2.0 STUDY FOCUS
2.1 Selection of Study Focus
Based on teaching and learning reflection, Year 3 remedial students need help with reading and comprehension skills. Using conventional teaching techniques and methods, Year 3 remedial students still need to improve in reading and understanding Malay. Old methods, such as searching for question keywords in passages to answer questions, could be more effective. This is because students still need to understand the reading material, which causes remedial students to be unable to answer comprehension questions. Furthermore, the remedial students’ answers need to follow the technique of answering correct comprehension questions.
Therefore, Peta Bush is used as a tool to help students improve their mastery of reading and comprehension skills. According to Noriati et al. (2016), pictures, maps, and charts can help students understand more clearly. He added that large and colorful pictures can attract interest and increase students’ lesson concentration. Charts facilitate student understanding in terms of easy to remember, such as pie charts, histograms, and graphs. This is a strategy based on resources or materials. According to Noriati et al., content-centered learning is also essential to help teachers meet the diverse needs of students. This learning can show how to learn at their own pace, at any time, and in a location that does not complicate them. Based on that statement, it is clear that the Bubble Map has criteria such as helping remedial students remember information based on literal passages.
Several criteria need to be evaluated in the selection of the focus of the study, namely administrability, importance, usability, control, collaboration, and relevance to the school. First, my action research has a criterion of administrability. My action research is easy to administer at the research site, the school chosen for the second phase of my practicum. During my second practicum, I asked for permission from the school, remedial teachers, and school teachers involved to conduct my action research. I asked permission from the headmaster to use two remedial students to participate in my study. In addition, I also request permission from the remedial teacher to use existing data and documents on matters involving remedial students because it involves the credibility of the school’s remedial teacher. Because I was conducting an action study outside of the predetermined teaching schedule, I also asked permission from the subject teacher to use remedial students during the teacher’s teaching time. Therefore, the subject teacher allowed the remedial students to conduct action research with me at the time and place that had been agreed upon.
The second criterion is importance. The research I conducted is vital to help remedial students answer comprehension questions based on passages or reading materials. Pupils of remedial school practicum phase two need help with reading and comprehension skills. By conducting this action research, remedial students can be helped to resolve weaknesses and improve mastery in reading and comprehension skills. About that, the criteria in the focus selection are relevant to the school. It is certain that when this study has a positive effect on rehabilitation students in mastering reading and comprehension skills, the school will also receive an impact because remedial students have been able to understand the material read not only in the Special Remedial Program but in mainstream classrooms. As a result, remedial students will be removed from the Remedial Program and able to study with other mainstream students.
The fourth criterion is usability. My action research uses Peta Buih to master reading and comprehension skills in Malay. This Foam Map is a material that can be drawn and built mechanically by rehabilitation students following the correct steps. Therefore, the researcher does not need to build the tool to use remedial students. The researcher only uses pictures and mechanically draws the Bubble Map to be used as an aid in the action. Apart from that, my action research only used two research participants. This has usability criteria in the selection of research focus. Furthermore, my action research does not use strategies that have risks or dangers. The last criterion is collaboration. To carry out my action research, I have collaborated with practicum colleagues, remedial teachers, and school administrators—collaboration in the form of discussion, help, and various other forms.
2.1 Action
Teachers carry out action research. This research is done to test educational theory practically or evaluate and implement school procedures. Through action research, teachers become more responsible for their actions and create an environment compatible with research data collection methods.
Figure 2.1 Kurt Lewin’s Loop Model (1948)
According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) in Cohen, Manion, and Keith (2007), action research is the same concern for individual change or vice versa, the culture of a group, institution, and society to what it should be. According to Stringer (2014), a unique research approach is relevant to classroom instruction and learning and provides meaning to teachers to improve students’ teaching and learning skills. Geoffrey and Gay (2016) also argue that action research in education is carried out by teachers, principals or head teachers, school counselors, or an interest group in the teaching and learning environment to collect information about how schools implement, teach, and students learn.
