1.

INTRODUCTION

Writing involved constructing simple sentences correctly. Therefore, for students to

effectively communicate their ideas well in English, they need to construct meaningful sentences
that are grammartically correct. Dorn (2000) states that the sentences created by words and
phrases are essentials blocks of meaning that allow us to communicate thoughts. If they are not
constructed carefully, they can make reading difficult. That is why, Year 6 KBSR Curriculum
Specifications emphasis constructing simple and compound sentences with guidance and
independently (KBSR, 2001). Writing is very important for year 6 students, because they will sit
for the national examination, Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah-UPSR. In the examination, there
is a need for students to construct sentences correctly.

1.1

REFLECTION ON TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Based on past observations teaching low proficiency students writing, there was a very
significant problem caught the researchers attention. The researcher noticed that all students
cannot construct simple sentences correctly. Most of them copied the instruction and the words
from the worksheet and from their friends work. They did that to show they wrote something on
the worksheet, but initially it did not help them to increase their writing skill because they only
copied blindly without understanding what they were copying. This happened because of the
influence of drilling practices from their previous learning experiences. According to Skinner
(1974), drilling was a behaviourist technique where students were given the same materials

repeatedly until mastery was achieved. This theory proposed that meaningful repetition could
help students to master certain language aspect. Unfortunately, this did not happen to the students
that the researcher observed. This was because the students copied the words without tried to
construct any sentences as long as they managed to write something at the end. Hence, this
meaningless copying led students to write blindly. Furthermore, after collecting the students
work, the researcher found out most of them failed to construct correct simple sentences. For
example, most of the students wrote Adam cleaning while the correct form was Adam is
cleaning. This showed that students were unable to construct simple sentences correctly
because the knowledge in differentiating nouns and verbs were low which resulted in confusion
throughout the writing lesson. This problem really worried me because they will sit for the
national examination UPSR. Thus I have to find a way to enable them to know how to construct
simple sentences.

1.2

RELATED THEORY AND LITERATURE

1.2.1

Behaviourism Theory of Learning

Based on the researchers observations in class, the researcher noticed that the students
have applied drilling exercises when they copied the instruction and their friends work in
constructing sentences. When drilling was taken into consideration, it was related to the
behaviourism theory of learning. According to the habit formation, the primary goal of second
language (L2) learning was learning the language. Behaviouristic language theory viewed

language as a unified system of rule-governed structure that was sequenced in serial and
hierarchical fshion (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Therefore, L2 with its structure was teaching L2
rather than teaching about L2 (Freeman & Freeman, 1998). This statement proposed the fact
that teaching English was concerned with how learners could learn acquire the skills with regards
to the language rather than teaching to understand the language. This was because; language
became a set of habits that were strengthened as L2 skills were learned. Therefore, the researcher
believed that drilling could help learners to master certain language aspect when it was carried
out meaningfully. This was supported by Anderson, J.R., Fincham, J.M., Douglas, S. (1999)
when they claimed that to be meaningful to learners, the skills built through drill-and-practice
should become the building blocks for more meaningful learning. Hence, one of the methods that
could be used in the classroom was by using substitution table in constructing simple sentences.
Substitution table provided the platform for teachers to conduct meaningful drilling process as it
required students to substitute the subject and verbs based on their understanding of the criteria
of each subject and verbs. This was due to the fact that, substitution table promoted the
acquisition of knowledge or skills through repetitive practice. Students would be exposed to see
the patterns of the sentences modelled by the teacher and therefore derived the concept of
constructing simple sentences. The substitution table also enhances students further
understanding of the criteria of verbs to be used with specific subjects. For example, when the
teacher meaningfully drilled on the singular and plural verbs by providing several objects for
each, it would lead students to notify and acquire the knowledge automatically. As a result, the
reinforcement of the drilling then aided students to assimilate and accommodate the rules on

their own. The researcher strongly believed that drilling could be an effective method to enhance
pupils understanding of specific language criteria such as singular and plural verbs in
constructing simple sentences when it was done meaningfully.

2.0

ISSUES OF CONCERN

2.1

Problem Statement

After six years of learning English in the primary school, pupils should be able at
least the ability to write simple sentences correctly. According to Goh Lay Kuen (2012)
constructing simple sentences have proved to be the basic skill before pupils able to construct
compound and complex sentences. The class that the researcher taught was low proficiency level
year 6A2. There were common problems and issues that happened in writing class with the
researchers previous teaching experiences. The researcher was concerned of students low
performance in constructing simple sentences because they were struggling to construct simple
sentences correctly in their UPSR examination in Paper 2 Section A, unfortunately they failed to
construct any correct sentences, although they have been exposed to it since their lower primary.
The researcher believed that this problem was crucial for the reason that without proper rules in
constructing simple sentences, the ideas were difficult to convey and thus, worsen the value of
writing itself.

2.1.1

Preliminary Investigation

In helping students to overcome the problem, preliminary investigation was carried out in
terms of discovering the possible factors that might contribute to students difficulties in
constructing simple sentences correctly. To confirm the identified problem, the researcher carried
out investigation through document analysis, observation and interview. All sixteen students took
part in the investigation. The factors contributed in students difficulties in constructing simple
sentences were failure in identifying the singular and plural verbs in a sentence and asking
questions from the teacher in their mother tongue language.

