Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

7

TYPICAL METHODOLOGICAL FAILURES DEMONSTRATED BY
STUDENTS OF TEACHERS’ COLLEGE IN CONDUCTING CLASSROOM

ACTION RESEARCH

Lalu Ari Irawan (1), Anang Safi’uddin (2)
IKIP Mataram (1), Lembaga Genius (2)

laluariirawan@ikipmataram.ac.id

Abstract
Conducting a research is a compulsory skill to be accomplished by any teacher students of English
language teaching (ELT) department in teacher’s college. As a minimum requirement, each
teacher-student must have experience to conduct a sophisticated Classroom Action Research
(CAR). Within this skill, a teacher-student is expected to grasp various challenges that may occur
in learning, therefore to take necessary actions in order to improve the quality of learning. Hence,
this paper is composed due to an assumption occurred in a preliminary study that students in
English language teaching department have demonstrated numbers of methodologically failures in
conducting CARs. This assumption stimulates a question to answer further, “What sorts of
methodologically failures are demonstrated by teacher’s college students in conducting CARs?”
Researchers as the main instrument in this study develop theoretical criteria form based on
prominent works of Susanto (2010), Hult and Lennung (1980), McKernan (1991), Kemmis and
McTaggart (1992), Winter’s (1996), andMcNiff (2002) to frame the analysis. Data is taken from
selected works stored in a library of a teacher’s college in Nusa Tenggara Barat, by employing two
criteria to students’ works (mini-thesis), i.e. year of publication is 2015 and marked with ‘A’ from
internal examination board of the college. These criteria constrain only two scripts to be further
analyzed. By applying content analysis, this study reveals various kinds of methodological failure
in students’ works about CAR, i.e. (1) violation to collaborative principle of CAR, (2) violation to
the four characteristics of CAR (situational, participatory, evaluative, and cooperative), (3) the use
of learners’ achievement as benchmark of success, (4) developed in quantitative study, (5) failure
in positioning the researcher as a teacher or collaborator, and (6) failure in the construction of
lesson plans.

Key words: Classroom Action Research (CAR), Methodological Failures, Content Analysis

Abstrak
Melaksanakan sebuah riset adalah sebuah keterampilan wajib dimiliki oleh seorang mahasiswa
calon guru di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di lembaga pencetak tenaga kependidikan
(LPTK). Sebagai persyaratan minimum, setiap mahasiswa harus memiliki pengalaman untuk
menjalankan penelitian tindakan kelas (PTK) yang baik. Dengan keterampilan ini, seorang calon
guru diharapkan mampu mengelola berbagai tantangan yang mungkin muncul dalam pembelajaran
sehingga mampu mengambil tindakan yang diperlukan guna meningkatkan kualitas pembelajaran.
Selanjutnya, artikel ini ditulis berdasarkan asumsi yang muncul dalam studi pendahuluan yang
mengungkap bahwa ditemukan mahasiswa yang menunjukkan kesalahan metodologis dalam
melaksanakan penelitian tindakan kelas. Asumsi ini menjadi pemicu sebuah pertanyaan untuk
dikaji, yaitu “Kesalahan metodologis apa saja yang ditunjukkan dalam penelitian tindakan kelas
yang dijalankan mahasiswa LPTK?” Peneliti sebagai instrumen utama dalam penelitian ini
mengembangkan perangkat kerja berupa kriteria teoretis yang didasarkan pada hasil kajian
penting, seperti Susanto (2010), Hult dan Lennung (1980), McKernan (1991), Kemmis dan
McTaggart (1992), Winter’s (1996), dan McNiff (2002). Sumber data adalah manuskrip penelitian
terpilih dari sebuah LPTK di Nusa Tenggara Barat yang dipilih berdasarkan dua kriteria, yaitu
dipublikasikan dalam tahun 2015 dan telah mendapatkan nilai A dari dewan penguji internal.
Berdasarkan kriteria tersebut, dua manuskrip (skripsi) terpilih menjadi sumber data. Dengan
menerapkan analisis isi (content analysis), penelitian ini mengungkap enam kesalahan metodologis
dalam menjalankan sebuah penelitian tindakan kelas, yaitu: (1) pelanggaran prinsip kolaboratif



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

8

dalam PTK, (2) pelanggaran empat karakteristik dalam PTK (situasional, partisipatori, evaluatif,
dan kooperatif), (3) penggunaan capaian mahasiswa sebagai standar kesuksesan PTK, (4)
dikembangkan dengan desain penelitian kuantitatif, (5) kesalahan menempatkan posisi mahasiswa
peneliti sebagai guru atau kolaborator, dan (6) kesalahan dalam menyusun rencana pelaksanaan
pembelajaran.