This study uses Kurt Lewin’s model (1948). The researcher chose the Kurt Lewin Model because it applies action research continuously through several stages or processes. The level of the research process is termed the ‘research loop.’ Based on the model, two research loops will be used. According to Kurt Lewin, action research is a circle of several levels. Each level has several steps of action plan, attention, and reflection. The loop of action research steps involves five basic steps in one loop (Figure 3), and the second loop will follow the first loop in continuous research. The steps in one loop are as in Figure 2:
Figure 2.2 The steps of the first loop of the Kurt Lewin Model
After completing the first round of research, the study of the same issues and problems continued with the second round of research through the following steps:
Figure 2.3 The steps of the second loop of the Kurt Lewin Model
Based on the First Loop of Kurt Lewin’s Model, several steps were taken to implement the study. This study uses Kurt Lewin’s model. The researcher chose the Kurt Lewin Model because it applies action research continuously through several stages or processes. The level of the research process is termed the ‘research loop.’ Based on the model, two loops of research are used. According to Kurt Lewin, action research is a circle of several levels. Each level has several steps of action plan, attention, and reflection. The loop of action research steps involves five basic steps in one loop, and the second loop will follow the first loop in continuous research. The steps in one cycle are identifying problems and situations, planning, acting, observing and analyzing, and reflecting and evaluating.
The researcher has identified issues, problems, and situations. Researchers have identified issues locally and globally about thinking skills and students with learning problems, especially comprehension skills and thinking tools. By considering and assimilating the country’s desire to produce a quality generation through education, the researcher has decided to study the issues and problems related to the situation in schools, society, and the country (refer to reflection on teaching and learning). At this step, observations are made before the implementation is carried out on the rehabilitation students from the aspect of involvement in the class, the work or assignments given, and the student’s attitude. From its impact and suitability in Rehabilitation Education, the researcher observes teaching and learning before using the Bubble Map thinking tool. Apart from that, the response from the guidance teacher and supervisor is also taken into account as a response and reinforcement of the observations made.
The observation will be done holistically, from classroom management to changes in student behavior. This is because if the student’s cognitive and thinking style changes due to the mastery of thinking skills using thinking tools, the student’s style, and behavior will also change and affect more than just teaching and learning. The researcher has also conducted teacher-constructed tests before conducting interventions on issues and problems. After obtaining the test results, the researcher evaluates and analyzes the test results that have been carried out.
The planning step is a step that needs to be done carefully to minimize the level of errors and mistakes to avoid experiencing a complicated situation when implementing the next step. This step determines the model, method, technique, and approach that should be used to implement the action study and have encouraging results as planned. The study subject needs to know the shape of the Bubble Map. In addition, the study subject needs to know how to use each Map. Therefore, the researcher plans teaching and learning activities focusing on learning about and using Bubble Maps.
Accordingly, in implementing actions, the researcher has applied Thorndike’s Operant Conditioning Theory, Gagne’s Cognitive Learning Theory, and Maslow’s Learning Theory. Based on Thorndike through Noriati et al. (2016), against three laws: the law of readiness, the law of training, and the law of effect. Before starting the action, Thorndike’s law of readiness is applied; that is, the researcher ensures that the student has the necessary readiness to start a topic or action learning activity. According to Thorndike (1906), individuals must be willing to allow action or reaction. Learning readiness refers to cognitive (knowledge/experience), affective readiness (tendency and interest), and psychomotor readiness (physical skills). Thorndike emphasizes that interference or obstacles to goal achievement will result in annoyance and frustration. Therefore, the researcher should know the knowledge and experience of special rehabilitation students through diagnostic tests and refer them to rehabilitation teachers at school.
Thorndike’s Law of Willingness is consistent with Maslow’s Humanistic Learning Theory. According to Abraham Maslow through Noriati et al. (2016), teachers should ensure that students’ physiological needs have been met. For example, students are complete, there is rest time, and the classroom is well-ventilated. In addition, the teacher needs to accept the individual (student) as a person with potential and give assignments that suit the student’s ability so that the student can do it successfully. This will create a sense of success and increase the value of students. Maslow stressed giving reinforcement and recognition for the student’s work. Therefore, the researcher needs to ensure that the study participants are ready, not hungry, have enough rest, are not tired, and already know the study skills.
