o n Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Lewin, K. (1952). “Group Decision and Social Change”, hlm. 47-56 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 31d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Madzniyah Md. Jaafar et al. (1995). Modul Kajian Tindakan. Bahagian Pendidikan, Kementerian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1993). Kajian Keupayaan Guru-guru Sekolah Menengah M e n j a l a n k a n K a j i a n d i S e k o l a h . Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1993). P r o s i d i n g S e m i n a r K e b a n g s a a n P e n y e l i d i k a n Penyelidikan Bahagian Perancangan dan Pendidikan. Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia ( 1 9 9 4 ) . P r o s i d i n g S e m i n a r K e b a n g s a a n P e n y e l i d i k a n Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Bahagian Perancangan dan Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia (1995). P r o s i d i n g S e m i n a r K e b a n g s a a n P e n y e l i d i k a n dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Bahagian Perancangan Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. McKernan, J. (1991). Curricullum Action Research: A Handbook Of Methods And Resources For The Reflective Practitioner.

London: Kogan Page. McLean, J. (1995). improving Education Through Action Research: A G u i d e f o r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d T e a c h e r s . California: Corwin Press. 131

McMillan, J.H. (1992). Educational Research: Fundamentals for The Consumer. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. McNiff, J. (1988). Action Research: Principles And Practice. London: Routledge. McTaggart, R. & Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1985). “A Fourth generation of Action Research: Notes on the Deakin Seminar”, hlm. 409-28 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’“. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Miller, D.C. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . H a n d b o o k o f R e s e a r c h D e s i g n a n d S o c i a l Measurement, 3’d. ed. New York: David McKay Company. Mohd Majid Konting (1990). Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Mohd Tajuddin Zakaria (1995). Hubungan Stail Kepemimpinan Guru Besar Dengan lklim Sekolah dun Pencapaian Akademik Muridmurid d i S e k o l a h - s e k o l a h Rendah, D a e r a h K u a l a K a n g s a r ,

Perak. Tesis Sarjana, Universiti Utara Malaysia. Noresah Baharom et al., eds (1994). Kamus Dewan, edisi ke-3. Kuala Lumpur:Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Norusis, M.J. (1993). SPSS for Windows Base System IJser ‘s Guide, Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Oja, S.N. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative Action Research: A Developmental Approach. London: Falmer Press. Russell, T. & Munby, H. (1992). T e a c h e r s a n d T e a c h i n g : F r o m Classroom to Reflection. London: Falmer Press. Sanders, D.P. & McCutcheon, G. (1984). “On the Evolution Theories of Action through Action Research”, hlm. 177-85 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 31d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Sanford, N. (1970). “Whatever Happened to Action Research”, hlm. 127-35 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3”. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach, 2nd. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 132

Shumsky, A. (1956). “Cooperation in Action Research: A Rationale”, hlm. 81-83 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The A c t i o n Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Slavin, R.E. (1992). Research Allyn and Bacon.

Methods in Education, 2nd- ed. Boston:

Street, A. (1985). “Growing plants and growing people: The research activity through the eyes of a practitioner-researcher”, hlm. 395-408 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Reseurch R e a d e r , 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Taba, H. & Noel, E. (1957). “Steps in Action Research Process”, hlm. 67-73 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) T h e A c t i o n Research Reader, 3Td. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Van Dalen, D.B. (1979). Memahami Penyelidikan: Satu Pengenalan, e d . 4 . T e r j e m a h a n A b d u l Fatah d a n M o h d M a j i d (1993), Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Van Manen, M. (1984). “Action Research as Theory of the Unique: From Pedagogic Thoughtfulness to Pedagogic Tactfulnes”, hlm. 157-76 dlm. S. Kemmis dan R. McTaggart (eds.) The Action Research Reader, 3’d. ed., Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Van Wagenen, R.K. (1991). Writing u Thesis: Substance and Stlye. New Jersey: Simon & Schuster. Wiersma, W. (1986). Research Methods in Education, 4’h. ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Zuber-Skeritt, 0 . (1991). Action Research for Change and Development. Aldershot: Avebury. Zuber-Skeritt, 0 . (1992). A c t i o n R e s e a r c h I n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : Examples and Reflections, London: Kogan Page.

133

II.