Key Words: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK), Kesalahan Metodologis, Analisis Isi

INTRODUCTION
The need of professional teaching squad

becomes one of the most vital matters in
pursuing the primary goal of education.
Teacher is one of the main components of
formal education realm. Hence, government
has issued various policies to improve the
quality of teachers. However, the policies are
more allocated to on-duty teachers. This
paper begins with a more fundamental issue
by assuming that the future teacher
education should be also accommodated the
grand design of national education policy.
One of primary skills ought to be acquired
by the future teacher is research skill, which
can support his future carrier as teacher. As a
teacher, someone should be able to conduct a
sophisticated classroom action research
(CAR), which can support him/her in their
future jobs. Therefore, this paper is intended
to examine the teacher students’ competence
in conducting CARs as part of their college
activity.

Literature Review
In 1940s Kurt Lewin first introduced

action research attracting social scientists
with its liberating intent to go beyond
various field of interests. This approach ever
since has been widely used to integrate two
kinds of work, i.e. research and action.
Principally, scientists have another strong
argument on how a research can bring such
an immediate solution to certain problems.
Cohen, et.al. (2007) preview an action
research as a powerful tool for change and
improvement at the local level (297). Holly
and Whitehead (1986) mention how this tool
is applicable in almost any setting by
counting two basic considerations to

generate it, i.e. problem (relating to people,
tasks, and procedures) and change (for
desirable outcome). In terms of education,
Holly and Whitehead further suggest the
implementation can be taken by a teacher
alone, a group of teachers, and a teacher(s)
with research fellow(s) as an outsider.

Reason and Bradbury (2001) define
action research with some keywords, i.e.
participatory, democratic process, human
purposes, action and reflection, theory and
practice, and practical solutions. These
keywords cover the basic principles of
conducting an action research, in which it
begins with identified problems and
pursuing for an effective solution of it.
Earlier scholars suggest quite similar
account to define an action research, such as
(Hopkins, 1985; Ebbutt, 1985; Cohen and
Manion, 1994; Corey, 1953; and Kemmis
and McTaggart, 1992). Winter’s (1996)
suggests six key principles of action
research, i.e. reflexive critique, dialectical
critique, collaboration, risking disturbance,
creating plural structures, and theory and
practice internalized. All of the scholars are
linked with a keyword, i.e. improve, in
which change is expected to enhance the
pursuit of institutional goal (or in this study
classroom goal) in varied social entity,
including classroom as a small unit or
beyond it.

Thus, the study perceives a CAR as
designed change conducted in the level of
classroom to improve the process of pursuit
the learning goals which identified as
problem triggering the action. Susanto
(2010:17) asserts that a CAR should cover
issues within the teacher’s authority, such as
teacher’s competence on materials,



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

9

instructional technique, and instructional
media. Susanto’s account emphasizes this
research approach constrains its interests to
the design and implementation of a lesson.

In Indonesian context, research skill is
implicitly mentioned as one of compulsory
skills to be developed by a teacher.
Regulation umber 16 in 2009 issued by the
State Minister for the Empowerment of State
Apparatus requires teachers to have
scientific publications to pursue for a higher
position in their carrier. Teachers are
expected to publish at least some CAR
reports within their professional experiences.
In this sense, every teacher is encouraged to
develop research skill. Minimum
requirement of education background (in this
case a degree in education) also implies that
every future teacher should be well equipped
with this skill. Therefore, teacher’s college
should be able to develop their teacher
students’ skill in research. Based on this fact,
this study is designed to be an evaluative
work to give further input for teacher’s
college management board in order to
improve the quality of their outcomes.

A preliminary study towards some
students’ works labeled as CAR leads to an
assumption that teacher students in college
demonstrate methodological failures in
conducting CARs. This assumption is also
aligned with the fact that many teachers
dispute their incapability to conduct
sophisticated CARs. Therefore, this study is
intended to conduct a diagnostic work to
determine the parameter of failures
demonstrated by teacher students. The only
research question in this study is, “What
sorts of methodologically failures are
demonstrated by teacher’s college students
in conducting CARs?”