2.1.2

ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2.1.2.1 Failure to identify singular and plural verbs in sentences.

The researcher noticed that the students were unable to identify the singular and plural
verb in constructing simple sentences. As a result, they did not put any verb to the sentence. For
example, in a worksheet given, most of them wrote Adam wiping instead of Adam is
wiping. The reason was, most of them were not aware of the rules in constructing simple
sentences. They simply wrote subject and the action verb without the verb. They also did not
have the skill of noticing the input such as the example of sentences given from their previous
lessons. The importance of constructing sentences rules has been neglected due to their weak
knowledge in it.

2.1.2.2 Asking questions in mother tongue language

The researcher realized her students preferred asking questions in their mother tongue.
For example teacher, macammana nak buat ni (teacher, how to do this) this situation became
worst when all of the students insisted the researcher to speak Malay because they claimed that
they cannot understand English at all. This happened because students took things for granted
and assumed that all teachers would give them input in Malay and therefore they disregard the
use of English. Furthermore, students perspectives towards English were not very positive based
on the responses given when the researcher interviewed some of them. As a result, students were
not feeling the seriousness in learning English.

2.3

CRITERIA OF SELECTION

This action research was chosen because of its characteristics which suited to the
workability, significance, practicality, collaboration, control, and relevance to school.

2.3.1

Workability

It could be carried out by all English teachers without being restricted to any limitations.
The materials used and the techniques as well as the strategies used were not something new and
the fact that teachers were only need to integrate the techniques and strategies used in the lesson
to bring about the solution in constructing simple sentences among students. . It was workable

due to its similar context that both the researcher and the other teachers could also get the results
because it involved all students in the class. the probability for the intervention to work with
different students was high due to its integration of techniques and strategies which fulfilled the
needs of different students.

2.3.2

SIGNIFICANCE

This action research was significant due to its importance of bringing about students
knowledge in constructing simple sentences. The fact that, students needed to master in
constructing sentences to ensure they would be able to express their views and opinions
correctly. It was also significant to prepare students to enter their next level of education
experience such as secondary and also tertiary level which more essays are put into emphasis.
Hence, the action of helping students in constructing simple sentences and therefore master in
constructing sentences ensured their success throughout their learning experience.

2.3.3

PRACTICALITY

This action research was practical to be carried out due to its flexibility. The fact was that
it could be implemented in any rooms without having any limitations. No use of electrical or
technology appliances ensured that the intervention could be carried out without having any
disturbances from the technical problems.

2.3.4

CONTROL

The researcher has the overall control in conducting the action research. Students
involved were from the class that the researcher has taught and thus the researcher has the access
to control everything which regards to the action research.

2.3.5

COLLABORATION

The researcher collaborated with both the administration and parents in conducting the
action research. Permission from the administration was needed to carry out the research on the
students in the school. Collaboration from the parents was needed in helping the researcher to
allow their children to extend thirty minutes from their normal school hours in three consecutive
days. Therefore, collaboration, from both administration and the parents ensured this action
research to be conducted smoothly.

2.3.6

RELEVANCE TO SCHOOL

This research was to increase the level of achievement in students performance in

English. The fact that students would be needed to write essays in their examinations was seen
the crucial role that the intervention would play. This was because constructing simple sentences
was the basis elements that have to be mastered by every student in school. It helped the schools
achievement as well.

2.4

DEFINITION OF TERMS

This action research dealt with important element which was substitution table. The
element was discussed and elaborated in detail below.

2.4.1

SUBSTITUTION TABLE

Substitution table was a classroom technique used to practice new language. It involved the
teacher first modeling a word or a sentence and the learners repeating it. The teacher then
substituted one or more key words, or changes the prompt, and the learners said the new
structure (Pinter, 2006). It was a practice whereby teacher would give students practice in
changing a word or structure in response to a prompt or cue from the teacher or another student.
The teachers prompt could be whole sentence, a word, a phrase, or a picture. Larsen Freeman,
(1986) stated that substitution table has an arrangement in columns of units which might be
combined to make sentences. From a table containing four or five columns and the same number
of horizontal lines, hundreds of sentences may be made. the sentence pattern was a useful guide
to the learner, but unless she has reached the stage at which she was familiar with grammatical
terminology, the substitution table was probably more valuable. These tables might be used in
many ways. By making large numbers of sentences, the learner became fluent in speech habits
and therefore was useful for students in acquiring the knowledge of syntax.

3.0

OBJECTIVE / RESEARCH QUESTIONS

3.1

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this action research was to help 6A2 students in constructing simple
sentences by using substitution table.

3.2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

There were two main research questions that the researcher was particularly
ascertained to find out in this action research through the implementation of the
intervention. The two research questions were as follow:

Do substitution tables help the pupils of 6A2 in constructing simple sentences?

How does the use of substitution tables help 6A2 pupils improve their performance in
constructing simple sentences?

4.0

TARGET GROUP

The target group was sixteen students in year 6A2 class of SK RKT Sri Ledang (see
Appendix 1). Consisted of 7 boys and 9 girls. Details of the target group in terms of the level of
proficiency, students race and family background were discussed in the following paragraphs.