JURNAL

Abdul Malik Habeeb Mohamed & Shafee Mohd Daud (1994). “Penyelidikan Tindakan Di Bilik Darjah.” Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan di Seminar Teknologi Pendidikan 1994, Langkawi. Allan,

K.K. & Miller, M.S. (1990). “Teacher-Researcher Collaboratives - Cooperative Professional Development.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 192-202.

Baumann, J.F. (1996). “Conflict or Compatibility in Classroom Inquiry? One Teacher’s Struggle to Balance Teaching and Research.” Educational Researcher; 25:7, hlm. 29-36. Chapman, N. (1995). “Developing a Sense of Mission at Whitefield School: The tension between Action Research and School Management.” Educational Management and Administration; 23:3, hlm. 206-l 1. Chiswell, K. (1995). “How Is Action Research Helping to Develop My Role as a Communicator?” B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Journal; 21:3, hlm. 413-20. Clift, R. et al. (1990). “Restructuring Teacher Education Through Collaborative Action Research.” Journal of Teacher Education; 41:2, him. 52-62. Cockburn, A . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . “ T e a c h e r s ’ E x p e r i e n c e o f T i m e : S o m e Implication f o r F u t u r e R e s e a r c h . ” B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Educational Studies; 42:4, hlm. 375-87. Colton, A . B . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . “A Conceptual Framework to Guide the Development of Teacher Reflection and Decision Making.” Journal qf Teacher Education; 4411, hlm. 45-54. Cornett, J.W. (1990). “Utilizing Action Research in Graduate Curriculum Courses.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 185-95. Dana, N.F. (1995). “Action Research, School Change, and the Silencing of Teacher’s Voice.” Action In Teacher Education; 16:4, hlm. 59-70. Dicker, M. (1990). “Using Action Research to Navigate an Unfamiliar Teaching Assingment.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 203208. 134

Ellerton, N.F. (1995). “ W h a t M a k e s A c t i o n R e s e a r c h W o r k s i n Schools.?” Kertas kerja yang disampaikan di Bengkel “Teachers as Researchers”, Johor Bahru. Ellerton, N.F. (1996). “ A c t i o n R e s e a r c h - T u r n i n g t h e P a s t a n d Present into the Future.” Kertas kerja yang disampaikan di Seminar Kajian Tindakan Kebangsaan 1996, Pulau Pinang. Elliott, J. & Sarland, C. (1995). “A Study of ‘Teachers as Researchers’ in the Context of Award-bearing Courses and Research Degress.” British Educational Research Journal; 2 113, hlm. 371-85. Herrick, M.J. (1992). “Research by the Teacher and for the Teacher: An Action Research Model linking Schools and Universities.” Action In Teacher Education; 1413, him. 47-53. Houser, N.O. (1990). “Teacher-Researcher: The Synthesis of Roles for Teacher Empowerment.” Action In Teacher Education; 12:2, hlm. 55-59. Ismail J u s o h & Z u r i d a Ismail ( 1 9 9 5 ) . “ T h e U n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d Implementation of Values Education: Perception of Student Teachers.” Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang; Jilid 13, hlm. 86-98. Komuniti Kim Phaik Lah (1996). “Menyokong dun Mengukuhkan Kujiun Tindukun Malaysia” Kertas kerja yang dibentangkan di Seminar Kaj ian Tindakan 1996, Kuala Terengganu.

Koll, P. J., Herzog, B. J. & Burke, P. J. (1989). “Continuing Implications For Teacher Professional Development: Educators.” Action In Teacher Education; 10:4, hlm. 24-3 1. Lomax, P. (1994). “Change and Educational Innovation: the case for A c t i o n R e s e a r c h . ” Ucapan ‘keynote’ yang disampaikan di ‘Educational Conference: Innovation in Education’, Universiti Sains Malaysia. (1995). “Kertas Dasur Untuk Mesyuarat Pertama Majlis Penyel idikan P e n d i d i k a n M u l a y s i a ( M A P P E M A ) . ” Bahagian