METHODOLOGY
This study employs content analysis (CA)

using a frame that consider critical notation
of CAR by Susanto (2010), Hult and
Lennung (1980), McKernan (1991), Kemmis

and McTaggart (1992), and Winter’s (1996).
Cohen et.al. (2007:475) provide a simple
definition of CA as an effort to summarize
and report written data covering main
contents of data and their message. This
analytic tool enables scholars to break in the
entire parts of manuscripts. Two selected
works of teacher students are taken as
sources of data. The selection of data sources
are following two researcher-driven criteria,
i.e. year of publication should be 2015 and
the works has got ‘A’ mark from the internal
ad-hoc examination board. Based on internal
data in the teacher’s college, two
manuscripts are then used in further analysis.
Both works are then investigated through
CA by employing theoretical frame as stated
earlier. In analyzing data, this study follows
the three-step approach postulated by Miles
and Huberman (1994), i.e. data reduction,
data display, and drawing conclusion. About
the use of CA, it helps the researchers in
making inferences by systematically and
objectively identifying specified
characteristics within a text (Stone, 1966:5).
Through this analysis, one can explore his or
her critical analysis on specific content of
discourse, in this case a research report. The
analysis must be performed relative to and
justified in terms of the context of the data
(Krippendorf, 1980:23).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings
In data analysis, this study applied an

instrument to analyze two manuscripts that
were selected based on categories mentioned
in earlier section. All data collected in this
process were displayed in table 1 and 2, as
follows.

Student 1: CAR1

N
O

Types of Failures
Lo
cat
io
n

Remarks

P L



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

10

a
g
e

i
n
e

1 2 3

Melanggar unsur kolaboratif (Guru Kelas)
sebagai bagian dari tim peneliti (Mitra /
Pemrakarsa)

2 4 "Process were low"?

3
1
2 "bored" tidak muncul dalam penelitian

Melanggar sifat PTK yang situasional,
partisipatif, dan kooperatif

5 3 3

Peneliti membawa solusi (Pocket Chart)
yang merupakan tehnik, materi dan media
yang baru. Tidak berasal dari kelas
tersebut

6 5 "enjoy"?
Tidak ada korelasi antara asumsi peneliti
tentang masalah dikelas dengan penerapan
pocket chart (to memorized the
vocabularies)

7 4 2
Tujuan penelitian merupakan
eksperimental studi

8 9 Teorinya fokus kepada hasil / outcome

9
2
9 3

CAR harus fokus kepada penilaian dan
pendekatan kualitatif

1
0

3
0 2 ciri penilaian kuantitatif

1
1

3
1

"Table 04" melanggar prinsip dan
karakteristik PTK (immediate concern)

1
2

3
2

peneliti seharusnya sebagai observer,
statemen ini menunjukkan guru bukan
sebagai praktisi

1
3

3
3 3 "Collaborator"?

1
4 5

..making lesson plan… seharusnya
modified

1
5 6 …posttest…?
1
6 8

…teacher as the observer…. Ini bukan
guru yang sama

1
7 9 …researcher as teacher… misconducted
1
8

4
0 3 …target score… concern to the result
4
1

1
7

…teaching strategy…. Was the basic
assumption

4
2 6

…midterm test… the same students and
the same materials?

1
0

…minimum mastering criterion… Passing
grade used as criterion

1
6 pre-test

4
4

…by considering a new teaching and
media…. Evidence of applying newly

substances into a class

4
5 5 ?

1
2 ?
1
7 as an observer
2
1 part of learning

4
6 1 ?