4.1

Level of Proficiency

The level of proficiency refers to the ability and the aptitude knowledge that the
students have in learning the language. The students level of proficiency was at
below average level. They were not fluent English users who could speak and
write English fluently and accurately. However, they could say certain word
phrases correctly. The students tended to not speak in full sentences because they
did not have the proficiency in using English. For example, when asking
permission to go to the toilet, students would say Teacher, toilet? Not only
would that, in writing lesson, students rather write word or phrases when
answering comprehension questions. For example, despite writing Pn Halimah
is wiping the window", most students were found to write Puan Halimah
wiping when a question on what Pn Halimah is doing was asked in their writing
lesson. This showed that the students were from below average level of
proficiency.

4.2

STUDENTS RACES

In the class, all the sixteen students were Malay. Thus, this prevented them to use
English language among them, because they preferred to speak in their mother
tongue rather than English. There were significant negative effect due to the
single race existed in the class whereby this situation has hindered the quality and
time spend among students to speak English in the classroom. This was because,
no encouragement or model provided probably by other students who use English

as their mother tongue at home. Perhaps, students in the class could somehow
learn and imitate from their Chinese or Indian friends from other classes who
were more pertinent in English if the distribution of the races in the class
comprised more than one race.

4.3

FAMILY BACKGROUND

Students in 6A2 were from low socio-economic status family. Socio-economic

status was a measure of an individuals or familys income and occupation. All
6A2 students parents were working as a rubber tapper as they worked for
FELDA. Therefore, the socio-economic status of the family has brought influence
on how they perceiver English language in their daily life. They tended to ignore
the importance of English and thus did not have the seriousness in learning the
language. Hence, this made students attitude towards the importance of English
language became negative and low.

5.0

ACTION

The action research was used in helping 6A2 students to construct simple sentences by
using substitution table. The research model based on Stephen Kemmis involved a spiral of selfreflective cycles which were planning, action, observe and reflect. The model was visually
outlined below.

Figure 1: Stephen Kemmiss Model

In planning stage, the researcher identified the participants, identified the main problem faced by
the students, developed teaching and learning strategies to use, as well as identified the data did
the researcher planned. Next the action stage, dealt with the identified problem where the
researcher determined how the problem addressed. During the implementation, the outcomes
monitored where the next step observation came in. the types of data collected as well as the data
gathered methods were congregated during the observation stage. The last stage was to reflect
where the researcher used the gathered data any analysed them whether the expected result had
achieved or not. In brief, with reference to this model, the action that has been carried out
throughout this action researcher and details of every step will be explained more in the
following paragraphs.

5.1

PLANNING

Basically, in this planning stage, the type and approach of the intervention to be carried
out in the class, the data collection procedures with the time for the actions to be taken were
carefully planned in this stage. The researcher designed the possible intervention to address the
identified problem which was to help year 6A2 in constructing simple sentences. The
intervention was designed to the issues that contributed to students difficulties in constructing
simple sentences. The type of substitution table to be used and the approach of how the
researcher was about to use it in the class were determined. According to Nesamalar Chitravelu,
Saratha Sithamparam and Teh Soon Choon (2005), the teacher could make use of a table which
involves small boxes that have the words in it and also by using lines which would connect the
word and phrase. To make sure the intervention process conducted smoothly, the researcher
decided to use a table form because it allowed the researcher to save time by drawing the
substitution table on mahjung paper before the researcher entered the class rather than drew the
substitution table on the board. To make sure, every students in 6A2 can see the table clearly, the
researcher did the tables very big, with clear handwriting and colourful pictures to ensure every
student in the class would be able to see it clearly. After the types of the substitution tables to be
used in the class were identified, the products that would be collected from the students were
identified too. The data collection, were outlined. The types of data to be collected as well as the
methods on the data would be collected were clearly planned in this stage. The information from
the research questions provided the framework on the types of data to be collected for Action
Researcher could be achieved. The researcher outlined the schedule of the action to be taken

throughout in conducting this action research. The timeframe was outlined as the guidelines for
the researcher to keep on track on the actions to be taken.

5.2

ACTION

The researcher began her action with the administration of the pre-test (see appendix 2).
The test was aimed to indicate students performance and ability in constructing simple
sentences. In this session, the researcher introduces several nouns and verbs to the students by
asking what that related to the picture. For example, the researcher asked the students, what
can you see in the picture? The students were given the test that required them to construct 5
simple sentences based on the 10 words given. Students then rewrite the simple sentences in the
space provided.
The next step in this stage was the implementation of the substitution table as the
intervention in addressing students problem in constructing simple sentences (session 1). For
this session 1, the researcher only focused in constructing simple sentences for singular verb
only. The intervention was implemented after the school hours. The lesson was started by
introducing the topic which was Environment Issues gotong-royong . Next a picture of five
students was used as the stimulus to do the brainstorming session. In the brainstorming session,
the researcher used colour coding is in red, which would help students to focus and identify the
singular verb easier. The researcher then drew students attention on the is verb only based on
the picture. Apart from that, the researcher also enlarged each action verbs appeared based on the
picture. The researcher used the word who and what in scaffolding students to brainstorm
about the picture. Nouns and verb that students would be using later were introduced and