Through diagnostic tests, teachers can identify areas of weakness and existing knowledge. Observations are made to support diagnostic tests to observe affective, psychomotor, and cognitive readiness. The researcher prepares items or characteristics that must be present in the observations before and after the action research on the students. Therefore, the observation aspect is determined. Before the observation is carried out on the rehabilitation students individually, the researcher needs to conduct a few interviews with the teachers who teach the students and refer to documents such as health documents or Individual Education Plans that have been recorded. Among the observations made are observations of behavior, involvement in class or activities, thinking styles, and work results of rehabilitation students individually and as a whole.
Additionally, observations were made on the students’ knowledge and mastery of Bubble Maps. However, that aspect needs to be adjusted according to the cultural capital of the rehabilitation student. The researcher has also determined the time of observation before and after using the Bubble Map to improve the comprehension skills of the study subjects according to the appropriateness and the period that has been given to the maximum. This determination has made the study run smoothly as planned. After that, the researcher determined and applied the Bubble Map in the teaching and learning of Rehabilitation Education. This step is the most important to see the achievement of the research objectives and answer the research questions. This application follows Thorndike’s law of readiness. Thorndike’s law of training asserts that humans learn through the process of creating, and forgetting occurs when the learned words are not used or created again. To guarantee the continuity of learning, training in various forms, repetition, drills, and application of knowledge and skills learned in other situations should be done more often, that is, adequate actions and interventions.
The next step that the researcher has done is to conduct the study. This step is implemented during the three months of practicum at phase 2 of the selected schools. The intervention tool used is a thinking tool, which is the Bubble Map. The Bubble Map is one type of ‘i-THINK’ thinking map (refer to diagram).
Figure 2.4 i-THINK Map: Bubble Map
Referring to the following diagram, the Bubble Map can be drawn or built based on the steps;
- Draw a circle in the middle and label the main topic.
- Draw a circle based on the main ideas’ objectives or properties of the topic around the circle in the middle.
- Connect the center circle with the surrounding circles using a line.
- Fill in the topic and main ideas, adjectives, or properties in the circle drawn.
The Bubble Map improves reading skills and understanding of Malay among Year 3 remedial students. The Bubble Map is built based on the passages provided—the title selection and main ideas based on the passage read by the students. Then, students answer comprehension questions using the correct technique: to have keywords and not change the sentence’s literal meaning. Specifically, Bubble Maps are used to answer literal comprehension questions. The passages and comprehension questions used have been explained in the selection of the focus of the study, which is literal. Pupils are asked to build a Bubble Map each time the action and test based on the passage given to answer comprehension questions. It has to do with thinking skills.
Thinking skill is using the mind to carry out the thought process. A person who acquires thinking skills is willing and efficient in organizing information, concepts, or ideas in an orderly and making accurate conclusions or decisions for directed and appropriate actions. According to Edward de Bono (1976), this thinking skill allows people to see various perspectives to solve problems in a particular situation. This is supported by Dewey (1910), who thinks the thought produced is because of a situation of doubt or a problem.
Thinking is a psychological activity that is experienced to be used to solve problems in the situation faced (Dewey, 1910). According to the Islamic view, thinking is a function of the mind that observes energy so that the human brain can work and operate where the energy is obtained through meditation. The thinking tool is used to train, test, and evaluate the level of individual thinking. Thinking tools are either in the form of questioning or a pattern specially designed for thinking skills, such as the i-THINK map. Thinking tools are also tools or teaching aids that focus on cognitive learning, in addition to being included with other learning styles in order to attract students’ interest and build meaningful thinking for students. Therefore, to build thinking skills in rehabilitation students, thinking tools are used as a container as an approach and a tool that leads students to think.