5 controlled condition

6 very experimental
4
7 3 the researcher as the teacher
5
5

1
0 instrumental strategy

5
6

1
5 another strategy

5
7

1
2 what are they?
1
7

"Learning behavior improve" this is the
truly essence of CAR

Appe
ndice
s "Anecdotal Notes Observation Form"

"Panduan Wawancara Responden Siswa"
there's no in the analysis
"Panduan Wawancara Responden Guru"
there's no in the analysis
"Lesson Plan" it’s not indicating process
improvement for the better learning
process. A CAR ought to focus on certain
behavioral issue of achievement

Student 2: CAR2

N
O

Types of Failures
Lo
cat
io
n

Remarks
P
a
g
e

L
i
n
e

1 2 3 Penulis menyimpulkan berdasarkan asumsi
penulis, tidak mengambil/mengangkat
permasalahan yang dihadapi guru sebagai
peneliti mitra

1
3

Penulis mengasusmsikan penggunaan media
yang  berbeda dapat meningkatkan hasil
capaian, tapi melupakan syarat PTK, yaitu



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

11

peningkatan proses KBM

3 1
9

“…movie…” tidak ada indikasi bahwa
KBM sebelumnya menggunakan movie
sebagai media

2
8

1
9

Tidak ada observasi KBM sebelumnya,
apakah RPP dijalankan sesuai perencanaan
atau hanya asumsi penulis saja. Karena,
tidaka ada format lembar pengamatan
berupa checklist atau lembar pengamatan
berkala dan atau lembar pengamatan tidak
terstruktur.

2
9

1
5

CAR, fokus kepada proses KBM bukan
pada nilai akhir siswa

3
2

8 Menandakan, penulis menekankan hasil
bukan proses

3
4

1
2

Kondisi akan berdampak pada hasil belajar
siswa, tetapi itu bukanlah wilayah PTK.
PTK harus fokus kepada proses KBM

3
7

…reflection… giving a test is not the way of
CAR

Appe
ndice
s

Kegiatan inti didalam RPP, sebaiknya
dibedakan kegiatan guru dan siswa, dibagi
kedalam kolom yang berbeda
Sumber belajar hanya menyebutkan
“CD/Kaset dan Script percakapan/rekaman
percakapan” bukan Video/Movie

DISCUSSION
Susanto (2010) constrains the steps of

developing a CAR as three-cycled activity,
i.e. preparation, implementation and
observation, and reflection. Hence, by
conducting CA to two manuscripts, this
study identifies three categories of failures,
pre-action, action, and post-action. The
categories were developed based on
sequences of CAR.Each category contains
several types of failure within the sources of
data.

Pre-Action
Pre-action phase refers to a stage of a

CAR covering the following issues:

Finding research collaborators
Susanto (2010) distinguishes two types of

participants in a CAR, i.e. initiator and
partner researchers. The former refers to an
expertas an outsider, while the lateris a
teacher as an insider withadequate
knowledge and competence relating to
course subject and research issues. In this

sense, both writers of the manuscripts have
taken positions as an outsider.

Identifying, evaluating, and formulating
research problem or issue to be further
solved

A CAR is supposed to rise from reality
that occurs in a classroom emerging during
teaching learning process. The problem is
constrained to element(s) of interaction,in
which a CAR is encouraged by
dissatisfaction towards the quality of
learning outcomes and the willingness to
improve it (Susanto, 2010).Susanto further
suggests 7 categories recognized as the
sources of problems, i.e. indicator, learning
materials, learning strategy, instructional
steps, assessment, teaching media, and
learning sheet.To respect Susanto’s, this
study traces several typical failures in the
two manuscripts.

It is found that problem in the two
manuscripts tend to emerge based on the
outsider’s subjective assumption and not
elaborating it from the teacher as the
authoritative person in the class. Obviously,
the design of the CAR is not classroom
based research as suggested by many
experts. This entraps the researcher to bring
in something from the outside. In the
beginning, manuscript A mentions a boring
classroom, which is quite relevant to urge a
CAR. But later, the writer takes a leap by
forwarding students’ vocabulary mastery as
the core problem of the study. In this sense,
the writer has switched from issues of
process quality to learning achievement. The
later tends to be recognized as a quantitative
inquiry that is more relevant to an
experimental study. Manuscript B has
demonstrated similar tendency. First, the
writer has noted several issues related to
students’ classroom performances, i.e.
feeling shy, fear of making mistake, difficult
in expressing their idea, seldom to practice,
minimum repertoire of vocabulary,
misunderstand the given material, and lack



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

12

of confidence. He further formulates an
assumption regarding the students’
performance, which can be seen as working
hypotheses, that covers students’ motivation,
attractiveness of learning material, and
technique in teaching. Moreover, he
underlines that teacher tends to count heavily
on writing than speaking. This seems to be
irrelevant with his earlier notes.  Later, the
given research problem becomes
irrespectively to the earlier arisen problem in
the introduction of his writing.

