THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ ABILITY IN MAKING THE PROPOSAL OF CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH

Tri Murni

Abstract


Research (CAR). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe the teachers’ achievement in making the proposal of CAR while they are on the Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Profesi Guru (PLPG) or Education and Training of Professional Teachers (ETPT). The method used is descriptive quantitative, and the data were analyzed by using item analysis. The data of this research were the teachers’ proposal of CAR submitted during their training in Banda Aceh. The sample was taken from 30 teachers of junior high schools. The teachers attending the training were from several districts, namely from Great Aceh (6 teachers), North Aceh (7 teachers), Bireuen (4 teachers), Singkil (6 teachers), Pidie (5 teachers), and Tamiang (2 teachers).   The instrument used to assess the teachers’ proposal of CAR was taken from the guide book of ETPT. The components to be evaluated were: 1) the Title, 2) Introduction (a, b, c), 3) Problems (a, b, c), 4) Purpose, 5) Benefit, 6) Review of Literature (a, b), 7) Method of research (a, b, c, d), 8) Schedule, 9) References, and 10) Language used. These were fourteen criteria that have to be scored based on the completeness of the component. The results of this study showed that 15 teachers scored well in writing their proposal of CAR. Among these, one teacher achieved the scores perfectly, five got excellent, and nine got sufficient. From the result of index difficulty, there are thirteen criteria that are easy for the teachers to write their proposal, the criteria  are numbers 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6a, 7a, 7b, 7c, and 10. Next, the three criteria that are difficult are numbers 3c, 6b, and 7d. Then, there are two criteria that are fair (numbers 8 and 9). From those results, it can be said that only half of the participants have the ability in writing a good proposal of CAR, meanwhile the other half still faces difficulty. This means that their writing on the proposal of CAR still needs to be improved.


Keywords


Teachers’ ability; ETPT; Classroom Action Research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Basri. (2014). The application of TPR to improve students’ speaking skills (A CAR at the 5th grade semester 1 SD 25 Sabang). (Unpublsihed Master’s thesis). Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Cross, P. (1987). The adventures of education in wonderland: Implementing educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 496-502.

Depdikbud. (1999). Bahan pelatihan penelitian tindakan. Jakarta: Depdikbud, Dirjen Dikdasmen, Dikmenum.

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

Kemendikbud. (2003). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Retrieved from http://buk.um.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Undang-Undang-No.-20-Tahun-2003-tentang-Sistem-Pendidikan-Nasional.pdf

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

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

McNiff, J. (1988) Action research: Principles and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Mills, G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Mustafa. (2014). Improving students’ reading ability by using CTL method (CAR at the 4th grade state primary school, Sabang). (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh.

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

Soedarsono, F. X. (1997). Rencana, desain dan implementasi: Pedoman penelitian tindakan kelas. Jakarta: BP3SD, Dirjen Dikti.

Tim PGSM. (1999). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (Classroom Action Research): Bahan pelatihan Dosen LPTK dan guru Sekolah Menengah. Jakarta: Proyek PGSM, Dikti.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.