Several studies have been conducted using thinking tools such as the ‘i-THINK’ Map to test the thinking skills of primary and secondary school students. The past study is used as a guide and reference to implement actions so that rehabilitation students as study participants overcome weaknesses. First, Rohaida Yusop and Zamri Mohamod (2015) studied the Effectiveness of Thinking Maps (i-THINK) in Improving the Malay Language Writing Achievement of Year 6 Students. This study examines the effectiveness of teachers’ thinking maps (i-THINK) during the teaching process and learning to improve the Malay language writing achievement of year six students. This study was conducted for eight weeks and involved 60 students at a national school in the Batu Pahat district. The experimental group consisted of 30 students, and the control group consisted of Data analyzed using Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) Statistics 18.
The study’s findings show that there is no significant difference in achievement between the experimental and control groups in the pre-test. My mastery of Malay writing could be more vital due to my failure to generate thoughtful ideas and develop the content. Second, there is a significant difference between the experimental group’s mean pre-test and post-test scores. The use of mind map techniques in teaching writing skills impacts student achievement. Third, there is no significant difference between the control group’s mean pre-test and post-test scores. Using conventional discussion techniques in teaching and learning Bahasa Malay cannot improve student achievement.
Although the study participants were Year 6 students, the study has shown that mind maps impacted students’ Malay achievement. This emphasizes that the use of thought maps is appropriate in the teaching and learning of Malay. Therefore, using Bubble Map can also increase the comprehension skills of remedial students even though their intelligence differs from that of year six students.
The study concludes that using the mind map technique in the teaching of essay writing successfully increases subject mastery in essay preparation. Therefore, using thought maps as a new way or method can stimulate students to think at a higher level and thus make the teaching and learning of Bahasa Malay more interesting. In their study, Linawati and Sharifah (2017) stated that the old teacher-centered method needs to be more suitable nowadays. He added that 21st Century Learning (PAK-21), which is student-centered, has been introduced to change teachers’ methods and methods. One of the methods is using the ‘i-THINK’ thinking map in PdPc.
In connection with that, Loo Chin Chin (2015) also carried out an action study using the mind map method. His study titled ‘The Effectiveness of Using the Mind Map Method (“i-THINK” Program) on Student Achievement in Form 5 Chinese Essay Writing Skills. The action study was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the mind map method in PdPc, which is expected to improve the essay writing skills of Form 5 students. The study’s findings explain increased Chinese essay writing skills among Form 5 students. After implementing the ‘i-THINK’ program, students show more confidence in essay writing, especially in developing ideas.
According to Kosslyn and Rosenberg (2001), cognitive problems or retardation do not provide learning disabilities. This is because people with mental retardation can learn to function like normal adults and explicit and robust attitude formation techniques allow them to master various tasks, including people with severe retardation. Therefore, thought maps were chosen as an intervention tool used to improve reading skills and understanding of Malay among Year 3 remedial students.
Therefore, this study is conducted to help teachers implement and apply thinking skills in PdPc through reading skills and understanding the Malay language in primary schools’ Special Remedial Education program. In addition, this study aims to make people aware that thinking skills can and can be implemented in Rehabilitation Education with the proper methods, techniques, and approaches, especially in reading skills and understanding the Malay language. Remedial students, in particular, need help with reading and comprehension skills.
According to Yahya Othman (2011), understanding is about understanding, i.e., what is understood about something or the extent to which something is understood or perceived. Comprehension is the primary purpose of reading students. He added that the evaluation of the extent to which students understand their reading is based on their ability to translate the content of the text read in various ways. Nevertheless, the understanding emphasized and evaluated in this study is literal understanding. Literal comprehension is recalling concrete things or facts stated in the text. The acquisition of information is explicitly stated. Literal comprehension is also the lowest level in reading comprehension. Norasmaedah and Suriana (2016) state that literal understanding is the lowest level of reading comprehension, and that level only requires normal thought processes. Students only need to state what is found in the text. He added that literal skills include recognizing and remembering text content and expressing the sequence of events. In addition, the literal level also includes the ability to express the content of the reading with other words without changing the meaning or original meaning. Therefore, the selection of literal understanding in studying the reading skills and understanding of the Malay language among Year 3 remedial students is very appropriate.