Malaysia

Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

135

Kementerian

Malaysia (1996). Brosur “ P I E R : P r o g r a m m e f o r I n n o v a t i o n , Excellence a n d R e s e a r c h . ” Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia ( 1997). Brosur “Majlis Penyelidikan Pendidikan Malaysia (MAPPEMA). ” B a h a g i a n P e r a n c a n g a n d a n P e n y e l i d i k a n Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Mohd Kamal Dasuki (1996). “Melahirkan G u r u Y a n g R e f l e k t i f Rasional, Konsep dan Pendekatan Pendidikan Guru.” F o r u m Tindakan, Penyelidikan Institut Bahasa, Kuala Lumpur; Disember 1996, Bil. 3, hlm. 2-24. Nazaruddin Mohd. Jali, Abdul Rahman Md. Aroff & Sharifah Md. Nor “Kecemerlangan Pendidikan Melalui B udaya (1992). Penyelidikan: Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah Sebagai Penggerak.” Jurnal P e n g u r u s a n P e n d i d i k a n , tnstitut Aminuddin Baki, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia; September 1992, Jilid 2, Bil. 11, hlm. 50-59. North, J.M. (1995). “A Room of One’s Own: Teaching and Learning to Teach through Inquiry.” Action In Teacher Education; 16:4, hlm. l-13. Oberg, A. (1990). “Methods and Meanings in Action Research: The Action Research Journal.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 214220. Perry, C. (1989). “Research Findings on Teaching - Misuse and Appropriate Use.” Action In Teacher Education; 3 1:3, hlm. 1214. Ramlan Abd. Wahab (1995) “Penyelidikan Tindakan di Sekolah.” Dewan Masyarakat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur; Nov. 1995, hlm. 16-18. Ratnawati Jamil (1997). “Najib Jawap Kritikan.” Massa, Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad, Kuala Lumpur; 14-20 Jun. 1997, hlm. 24-3 1. Rogers, L. et al. (1990). “Action Research as an Agent for Developing Teachers’ Communicative Competence.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 179-84.

136

Sanger, J. (1990). “Awakening A Scream of Consciousness: The Critical Group in Action Research.” Theory Into Practice; 29:3, hlm. 174-78. Sardo-Brown, D. (1992). “Elementary Teachers Perceptions of Action Research.” Action In Teacher Educution; 14:2, hlm. 55-59. Somekh, B. (1995). “The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology.” British Educational Research Journal; 21:3, hlm. 339-53. Syed Idrus Syed Ahmad (1993). “Mewujudkan Iklim Pentadbtran Yang S e s u a i Bagi P e r k e m b a n g a n Daya K r e a t i f G u r u . ” Jurnuf Pendidikan, Jemaah Nazir Sekolah Persekutuan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia; Disember 1993, Jilid 37, keluaran 79, hlm. 46-6 1. Vulliamy, G. & Webb, R. (199 1). “Teacher Research and Educational Change: an empirical study.” Britrsh Educational Journal; 17:3, hlm. 219-36. Wilson, S.M. ( 1995). “Not tension but intention: A response to Educational o f t h e researcher/teacher.” Wong’s analysis Researcher; 24: 8, hlm. 19-22. Winograd, K. & Evans, T. (1995). “Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of an Action Research Assingment.” A c t i o n ln Teacher Educution; 17:3, hlm. 13-22. Wong, E.D. (1995). “Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: Conflicts of purpose and conduct.” Educational Researcher; 24:3, hlm. 22-28.

137

III.

SUMBER ELEKTRONIK

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). “ E R I C a s a R e s o u r c e f o r t h e T e a c h e r Researcher.” ERIC Digest. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 381530. Badar, D. et al. (1996). “ W he r e do the Me r ma id sta nd? : Te a ch e r Research as professional development at the school level.” Teucher Inquirer. http:/lwww.bctf.bc.ca/bctf/inquirer/June 96/ny.html. (18 Ju1.1997). Baird, J.R. & Haglund, S.P. (1994). “Teacher Colluborative Action Reseurch: A Sweedish Adaptation of an Australian Project.” Paper presented at Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 375097. Berlin, D.F. (1996). “Teacher Action Research: The Impact of Inquiry on Curriculum Improvement and Professional Development.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 397029. Black, S. (1996). “Redefining the Teacher’s Role”. E x e c u t i v e Educutor. ERIC; No. Akses: EJ 5 19765. Calhoun, E.F. (1993). “Action Research: Educational-Leadership. ERTC; No. Akses: EJ 470572.

Three

Approaches”.