Statement of problems seems to be
detached from the classroom context
bybringing inout-of-context issues based on
the writer’s justification.In manuscript A, the
writer underlines the classroom situation by
defining the students’ low motivation in
learning activity, which he labels as ‘bored’.
Unfortunately, the term ‘bored’ is not
emerged as an element in the formulation of
research problem. The formulation seems to
be more focus on examining a newly
teaching model, i.e. pocket chart, to improve
students’ vocabulary. Based on this
formulation, the CAR fails to place the
classroom based issue as a departing point in
developing the research design. After
reviewing manuscript B, this study finds that
the writer fails to bring in all problems arisen
in the observed class into a proper research
problem. All problems are simplified as
students’ speaking skill. Thus, he offers a
different kind of media as a treatment to the
given problem, which is marked as not
situational one. Thus, these two notions
become the variables mentioned in the
research problem.

Formulating working hypothesis
While both manuscripts indicate

misleading in generating research problems,
both of them also fail to generate appropriate
working hypotheses to be further conducted
within the studies. The failure in drawing
proper working hypothesis in a CAR may
lead the writer to wrong direction.

Manuscript A mentions about students’ low
motivation in learning, but none of working
hypothesis discusses this fact as the main
reference for the writer to formulate further
action in future lesson plan. Manuscript B
also asserts some learning problems dealing
with students, but the writer fails to produce
relevant working hypothesis. He simplifies
the problem as speaking skill issues,and then
he proposes a new media assumed as more
effective in improving students’ speaking
skill.

Selecting research team

Numbers of participants
Both writers in their manuscripts engage

only two participants in their research
designs, one as a teacher and another as an
observer. Susanto (2010) suggests three
participants as the minimum numbers of
participants including the teacher and two
observers. By employing more than one
observer, it may reduce the potential
researcher subjectivity in giving
justification. A failure to present minimum
subjective claim within a CAR can decline
the quality of the work.In this regard, both
manuscripts impose two likely subjective
claims. This circumstance is unfavorable in a
scientific work, in which the only observer
makes his judgment within his mind and
modified by individual bias.

Role of participants
Manuscript A indicates how the writer

takes position as a teacher rather than an
observer. Meanwhile, the teacher of the class
is assigned as an observer. This positioning
has several impacts, i.e. (1) by design it can
interfere the nature of the classroom by
placing an outsider to lead the teaching
learning process. Susanto (2010:25) asserts
that the real teacher should play his natural
role to lead classroom interaction by using
modified lesson plan as his guidance. He
further argues that the teacher has known
well the setting, coped and comprehended



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

13

the learning materials, as well as his best in
identifying and recognizing the pupils.

Review of related literature

Relevancy of literature
Different to other research report, in

terms of the state of the arts or theoretical
frame of a CAR is not necessarily too
comprehensive, as suggested by Susanto
(2010). He argues that teacher limited access
to the recent theory of foreign language
teaching loosen the teacher researcher from
the obligation to compile a sophisticated
review of literature. However, in the case of
involving an expert as the outsider in the
research, a CAR is better to be equipped
with the complete ones.

Ongoing theoretical response to the given
problem

Failures in formulating the proper
research problems and working hypotheses
in their works also cause improper temporal
response in their chapter two, i.e. review of
related literature. In manuscript A, the writer
proposes chart pocket and vocabulary
mastery as the two core theoretical responses
to the given problems in chapter one. There
is no literature discussing about learning
motivation or ‘bored’ students. Meanwhile,
manuscript B which defines various
learners’ problems simplified as speaking
skill and offering English movies as the
solution, discusses too broad theoretical
framing in chapter two, covering language as
communication device, language elements
and skills, speaking as language skill, and
learning media to facilitate foreign language
acquisition. No review is provided regarding
learners’ problems as stated in the
introduction. These facts are driven by the
writer’s misidentification of sources of
problems. In other words, regarding the aim
of chapter two, both writers fail to give
adequate state of the arts of their works.

Research Method

Modified lesson plan and problem solving
submission

Susanto (2010) emphasizes that a CAR
should be departed from the existing lesson
plan, which was modified or revised in order
to improve the quality of learning. Both
manuscripts indicate opposite direction to
this principle.Hult and Lennung (1980) and
McKernan (1991:32-3) assert that a CAR
should take feedback from earlier cycle as
consideration in improving learning, which
is also suggested by Kemmis and McTaggart
(1992).