According to Siti Hajar (2010), reading comprehension is essential to ensure students become lifelong readers. Reading comprehension is the process of recognizing and translating language symbols, which then involves the process of interacting with them; reading without understanding cannot yet be counted as being able to read because reading is a thinking process for understanding that requires the reader to translate, apply, analyze, predict and imagine. He added that reading comprehension is understanding the material being read fully. Through it, Barret (1972) has divided the levels of understanding into six: literal understanding, translation, application, analysis, inference, and evaluation. According to Barret (1972) and Siti Hajar (2010), the literal level of understanding is the lowest and most accessible level a student needs to master before reaching a higher level of understanding. Furthermore, at the level of literal understanding, students only understand and can search for information or recall the facts contained in the text. Pupils also only understand something written and cannot unearth the hidden meaning behind the statement of the sentence the writer displays in the text.
Comprehension questions are also prepared to assess the understanding of the reading material (Yahya Othman, 2004). Siti Hajar (2010) provides guidelines for constructing literal comprehension questions. According to him, the constructed questions need to recall the content or content of the reading material and find the information in the passage. For example, they responded to questions in the form of facts, requiring students to find important information. Therefore, the answers of remedial students must follow the techniques of answering correct comprehension questions.
Therefore, Peta Buih is used to treat remedial students with reading and comprehension problems. Bubble Map is one of the types in the ‘i-THINK’ Thinking Map. By using a bubble map, it is expected that the bubble map is easy and quick to find important information. In addition to that, the bubble map is also expected to help students save time to answer comprehension questions in addition to using techniques to answer comprehension questions correctly. Furthermore, the bubble map is adapted to the literal understanding that requires the remedial student to remember the passage’s information, central idea, or essential content. Bubble Maps are used to provide features about the title. Bubble maps also explain things, such as putting facts, adjectives, and opinions as the main ideas (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2012).
Accordingly, students are given worksheets for each action. The worksheet results were analyzed to show the change and improvement of Year 3 remedial students’ reading skills and understanding of Malay, which aligns with the law of training and the effects suggested by Thorndike. The researcher has also made observations after taking action by referring to the objectives and research questions whether they have been achieved and answered. The researcher observes the smoothness and level of achievement of the study as a whole to be analyzed. The researcher analyzes what has been observed by stating the cause, effect, and improvement measures if necessary. If the study succeeds in achieving the objective and answering the question, the study will be analyzed by strengthening the facts that prove why the study was successful. If one of the objectives or questions cannot be achieved or answered, the researcher will analyze the steps taken and take the factors of the objective not being achieved or the question not being answered.
The researcher has done a holistic reflection on the academic, psychological, and practical study. The steps that have caused the failure of the objective to be achieved or the problem to find an answer, then improvements to those steps are planned and determined. The researcher also indirectly evaluates whether the study has been successful, less successful, or unsuccessful. The researcher also evaluates all the actions that have been taken, whether successful or not, to be taken as a form of meaningful learning and experience to be used as reinforcement for actions in the future.
2.2 Study Objectives
- Identifying the level of mastery of reading skills and understanding of the Malay language among Year 3 remedial students.
- Improving teaching skills in reading and understanding the Malay language among Year 3 remedial students using Bubble Maps.
- Improving the mastery of reading skills and understanding of the Malay language among Year 3 remedial students using Bubble Maps.
2.3 Research Questions
- What is the level of mastery of reading skills and understanding of Malay in Year 3 rehabilitation students?
- How do we improve teaching skills, such as reading and understanding Malay among Year 3 Remedial students using Bubble Maps?
- Is there an increase in mastery in teaching reading skills and understanding Malay among Year 3 remedial students using Bubble Maps?
2.4 Study Participants
According to Kerlinger (1973) in Lee Keok Cheong, Zakri Abdullah, and Chua Lay Nee (2018), sampling is taking a fraction of a population to be representative of another population. According to Lee et al. (2018), in other words, sampling is related to the process of selecting several subjects from a population to be respondents or study participants. Apart from that, according to Geoffrey and Gray (2016), qualitative sampling is selecting a small number of individuals for study. In addition, qualitative research has a minor, different, and smaller sample than the sample selected in qualitative research. Therefore, a purposive sample was used in the selection of study participants.