explained too by using the same picture. Next, students were told that they were going to learn to
construct simple sentences correctly about the five students in the picture shown. After that, the
substitution table was pasted on the board and several sentences which made up the simple
sentences that students were going to produce were written on the board. The sentences were
labelled as (a), (b), (c), and (d) and students were told that the sentences would be combined later
in order to produce correct simple sentences. The researcher used is in red because to help the
students identify the verb better. Next step was the demonstration of constructing the first two
sentences with the use of substitution table by the researcher. In demonstrating to construct
simple sentences, the researcher showed the class on how to use the substitution table. The
subject was identified and categorized into singular and followed by the correct form of verb
followed. The researcher pasted the word cards and underlined the subject and the red verb is
and introduced them as the who and what to help students understand the meaning in the
simple language in order to provide scaffolding for the students. The concept of singular was
then introduced to the students. The researcher then explained on how to construct simple
sentences correctly. The researcher then repeated the explanation for several times until the
students understood the concept. The step was continued when students were to construct the
next sentence together with the researcher. The researcher scaffold students to construct simple
sentence according to the sequence. Subject was identified followed with the correct verb
followed. The concept in constructing simple sentences was again explained and demonstrated
by the researcher by using the sentence. The step was proceeded when several students were
asked to construct the next sentences in front of the class. This allowed the students to try to use
the substitution table and preventing them from being frustrated for not having the chance to try
by themselves. Not only that the researcher then gave students opportunity to substitute the

subject with their own example that could be used with the verb is. The researcher asked
students who have not been called or given the chance yet to give their own subject. This was
carried out to ensure every student could involve themselves during the intervention session.
Furthermore, students were to apply their understanding in constructing simple sentences by
giving their own example of subjects based on their prior knowledge which they brought into the
class when they were asked to substitute the subject and verb. After that, the researcher took out
everything from the board. After the intervention session, students were given formative test 1
(see appendix 3) to complete. In this test, students were required to construct 5 simple sentences
based on the same picture as the researcher taught them earlier. This was to indicate the students
progression in constructing simple sentences using the verb is. The researcher then checked
and discusses on students answers.
The action stage continued with session 2. In session 2, the process in teaching and
learning were the same. But the researcher focused only on plural verb are. The researcher also
changed the colour coding with plural verb are in blue. This was carried out to indicate the
students understanding on the plural verb are. After that, the researcher took out everything
from the board. After the intervention session, students were given formative test 2 (see appendix
4) to complete. In this test, students were required to construct 5 simple sentences based on
another picture. This was to indicate the students progression in constructing simple sentences
using the verb are. The researcher then checked and discusses on students answers.
The action stage continued with session 3. In session 3, the process in teaching and
learning were the same. But the researcher combined the both singular and plural verbs. The
researcher used the both colours coding is in red and are in blue. This was carried out to
indicate the students understanding on the singular and plural verbs. After that, the researcher

took out everything from the board. After the intervention session, students were given formative
test 3 (see appendix 5) to complete. In this test, students were required to construct 5 simple
sentences based on another picture but they must construct the sentences using singular and
plural verbs together. This was to indicate the students progression in constructing simple
sentences using the verbs is and are together. The researcher then checked and discusses on
students answers.
The action taken in this stage was ended with the administration of the post- test (see
appendix 2). The test was aimed to indicate students performance and ability in constructing
simple sentences after they have experienced the intervention in cycle 1

5.3

OBSERVATION

After implementation of the intervention, observation stage was carried out to see the
effectiveness of the treatment in addressing the identified problem. In this action research,
substitution table was implemented in helping 6A2 students in constructing simple sentences.
Therefore, in analyzing whether students have improvement in their writing, students scores in
pre-test, post-test, and formative tests were identified and compared. Any differences from the
scores were then recorded. Next, the changes in terms of differences in the marks were looked
into. The semi-structured interview also recorded after the researcher has implemented the
intervention. The semi-structured interview was carried out in identifying students perceptions
on the use of substitution table in helping 6A2 students to construct simple sentences. Students
were asked about their feelings and opinions on how the use of substitution table has helped
them to construct simple sentences.

5.4

REFLECTION

The reflection step was carried out to evaluate upon the implementation of the
substitution table in constructing simple sentences. Based on the analysis made in the
observation stage before, the intervention was found to be more effective in helping 6A2 students
in constructing simple sentences. The intervention considered successful in helping 6A2 students
to construct simple sentences as there were improvements in students marks for their pre-test
and post-test. The intervention also provided more opportunity for students to actively get
involved throughout the intervention session. This was because, most of the students have the
chance to construct sentences in front, substitute the subjects and also verbs. The responses given
during the interviews sessions, most of the students agreed that the substitution table with colour
coded helped them in constructing simple sentences. The students also agreed that substitution
table helped them to identify the singular and plural verb easily. Students also like it when the
researcher repeated the explanations and demonstrations for several times in enhancing their
understanding.
Conclusion, the intervention of substitution table was used optimally with the improvements
made. Therefore, the substitution table was effective in helping 6A2 students in constructing
simple sentences through the use of drilling sessions, colour coded and active involvement
among students.

6.0 DATA GATHERING METHODS AND ANALYSIS

6.1 DATA GATHERING METHODS

In this action research, several data gathering methods were used. The methods were pretest, post-test, formative test and semi structured interview.

