Gelung Kajian Tindakan (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)

Proses kajian tindakan melibatkan refleksi ke atas isu pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang

hendak ditangani. Kemudian guru itu menyediakan satu pelan yang sesuai untuk mengatasi

masalah yang dihadapinya. Seterusnya guru melaksanakan pelan yang dihasilkan dan dalam

proses pelaksanaannya guru terpaksalah memerhati kemajuan tindakan yang dijalankan itu.

Keseluruhan pelaksanaan itu disifatkan sebagai Gelungan Pertama dan jika masalah itu tidak

dapat diatasi, maka guru bolehlah memulakan proses semula ke Gelungan Kedua sehinggalah

masalah itu diselesaikan. Pada Gelungan Kedua guru mesti mereflek dan membuat adaptasi

terhadap pelan tindakan beliau. Satu kritikan terhadap model ini ialah ia sentiasa berlanjutan

dan tiada mutakhirnya . Oleh itu, seseorang guru yang menjalankan kajian tindakan

hendaklah pragmatik dan perlu memastikan bahawa pelan tindakan beliau selaras dengan

kurikulum yang hendak disampaikan.

http://saifuldpliukm.blogspot.com/2009/11/model-kajian-tindakan-kemmis-mctaggart.html

Kurt Lewin

Antara reka bentuk atau model yang perlu dilihat dalam Kajian Tindakan adalah yang reka

bentuk kajian oleh pelopor Action Research itu sendiri iaitu Kurt Lewin. (Terma "Action

Research" telah dikreditkan kepada Kurt Lewin seorang ahli teori sosial yang mempelopori

kajian tindakan). Reka Bentuk Kajian Tindakan Kurt Lewin telah dibina pada tahun 1940-an

dan dikenali sebagai Kurt Lewin's Action Research Spiral yang mana menunjukkan

penambahbaikan yang berterusan dalam pembelajaran mengenai apa yang telah dikaji.

Pendekatan spiral tersebut melibatkan beberapa langkah seperti;

1). Mengenal pasti idea

2). Pencarian fakta

3). Perancangan pelan tindakan

4). Pelaksanaan tindakan

5). Penilaian tindakan yang diambil

6). Ulangkaji pelan tindakan berdasarkan apa yang dipelajari dari langkah 5

7). Mengambil langkah tindakan seterusnya

dan begitu berikutnya melalui beberapa kitar...

Ebbut

Elliot

http://kajiantindakancikgulee.blogspot.com/2009/05/models-of-action-research-nota-kuliah-2.html

An Introduction to Action Research

I feel that we need to make a greater effort to involve teachers in Action Research. Teachers

already know much about teaching--more than many of us do. But many are waiting to be

invited to participate in research studies in which they examine students' preconceptions, or

effective teaching strategies. It is through joint research studies that science instruction in the

schools will improve, and we need to make a great effort in this regard.

Dorothy Gabel

Presidential Address

National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)

San Francisco, April 24, 1995

Action Research (AR) represents a growing field of educational research whose chief

identifying characteristic is the recognition of the pragmatic requirements of educational

practitioners for organized reflective inquiry into classroom instruction. AR is an process

designed to empower all participants in the educational process (students, instructors and

other parties) with the means to improve the practices conducted within the educational

experience (Hopkins, 1993). All participants were knowing, active members of the research

process.

Action research has been described as an informal, qualitative, formative, subjective,

interpretive, reflective and experiential model of inquiry in which all individuals involved in

the study are knowing and contributing participants (Hopkins, 1993). Action research has the

primary intent of providing a framework for qualitative investigations by teachers and

researchers in complex working classroom situations.

Some of the most widely accepted definitions of Action Research include following:

[Action Research] ...aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an

immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration

within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.

- Rapoport (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

Action Research is a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social

(including educational) situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of (a) their

own social or educational practices, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the

situations in which the practices are carried out. It is most rationally empowering when

undertaken by participants collaboratively...sometimes in cooperation with outsiders.

- Kemmis (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

[Action Research] ...is the systematic study of attempts to improve educational practise by

groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of their own

reflection upon the effects of those actions.