According to Geoffrey and Gay (2016), purposive sampling is known as ‘judgment sampling,’ which is a process of choosing a sample that is believed to represent a given population. In other words, the researcher selects the sample using experience and knowledge about the sampled group. Furthermore, because many participants want to avoid going through the lengthy involvement process, sampling in qualitative research is almost always purposive. Researchers rely on experience and expertise to select study participants, and randomness is rarely part of the process. According to Geoffrey et al. (2016) again, the main reason qualitative researchers take a long time to determine the study before selecting a sample is to observe and fulfill the information that can be used to select study participants whom the researcher assesses to be thoughtful, informative, expressed and experienced with problems and conditions.
This study is aimed at remedial students who have mastered reading and constructing simple sentences. The researcher chose two students as research subjects. The characteristics of rehabilitation students who are used as subjects must have the characteristics of regular students, i.e., they do not have any other problems other than learning problems. If remedial students have the characteristics of students with cognitive or other problems, the failure of this study does not need to be taken into account. In order to confirm the selection of participants, written and oral diagnostic tests of reading skills and understanding of the Malay language were conducted.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu Bakar Nordin. (2013). Kurikulum Ke Arah Penghasilan Kemahiran Berfikiran Kritis, Kreatif dan Inovatif. Jurnal Kurikulum dan Pengajaran Asia Pasifik. Diakses daripadahttps://umexpert.um.edu.my/file/publication/00010257_92103.pdf
Akhiar Pardi & Shamsina Shamsudin. (2012). Pengurusan bilik darjah & tingkah laku. Freemind Horizon Sdn. Bhd.: Kuala Lumpur.
Asha Nurjannatul Abdul Nassair. (2015). Enhancing Year 5 Jazz Students’ Reading Comprehension Skill in Finding Main Ideas and Supporting Details Through Mind Maps. IPKIK. Diakses daripada http://ipgkik.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Seminar_Penyelidikan_Tindakan2014-Jld1-2.pdf
Berk L.E. (1989). Child development. Boston: Pearson.
Boon Pong Ying, Lee Leh Hong & Lawrence Aloysius Aeria. (2017) Penilaian dan pentaksiran. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd ed). Canada: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Dan Jacob Long. (2011). Mind the Map: How Thinking Maps Affect Student Achievement, Network: An Online Journal for Teacher Research: Vol 2: Iss 2. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1083
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Diakses daripada www.gsc.edu/~dschjb/wwwcrit.html
Dominic Wyse. (2007). How to help your children read and write. Essex: Pearson.
Ernie Stringer. (2014). Action Research in education. (2nd Ed). Essex: Pearson.
Faridah Nazir, Hashimah Ibrahim, Norhiza Mohd Salleh & Zairinah Mohd Shukur. (2014). Wacana penulisan. Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi Sdn. Bhd.
Geoffrey E. Mills & L.R. Gay. (2016). Educational Researh: Competencies for analysis and applications. Essex: Pearson.
Haliza Hamzah & Joy N. Samuel. (2016). Pengurusan Bilik Darjah dan Tingkah Laku. Oxford Fajar: Selangor.
Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat. (2014). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (1999). Buku panduan pelaksanaan program pemulihan khas. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Pendidikan Khas.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2012). Program i-THINK: Membudayakan kemahiran berfikir. Putrajaya: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pendidikan Guru.
Khairuddin Mohamad, Maridah Alias & Faiziah Hj. Shamsudin. (2013). Bahasa Melayu Pemulihan. Selangor: Penerbitan Multimedia.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2: 34-46
Lina Adiman & Sharfifah Nor Puteh. (2017). Pelaksanaan Peta Pemikiran i-THINK dalam kalangan guru. Diakses daripada https://seminarserantau2017.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/58-linawati-lina-adiman.pdf
Mohd. Shaharani Ahmad. (2006). Psikologi Kanak-kanak. Batu Caves: PTS Professional Sdn Bhd.