6.1.1 PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST

The pre-test and post-test were carried out to see the pupils performance before and after
the intervention sessions were carried out. The pupils were required to construct 5 simple
sentences in each test with the same picture and words. Students were given 30 minutes to
answers the pre-test and post-test. Students were not allowed to discuss with their friends
therefore the researcher monitored the students when they were doing the test. After the students
completed the tests, the researcher collected them and marked the answers. The scores were
given to the students by counting the numbers of correct simple sentences that they have
obtained.
The pre-test and post-test were administered to identify whether the substitution table has
successfully helped students in constructing simple sentences. The pre-test itself provided the
information in the initial students performance in constructing simple sentences whereas the

post-test provided the information of students performance in constructing simple sentences

correctly after they have experienced the intervention. The marks for both tests allowed the

teacher to identify whether the use of substitution table helped the students in constructing
simple sentences.

6.1.2

FORMATIVE-TEST

The formative tests were administered in order to see the improvement of the students
understanding throughout the learning process in every session. There were 3 sessions conducted
in three consecutive days and 1 hour for each session. At the end of the each session students
were given 30 minutes to construct simple sentences. The pupils were required to construct 5
simple sentences in each test. Before the researcher administered the test, the researcher took out
all the tables, pictures, and word cards. The researcher took out all the tables, pictures, and word
cards to see the students progression whether they had mastered or not after the researcher did
the intervention. Students were not allowed to discuss with their friends about the tests therefore
the researcher monitored the students when they were doing the test. After the students
completed the tests, the researcher collected them and marked their answers. The scores were
analysed by the researcher by counting the numbers of correct simple sentences that they have
obtained. The tests were different from each others. For instance, for formative test 1 the
researcher tested the students on how to construct simple sentences using the verb is. For the
formative test 2, the researcher tested the students on how to construct simple sentences using the

verb are. For the formative test 3, the researcher tested the students on how to construct using
the both verbs is and are correctly. The information from the data gathered from the formative

tests which were conducted after the implementation of using the substitution table allowed the
researcher to conclude whether the use of substitution table helped the year 6A2 students to
construct simple sentences correctly.

6.1.3 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

Semi-structured interview was the last data gathering method. Sixteen students were
interviewed by the researcher. The interview session was conducted after the students have
experienced the intervention. The researcher conducted the interview with a written list of
questions (see appendix 3 ) used as a guide, to get more information about the substitution table
from the students. The interview was done to pupils to share their experiences, attitudes and
beliefs in their own words. The interview session allowed the researcher to ask students in details
about their perspectives on the effectiveness of the intervention. The interview questions
included the students perception of the before and after the intervention taught and also their
level of confidence in constructing simple sentences correctly. To ensure every single point
mentioned by the interviewees the researcher recorded and transcribed the session. To make sure
the interviewees answered all the questions, the researcher allowed the students to use their first
language so that they could express their feeling, perspectives and perception towards the
intervention more accurately. The researcher used simple and clear language that was easily
understood by the interviewees to get the targeted answers.

6.2 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS

The data gathered were analysed basically based on the pre-test, post-test, formative tests
and semi-structured interview. Hence, the data from every method were analysed as discussed
below.

6.2.1 PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST

Both students marks from pre-test and post-test were identified for each student.
Students pre-test and post-test were marked according to the correct constructing simple
sentences. The number of correct simple sentences made was recorded and tabulated in a table
form for every student. Next, the differences of wrong constructing simple sentences made by
the students for the pre-test and post-test were recorded. This was done to indicate the
improvements of students in constructing simple sentences. After that, the difference in the
wrong constructing simple sentences made was categorized into two which were moderate and
high. The improvement was then tabulated in pie chart to see the difference between the two
types of progress made by the students. The data allowed the teacher to state whether the
intervention using substitution table was successful in helping students constructing simple
sentences. The marks were analysed and the level of students improvement using substitution
table implemented was identified.

6.2.2 FORMATIVE TESTS

The students marks from each test were identified for each student. Students formative
test 1, formative test 2 and formative test 3 were marked according to the correct constructing
simple sentences. The number of correct simple sentences made were recorded and tabulated in a
table form for every student. The students performance was then tabulated in graph to see the
patterns of progress made by the students. The level of students improvement in constructing
simple sentences made was categorized into two which were moderate and high. The
improvement was then tabulated in a table to see the difference between the two types of
progress made by the students. These were carried out to indicate the improvement of students
who can construct simple sentences using is and are correctly. The data allowed the teacher to
find out whether the used of substitution table was successful in helping year 6A2 students in
constructing simple sentences correctly.

6.2.3 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

Students perceptions and attitudes were used to gather complementary data for the tests.
The transcriptions used to provide concrete evidence towards certain behaviours or events that
happened. Students responses would be coded and the content analysis would be done in
drawing the conclusions on the intervention success. Data gathered from every method would be
analysed according to the research questions. The types of answers needed for every research
question outlined the steps of how the data were analysed. All the data gathered from the pre-

test, post-test, formative test and semi-structured interview were triangulated. The reason was to
maintain the validity of the data collected. Data gathered from four methods were analysed in

cyclic process so that to ensure that it was valid and accurate could be derived. Each part of the
data collected has its own functions. They were used to identify whether the use of substitution
table was effective in helping year 6A2 students to construct simple sentences correctly.