- Ebbutt (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

The action research framework is most appropriate for participants who recognize the

existence of shortcomings in their educational activities and who would like to adopt some

initial stance in regard to the problem, formulate a plan, carry out an intervention, evaluate

the outcomes and develop further strategies in an iterative fashion (Hopkins, 1993). In short,

action research is characterized by those constraints and strengths given a research

methodology intended to be a workable technique for working classroom teachers.

Action Research Design

The essentials of action research design are considered by Elliott (in Hopkins, 1993) as per

the following characteristic cycle:

Initially an exploratory stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is

developed and plans are made for some form of interventionary strategy. (The

Reconnaissance & General Plan .)

Then the intervention is carried out . (The Action in Action Research)

During and around the time of the intervention, pertinent observations are collected in

various forms. (Monitoring the implementation by Observation. )

The new interventional strategies are carried out, and the cyclic process repeats,

continuing until a sufficient understanding of (or implement able solution for) the

problem is achieved (Reflection and Revision).

The protocol is iterative or cyclical in nature and is intended to foster deeper understanding of

a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing the problem and moving

through several interventions and evaluations. A representation of an AR protocol by

Kemmis is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Action Research Protocol after Kemmis (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

Figure 1 clearly displays the iterative nature of AR along with the major steps of planning,

action, observation and reflection before revising the plan . This may be thought of as similar

in nature to the numerical computing technique known as successive approximation - the idea

is to close in upon a final goal or outcome by repeated iterations.

Later protocols reflect changes in the goal as determined via experience during the reflections

of earlier iterations of AR. For instance, Figure 2 reflects the evolution of the general idea or

main topic of interest throughout the process.

Figure 2: Action Research after Elliott (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

Elliott's model emphasizes constant evolution and redefinition of the original goal through a

series of reconnaissances recurring every cycle. The reconnaissance necessarily includes

some degree of analysis. This design permits much greater flexibility, and seeks to

"...recapture some of the 'messiness' which the Kemmis version tends to gloss [over] "

(Hopkins, 1985). Ebbutt further illustrates the evolution of the overall plan through a spiral

analogy, as described in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Action Research Protocol after Ebbutt (cited in Hopkins, 1985)

The Role of Communication

Another distinguishing characteristic of Action Research is the degree of empowerment given

to all participants. Involvement is of a knowing nature, with no hidden controls or preemption

of direction by the researcher. All participants negotiate meaning from the data and contribute

to the selection of interventionary strategies, including the university researchers, the teachers

and the students.

The Role of Reflection

Another distinguishing characteristic of action research is the degree of empowerment given

to all participants. Involvement is of a knowing nature, with no hidden controls or preemption

of direction by the researcher. All participants including the university researchers, the

teachers and the students negotiate meaning from the data and contribute to the selection of

interventionary strategies.

Elliott (in Kemmis & McTaggart, 1990b) considers the need for communication between all

participants to be of paramount importance:

Since action research looks at a problem from the point of view of those involved it can only

be validated in unconstrained dialogue with them. ...Since action research involves

unconstrained dialogue between "researcher" (whether he be an outsider or

teacher/researcher) and the participants, there must be free information flow between them.

(p. 122)

Perhaps the key component involved in action research is the notion of praxis. Action

research is intended to be the reflective counterpart of practical diagnosis (Elliott, 1978).

Schon (1983) describes the use of reflection to generate models from a body of previous

knowledge. These models are used to re-frame a problem; then experiments are performed to

bring about outcomes which are subjected to further analysis. This model (called reflection-

in-action) frames means and ends interdependently and recognizes that there is little or no

separation of research from practice, little or no separation of knowing and doing. Schon's

model of reflection-in-action compliments the iterative and investigative natures of action

research.

Dan MacIsaac, 1996 (http://www.physics.nau.edu/~danmac)

References:

Gabel, D. (1995). NARST President's Speech. Presented at the annual meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University

Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1990b). The action research reader. Victoria: Deakin

University.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : How professionals think in action. New

York: Basic Boo

http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danowner/actionrsch.html