Manuscript A fails to demonstrate the
process of revising the original lesson plan
used by the teacher in his instruction before
conducting the CAR. The writer seems to
bring a new lesson plan detached to the
existing one, which marked as cycle 1. The
same thing also emerges when he moves to
cycle 2 after justifying that cycle 1 has failed
to solve the problem.The same indication
also appears in manuscript B. First, the
writer does not depart from the original
lesson plan used by the teacher before the
research. Hence, the writer comes with a
totally different lesson plan offering brand
new media of teaching. He conducts the
research in two cycles too, but the second
cycle is only repeating the same actions in
cycle 1, with no revision at all.Kemmis and
McTaggart (1992) propose a small-to-large
protocol of change due to classroom
situation as constrained in the existing lesson
plan. This may avoid any researcher to bring
in the out-of-context ideas into classroom.
Both manuscripts fail to obey this principle
by adopting brand new teaching media.

Standard of success
Many experts have suggested the

boundary of a CAR defined within the
process of learning in terms of quality by
departing from the existing lesson plan. The
success of a CAR should also begin from
this notation rather than just seeing students’
learning achievement simply through an



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

14

achievement test. Both manuscripts
explicitly indicate the use of student’s scores
towards a prepared test as the primary
standard of success of actions in the CARs.
Susanto (2010) suggests this kind of
information as additional information of a
CAR, not the primary one. Therefore, the
test results cannot be used as hints for the
writers to further decide whether they need
to proceed to the next cycle or terminate the
research.Based on Hult and Lennung (1980)
and McKernan (1991:32-3), a CAR is aimed
at advancing the quality of human actions.
The quality cannot be defined by testing
participants’ (learners) comprehension. They
further suggest that this kind of research
should only concern about abrupt issues in
classroom.

While, manuscript A mentions the use of
subject passing grade (Indonesia: KKM),
manuscript B simply uses an achievement
test results with no explicit passing grade to
determine the success of learning.The writer
of manuscript A conducts pretest-posttest
approach in his effort to give judgment
whether his action effective or not. Yet, he
does not conduct a further statistical analysis
of both tests. Manuscript B only indicates
that the students’ average scores are showing
improvement from 44.55 to 75.38 as the
only reason to terminate the action.Kemmis
and McTaggart (1992) mention the self-
reflective spiral as one of the key principle to
conduct a CAR. In other words, the decision
making is based on the result in reflection
stage, not through a test. Hult and Lennung
(1980) and McKernan (1991:32-3) also state
that a CAR should be formative, in which a
researcher makes a formative judgment
regarding the quality of actions. Thus, it
becomes contradictive if a CAR uses
achievement test as a measure to determine
whether actions have met the
requirement.Both manuscripts fail to
demonstrate critical analyses as suggested by
Kemmis and McTaggart (1992), they only
consider students’ test results as the standard

of success. Winter (1996:13-14) mentions
that a CAR should create plural structures
rather than a single authoritative
interpretation. This principle allows every
participant to give their accounts and critics.
Unfortunately, both manuscripts in this study
have violated this principle by only using
test result as the primary consideration.

Developing research instruments
In terms of research instrument, most

experts suggest the use of field note as a tool
to collect data from classroom. However,
none of the two manuscripts contain field
note or sample of applying field note in the
sites.

Furthermore, this study reveals that both
manuscripts use tests as instruments.
Between both writers, the difference is in the
type of test. Manuscript A applies written
test (multiple choice and open-ended test),
while the other manuscript prefers using oral
test focusing on five components
(vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar,
fluency, and comprehension), besides using
an interview guideline that consists of 18
questions set in three categories (family,
movies, and pets and animal). The interview
guideline has no clear relationship to the
issue being discussed in all chapters of the
manuscript, especially to the core problems
of the study.

Research Design
Experts suggest any researcher to develop

a CAR as a descriptive qualitative study.
Hence, a researcher should use qualitative
instruments of data collection. Therefore, the
data analysis technique is developed in
adequate manner, i.e. four-cycle data
analysis, i.e. planning, action, observation,
and reflection. CAR is different with other
qualitative research in terms of this
fundamental design. Both writers fail to go
along with the cyclical process of CAR as
the ultimate inquiry tool. It is obvious that
both writers only use the CAR format in



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

15

their proposal, but not implementing the
truly CARs in their studies.