6.3

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This action research data came from four main sources, namely the pre-test, post-test,
formative test and semi-structured interview of the students. These data were used to help the
researcher to answer the research questions of this action research.

6.3.1

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST

All sixteen students (S1-S16) sat for the pre-test and post-test at the appointed time set by
the researcher. Table 1 shows comparison made by all the students between pre-test and post-test

Table 1
Comparison errors made by the students between pre-test and post-test.

Students

Pre-test

Marks

Post-test

Marks

Differences in

Level of

marks

improvement

Marks

S1

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S2

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S3

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S4

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S5

1/5

20%

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S6

1/5

20%

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S7

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S8

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S9

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S10

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S11

1/5

20%

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S12

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S13

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

Hgh

S14

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S15

1/5

20%

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S16

0/5

0%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

From the table above, all students except S5, S6, S11 and S15 showed positive improvement in
constructing simple sentences made in the post-test. This indicated that 75% of the students
managed to construct simple sentences correctly and 25% managed to reduce their errors in
constructing simple sentences. The results indicate that the substitution table implementation was
effective and helping the students to construct simple sentences correctly. The students level of
improvement in constructing simple sentences categorized into two levels which were moderate
and high. The range for each level of improvement was 90%-100% for high, 70%-80% for
moderate and 50%-60% for low.

Table 2
Level of improvement between pre-test and post-test

Level of
Improvement

Number of Students

Percentage (%)

Moderate

25%

High

12

75%

There were 12 students which made 75% of the students who made high improvement in
constructing simple sentences correctly. From the result I can conclude that the used of
substitution table with pictures, colour coded, students involvement and collaboration
implemented bringing the maximum numbers of students who can construct simple sentences
correctly. This showed a good indicator as the highest number of students who can construct
simple sentences correctly increased compared than before the intervention implemented.

25%
High

Moderate

75%

Figure 2: Level of improvement between pre-test and post-test.

This pie chart showed 4 students which made 25% of students made moderate improvement.
This result showed that the students struggled very hard to get good mark in the post-test. It
indicated that the more opportunity given for students to participate actively in the intervention
sessions the more numbers of students increased in constructing simple sentences correctly.
Hence, from all the result showed and discussed about, it signified that the substitution table with
drilling colours coded, pictures, word cards, and active participation among students brought
their better understanding in constructing simple sentences correctly. Thus, it can be concluded
that the implementation of substitution table was really effective in helping year 6A2 students to
construct simple sentences correctly.

6.3.2

FORMATIVE TESTS

All sixteen students (S1-S16) sat for the formative tests at the appointed time set by the
researcher. The formative tests were conducted in three sessions. The result of every session was
collected and analysed in table 3. In every session, the students had to construct 5 simple
sentences.

Table 3
Formative test results-cycle 1

Student

Session 1
Marks

Session 2
%

Marks

Session 3
%

Marks

Level of
%

improvement

S1

2/5

40%

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

High

S2

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S3

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S4

3/5

60%

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S5

3/5

60%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S6

3/5

60%

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

High

S7

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S8

5/5

100%

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

High

S9

2/5

40%

3/5

60%

5/5

100%

High

S10

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S11

2/5

40%

3/5

60%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S12

2/5

40%

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

High

S13

2/5

40%

3/5

60%

4/5

80%

Moderate

S14

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S15

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

5/5

100%

High

S16
5/5
100% 5/5
100% 5/5
100%
High
The above table showed the results of the formative tests in every session. From session 1 to
session 3, the students showed improvement in constructing simple sentences. For session 1, the
researcher tested on is only. For session 2 the researcher tested on are and for the session 3 the
researcher tested them both is and are. Based on the results in session 1. 5 students which
were S14, S15, S16, S7 and S8 managed to construct simple sentences using the verb is
correctly which made 31% of the students made high improvement in constructing simple
sentences using the verb is. 3 students which were S2, S3 and S10 scored only 80% mark. 3
students which were S4, S5 and S6 scored only 60%. 5 students which were S1, S9, S11, S12
and S13 scored 40% in the formative test 1. This showed a pattern that, all of the students from
the 6A2 class managed to construct simple sentences using the verb is.

For session 2, 9 students which were S2, S3, S4, S5, S7, S10, S14, S15 and S16 managed
to construct simple sentences using the verb are correctly which made 57% of the students
made high improvement in constructing simple sentences using the verb are correctly. 4
students which were S1, S6, S12 and S8 scored 80% mark. Whereas 3 students which were S9,
S13 and S11 scored only 60% mark. From the results, it indicated that, all of the students
managed to construct simple sentences using the verb are correctly therefore they still cannot
achieved 100% mark but it really showed their improvement.
For session 3, 13 students which were S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S12, S14, S15
and S16 managed to construct simple sentences using the verb is and are correctly, which
made 81% of the students made high improvement in constructing simple sentences using both
is and are correctly. 3 students which were S4, S13 and S11 managed to get 80% mark in the
test. The results for session 3 showed the students were able to achieve targeted percentage
marks. The progress of students was recorded, organized and charted in graph form in order to
see the whole progress of students performance during the process of the treatment.