Clark, S.R. (1992). Research Disposition of Teacher Candidates and Teachers: Different Content Area Backgrounds, At Different Stages. University of Maryland College Park. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 93 1575 1. Cochran, M. (I 993). “Parent Empowerment and Parent Teacher Action Research: A Freindly Critique.” Equity and Choice. ERIC; No. Akses: EJ 476916. Cottrell, B. (1995). P ower and Control in Feminist Action Research. Dalhousie University, Canada. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC MM08760. 138

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). “The BCTF Teacher Research ProjectAssesment.” Teacher Inquiry. http://www.bctf.bc.ca/bctf/inquirer/March97/assesment.html. (18 Jul.1997). Delgadillo, F.M. (1992). A Qualitative Analysis of An Alternative Masters Program For Practicing Teachers Engaged in Action Research. The University of Wisconcin-Milwaukee. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9229579. Delong, J. (1996). “Facilitating and Supporting Action Research by Teachers and Principals: Self-Study of a Superintendent’s Role.” Action Research at Queen’s (Jniversity. http://educ.queensu.ca/projects/action_research/i_delong.htm. (17 Ju1.1997). Deshler, D. & E w e r t , M . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . “Participatory Action Research: Traditions and Major Assumptions.” C o r n e l l P a r t i c i p a t o r y Action Research Network. http://www.parnet.org/tools-l.cfm (18 Jul. 1997). D e u t s c h , G . L . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . I n f l u e n c i n g E;uctors A l o n g T h e R o a d t o Reflective Practice. University of Hartford. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9626671 Dick, B. (1997). “Action Research Sessions.” Action Research and Evaluation Online. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/areol_web.html. (18 Jul. 1997). Fleischer, C. (1994). “Researching Teacher-Research: A Practitioner’s Retrospective.” National Council of Teachers of English. http://www.ncte.org/idea/research/fleischer.html (19 Jul. 1997). Holmes, G. (1996). “Teacher As Researcher.” Teacher Inquiry. http:l/www.bctf.bc.ca/bctf/inquirer/Sept 961Saanichl .html (18 Jul. 1997). Johnson, B.M. (1995). Action Research in Restructuring School: Processes, Products and Perspectives. University of Maryland College Park. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9539679.

139

Krasnow, J. (1992). “Parent-Teacher Action Research.” Equity Choice. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 364369.

and

Masters, J. (1995). “The History of Action Research.” S c h o l a r l y Publication Online. http://www.cchs.su.edu.au/Academic/CH/teaching/AROW/ masters.htm. (18 Jul.1997). Moran, M.A. (1995). “Case Study of an Action Research-Based Staff Development Effort: Four Teachers ’ Stories”. University of California. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9509848 Northfield, J. (1996). “The Nature and Quality of Teacher Research.” Action Research at Queen’s University. http://educ.queensu.ca/projects/action_research/teacher.htm. (17 Jul. 1997). Palenki, A. & Burch, P. (1996). “In Our Hands: A Multi-Site ParentTeacher Action Research Project. ” ERIC; No. Akses: ED 386293. Prendergast, M. (1997). “Seven Steps in My First Action Research Project.” Action Research at Queen’s University. http://educ.queensu.ca/projects/action_research/michael.htm. (17 Jul. 1997). Rafferty, C.D. (1995). “Impact and Challenges o f Multi-Site Collaborative Inquiry Initiatives.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 381489. Russell, Tom. (1997). “Action Research: Who? Why? How? So What? An Introductory Guide for Teacher Candidates at Queen’s University.” Action Research at Queen’s University. http://educ.queensu.ca/projects/action-research. (17 Ju1.1997). Santos, K.E. (1994). “Student Teachers ’ and Cooperating Teachers ’ Use c?f’ Cases t o p r o m o t e Rejlection and Classroom Action Research (Field Experience)“. University of Virginia. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9421259

140

Takala, S. (1994). “Action Research in the Classroom: A report on the 1992-93 TCE Programme.” ERIC; No. Akses: ED 383 197 Thompson, S. (1996). “How Action Research Can Put Teachers and Parents on the Same Team.” Educational Horizons. ERIC; No. Akses: EJ 522590. Tonack, D.A. (1993). Action Research: A Qualitative Study of Educators in A Collaborative Inquiry Process. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9333986. Uhlman, V. (1995). “Action Research and participation [on line].” Action Research Resources. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/arr/partic.html. (18 Ju1.1997). Watt, M.L. (1991). “Teacher Research, Action Research.” The Logo Action Research Collaborative Report. ERIC; No. Akses: ED 341686. Zuniga-Urrutia, X. (1992). “Views and Issues in Action Research (Research Methods)“. The University of Michigan. Abstrak Disertasi; No. Pesanan: AAC 9303847

141