Procedure of entering the site
One of important steps in conducting a

CAR is strategy of entering the site. This
step helps any researcher to reduce potential
bias caused by the presence of outsider, in
this case the writer. Thus, Susanto (2010)
suggests any researcher to have at least one
or two preliminary visits before starting data
collection. The frequency can be less or
more based on observer’s judgment. He can
begin to collect data once he convinces that
the classroom interaction has run naturally
and ready for data collection procedure.
Both manuscripts do not give clear steps of
entering the sites. So, the validity and
reliability of data used in the two
manuscripts are questionable considering no
justification that classrooms are naturally
entered by the two writers.

Preliminary activity
Susanto (2010) McNiff (2002:71) suggest

simulation as part of conducting a CAR. It
may help a researcher to overview the
strength and weakness of a design, in order
to make necessary improvement and to
ensure all participants in coping with
particular roles during the actions. In the
end, it can reduce misleading
implementation of actions conveyed in
lesson plan. Teacher and observers should be
well understood about the entire steps. In
manuscript A, the writer discusses the task
given to the observer. However, he
misunderstands the proper positioning by
assigning the teacher as an observer.
Meanwhile, in manuscript B, there is no
explanation about conducting a simulation
session with the other participant indicated
as failure procedure of conducting a CAR.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Conclusion
CAR is a kind of research aimed at

increasing the quality within learning. Based

on the given explanation, there are some
failures found in the two manuscripts caused
by misunderstanding the CAR principles, i.e.
procedure of problem identification,
selecting participants and distributing tasks,
using pre-test and post-test, focus on
learning achievement rather than learning
process, bring in new things into the
classroom, no clear path of lesson plan
development, improper design and use of
data collection instruments, and there is no
well prepared pre-action activity. Various
typical failures may result unqualified
manuscripts, which can also misled the
student teachers in applying CAR in their
future carrier. However, teacher students are
not solely responsible for the failures, since
both of them have been supervised by some
faculty members. This indicates that the
failures can also be reduced through an
intervention to the faculty members.

Suggestion
Following the conclusion above, this

study suggest some important issues: 1) any
researcher must be better in understanding
the principles of conducting a CAR, 2)
faculty members need to enrich their
scientific perspective while supervising
teacher students in conducting a CAR, 3)
further study can examine certain subject
related to research skill, and 4) chairman of
department should consider to improve the
quality of curriculum as well as individual
capacity of each faculty member in order to
improve the quality of student’s research in
the future.

REFERENCES
Cohen, Louis; Lawrence Manion and Keith

Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in
Education, (sixth edition). Oxon and Ney
York: Routledge.

Hult, M. and Lennung, S. 1980. Towards a
definition of action-research: a note and
bibliography. Journal of Management
Studies, 17 (2), 241–50.



Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 6 No.1, Mei 2018

16

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. 1992.The
Action Research Planner (third edition).
Geelong, Vic.:Deakin University Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content
Analysis; An Introduction to its
Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
188 pp.

McKernan, J. 1991.Curriculum Action
Research. London: Kogan Page.

McNiff, J., with Whitehead, J. (2002) Action
Research: Principles and Practice
(second edition). London: Routledge
Falmer.

Miles, Mattew B. and A. Michael
Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data
Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Second Edition. California: Sage
Publication, Inc.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). 2001.
Handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice.
London: Sage Publications.

Stone, P.J. et al. (1966). The General
Inquirer: A Computer Approach to
Content Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Susanto.2010.KonsepPenelitianTindakanKel
asdanPenerapannya.Surabaya:LembagaP
enerbitan FBS UNESA.

Winter, R. 1996.Some principles and
procedures for the conduct of action
research.In O. ZuberSkerritt (ed.) New
Directions in Action Research.London:
Falmer.

Acknowledgements
The authors deliver their grateful to

Dean of Faculty of Language and Art
Education of X Teacher College for giving
her permission to conduct this study,
librarian of faculty’s library for her
assistance during data collection, and head
of faculty’s administration office for his
valuable data assisting the authors in
selecting right manuscripts to be investigated
in this study.