Figure 3
Graph on students performance of cycle 1 in all three sessions.

Students' performance of cycle 1

120%

100%

80%

SESSION 1
SESSION 2
SESSION 3

60%

40%

20%

0%

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16

Figure 3: Formative tests result of cycle 1 in all three session.

The above figure showed the tabulated results of the formative tests in cycle 1 on all the three
sessions during the intervention. From the graph, we can see that it has been organized in a way
that it showed the pattern of progress and the percentage allocated for each of the students in the
three sessions systematically. S7, S14, S15 and S16 showed the same pattern of progression from
the first to the third session. It showed they managed consistently to achieve the excellent marks
of 100% throughout all the three sessions of the test. For S4, the students faced problem in
constructing simple sentences using the verb is. But she can manage to perform well in session
2 constructing simple sentences using the verb are correctly. However, in session 3, she only
managed to obtain 80% during the third session. This was because, in session 3 she had to

construct both is and are together. From the researcher marking schemed, she lost her mark in
constructing simple sentences using the verb is. It showed S4 need more practice in
constructing simple sentences using the verb is. Meanwhile, the rest of the students S1, S2, S3,
S5, S6, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12 and S13 were able to improve progressively from the first to the
third session of the test. It indicated that the substitution table was effective in helping the
students in constructing simple sentences correctly. Almost of the students managed to achieve
the marks of 100% at the end of session, this indicated that the substitution table does help the
students to improve their ability in constructing simple sentences. The data validated on the
question of does the intervention helps students from 6A2 in constructing simple sentences
correctly.
The students level of improvement in constructing simple sentences categorized into two
levels which were moderate and high. The range for each level of improvement was 90%-100%
for high, 70%-80% for moderate and 50%-60% for low.

Table 4:
Level of improvement between formative tests

Level of

Number of Students

Percentage (%)

Improvement

Moderate

19%

High

13

81%

There were 13 students which made 81% of the students who made high improvement in
constructing simple sentences correctly. From the result I can conclude that the used of
substitution table with pictures, colour coded, students involvement and collaboration
implemented bringing the maximum numbers of students who can construct simple sentences
correctly. This showed a good indicator as the highest number of students who can construct
simple sentences correctly increased compared than before the intervention implemented.

6.3.3

SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

In order to determine the students perceptions of the substitution table in helping them in
constructing simple sentences, data from the interviews with the students were used. They were
reported as below.
First question, students were asked about their opinions on their own performance in
constructing simple sentences before this. Based on the responses given, it was agreed by all the
students that they faced difficulties in constructing simple sentences. For example, S1, S2, S3,
S4, S5, S6, S13 and S16 pointed out that it was difficult for them to construct simple sentences
before by saying susah la cikgu. Not only that, S7, S8, S9 and S12 also mentioned that they
found constructing simple sentences was sangat susah cikgu. In fact, S10, S14, and S15
mentioned that Tak faham. dan tak tahu nak tulis apa. Furthermore, S16 stated that Bahasa
Inggeris memang susah cikgu. This showed that although the students have been learning
English for more than five years, they still found it was difficult for them. Thus, this issue was
identified based on all of the students responses given during the interview. Most students
agreed that they faced difficulties in constructing simple sentences correctly.
Second questions, students were also questioned on their opinions about the use of
substitution table with pictures helped them in constructing simple sentences. All the students
agreed that substitution table with pictures helped them in constructing simple sentences by
saying Betul cikgu. It indicated that substitution table was effective for them in constructing
simple sentences. It also showed their positive responses towards the use of substitution table.
Third questions, students were questioned about their feeling when using the substitution table.
S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S9, S12 and S13 pointed out that they like the substitution table by saying
saya suka. Not only that, S1 and S5 mentioned suka, sebab senang saya nak buat ayat. S10,
S11 stated that suka, sebab senang nak faham. Whereas S14 mentioned saya suka sangat,

sebab saya dah boleh tulis ayat sikit-sikit. S15 and S16 shared the same opinions that suka,
sebab cantik, banyak gambar dan berwarna-warni. These, strongly showed that the
effectiveness of substitution table in helping them in constructing simple sentences achieved.
Next, students were also asked about the used of colours coded cards. Most of them gave
positive responses. S1, S9, S10 and S14 mentioned that they can understood the is and are
term correctly by saying betul cikgu, sekarang saya dah tahu is untuk singular dan are untuk
plural. Besides S11, S12 pointed that colours coded helped them to differentiate whether it is
singular or plural verbs correctly. The statement showed that the features of substitution table
that have boxes and was colourful provided with pictures and colours coded helped in their
memory retention. Not only that, S2, S5 and S13 mentioned betul cikgu, sekarang saya dah
faham macam mana nak buat ayat. Whereas S7, S3, S15, S4 and S6 also gave the positive
responses by saying sangat suka, sebab ia menarik, substitution table was effective for them
in learning on how to construct simple sentences correctly. This substitution table attracted
students attention to construct simple sentences correctly. Therefore the responses given towards
the feelings and opinions on the used of substitution table indicated positive feedbacks from most
of the students. Moreover S16 stated that cikgu warna-warna itu memudahkan saya nak faham
is dan are. S8 also mentioned kotak is warna merah dan kotak are warna biru membantu saya
untuk faham dengan lebih mudah. These statements signified that colour coding enhanced their
understanding to differentiate the singular and plural verbs. It revealed that the compartments in
the substitution table that have colours contributed to students understanding in constructing
simple sentences correctly.
Fifth interview questions, students were asked about the repetitions and demonstrating
that the researcher taught in constructing simple sentences using the substitution table. S1, S16,