Noor Amirah Mohd Khairan. (2014). Meningkatkan kemahiran menulis angka 1 hingga 9 dalam kalangan murid pemulihan menggunakan permainan J-Angka
Noriati A. Rashid, Boon Pong Ying & Sharifah Fakhriah Syed Ahmad. (2015). Murid dan alam belajar. Selangor: Oxford Fajar.
Noriati A. Rashid, Boon Pong Ying, Sharifah Fakhriah Syed Ahmad & Zuraidah A. Majid. (2015). Budaya dan Pembelajaran. Selangor: Oxford Fajar.
Noriati. A. Rashid, Lee Keok Cheong, Zulkifli Mahyuddin & Zakiah Noordin. (2012). Falsafah dan pendidikan di Malaysia. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Oxforf Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Nur Farahin Ahmad Sabri. (2015). Enhancing Higher Order Reading comprehension skill of narrative text among Year 5 Intelek Pupils using graphic Organizers. IPGKIK. http://ipgkik.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Seminar_Penyelidikan_Tindakan2014-Jld1-2.pdf
Normah Zakaria, Azita Ali, Nur Izeanty Hamidon & Suhaili Abdul Rasap. (2018). Aplikasi Peta Pemikiran i-THINK dalam meningatkan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi (KBAT). Diakses daripada http://active.uthm.edu.my/ejournal/volume/2018/7.pdf
Othman Lebar. (2011). Kajian Tindakan dalam pendidikan. Penerbitan Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris: Tanjung Malim.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: International Students’ Edition. (8th Ed). New York: Oxford.
Ragbir K. J. (2013). Panduan ilmu pendidikan untuk DPLI Psikologi. Kumpulan Budiman Sdn. Bhd. Kuala Lumpur.
Shahabuddin Hashim, Mahani Razali & Ramlah Jantan. (2007). Psikologi Pendidikan. Batu Caves: PTS Professional Sdn Bhd.
Siti Hajar Abdul Aziz. (2011). Bahasa Melayu I (Edisi Kedua). Shah Alam: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Siti Hajar Abdul Aziz. (2011). Bahasa Melayu II (Edisi Kedua). Shah Alam: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Siti Maisarah Aisyah Dahalan. (2015). Enhancing Year 5 Berlian students’ reading comprehension of narrative texts using graphic organisers. IPGKIK. Diakses daripada http://ipgkik.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Seminar_Penyelidikan_Tindakan2014-Jld1-2.pdf
Siti Ruzila Hassan, Roslinda Rosli dan Effendi Zakaria. (2016). The use of i-THINK Map and questioning to promote Higher-Order Thinking Skills Mathematics. Creative Education, (7), 1069-1078. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.77111
Sutanto Windura. (2014). Be an absolute genius. Publishing House Sdn. Bhd: Selangor.
Ting Len Siong, Ahmad Sabry Othman & Ting Hun Yong. (2013). Penyelidikan Tindakan dalam pendidikan. Freemind Horizons Sdn. Bhd.: Kuala Lumpur
Tam Yeow Kwai. (2004). Kajian Tindakan. Cetakan Maktab Perguruan Raja Melewar: Melaka.
Yahya Othman. (2004). Mengajar membaca: Teori dan aplikasi. Bentong
Yahya Othman & Dayang Raini Pakar. (2011). Kesan aplikasi perisian cerita interaktif semasa mengajarkan kemahiran bacaan dan kefahaman dalam kalangan murid Tahun 4 di Brunei Darussalam, dalam Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu, Vol 1, Bil. 1. Diakses daripada http://spaj.ukm.my/jpbm/index.php/jpbm/article/download/21/21
Yahya Othman & Dayang Raini Pakar. (2013). Keberkesanan strategi Metakognisi dalam pengajaran bacaan dan kefahaman menggunakan teks ekspositori, Journal of Language Studies, Vol 13 (3). Diakses daripada http://ejournal.ukm/my/gema/article/download/4225/2342
Zaharatul Nadia Mohamed Yusof. (2015). Using map to enhance low profiency students’ comprehension in descriptive information. IPGKIK. Diakses daripada http://ipgkik.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Seminar_Penyelidikan_Tindakan2014-Jld1-2.pdf–