S7, S9 and S4 mentioned sangat suka, sebab mudah saya nak buat ayat. S3, S6, S10, S15 and
S8 stated that they can understand better when the teacher kept on demonstrating and repeating
on how to construct simple sentences many times. Again, it supported that drilling sessions
carried out by the researcher was effective and preferred by the students in developing their
understanding in constructing simple sentences. Moreover, S2, S5, S11, and S12 shared the same
opinions that the drilling sessions improved their understanding in constructing simple sentences
by saying suka cikgu, sebab bila cikgu tunjuk sekali, saya tak berapa faham, tapi bila dah
banyak kali, baru saya faham nak buat ayat. This statement proven that drilling repeating and
demonstrating sessions helped them clearly. All the students agreed that the more the researcher
repeated the explanation the more they can understand. Again, it supported that drilling sessions
carried out by the researcher was effective and preferred by the students in helping and
improving their understanding on how to construct simple sentences.
Next, the students opinions on their involvement during the intervention were asked. S4
stated that, he was excited when the researcher asked his name to do the exercises in front. By
saying saya suka, sebab dulu saya malu nak kedepan sebab selalu salah buat tapi sekarang
saya rasa bangga sebab sayya dah pandai buat ayat. From the statement it showed that the
student like to involve actively in the teaching and learning process. Besides that, S1, S15, S9,
S6 and S8 also agreed with the S4 statement, that they felt excited to do the exercises in front of
the class. according to the responses given, students pointed out several reasons that triggered
their excitement, such as suka, sebab saya dah boleh tulis ayat sendiri. suka, sebab saya dah
boleh buat ayat denga betul. Besides S10, S12, S3, and S5 mentioned there were excited to
come in front to do the exercises. Because they can know if they did wrong they can corrected it.
S2, S7, S16, S11, S13 and S14 claimed that yes, I can do it on my own and I dont have to copy

from my friends answers. Thus, it signified that students preferred to involve themselves
throughout the intervention session because they wanted to see to what extend they have
understood on how to construct simple sentences correctly. This evident proved that students
active participation in the teaching and learning process influenced their level of understanding
furthermore students learned and understood more when they participated and involved more in
the teaching and learning process. Based on the responses given, I can conclude that the students
level of confident to construct correct simple sentences increased proved with they mentioned by
saying dulu saya malu nak kedepan sebabselalu buat salah tapi sekarang rasa bangga nak
kedepan sebab saya dah pandai buat ayat. saya dah boleh buat ayat sendiri tanpa perlu
meniru kerja kawan lagi. These signified that the students have learned a lot by using the
substitution table in constructing simple sentences correctly. Furthermore the activities carried
out with the substitution table managed to increase students confident level compared to their
perceptions before they had the treatment. From the interview transcription showed that numbers
of students mentioned that I feel more easy to write, I think I can write better after this, I
know better to write after this and I understand more now on how to write sentences
correctly. These statements indicated that the substitution table scaffolded the students in
developing their understanding in constructing simple sentences. The fact, most of the students
agreed that substitution table helped them a lot in understanding the concept on how to construct
simple sentences correctly.

7.0 FINDINGS

The findings of this action research were discussed with regards to answers for each
research questions, the conclusion and also the reflection.

7.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The findings from this study showed that before the treatment, all the students unable to
construct simple sentences. This finding showed that despite having 5 years of learning English
in their lower primary schools; all the students were unable to construct simple sentences
correctly. According to Corder (1967), an error refers to systematic deviation made by learners
who have not yet mastered the rules of L2. A learner cannot self-correct an error because it is a
reflective product of his or her current stage of L2 development or underlying competence.
Therefore, substitution table was used as the intervention in helping year 6A2 students to
construct simple sentences correctly.
a) Do substitution tables help the pupils of 6A2 construct simple sentences?
The findings from this action research showed that 100% of the students managed to construct
simple sentences correctly in their marks for the post-test. The progressions in marks after the
students have undergone the treatment indicating that the substitution table was effective in
bringing constructing simple sentences correctly by the year 6A2 students. Although one student
did not manifest in constructing simple sentences using the verb is correctly in session 1 but it
showed that she managed to improve herself in the post-test by getting 100% . Hence, it
indicated that the substitution table was effective for every student in the class in constructing
simple sentences correctly. In fact, students showed their level of understanding in constructing

simple sentences concepts was enhanced. This was because the percentage of students who can
construct simple sentences was increased greatly.
The findings from this action research showed that 100% of the students managed to construct
simple sentences correctly in their marks in formative tests. It showed that substitution table
really helped them in constructing simple sentences. The researcher can see the students
improvement from test 1 until test 3, where students managed to improve themselves. Hence, it
indicated that the substitution table was effective for every student in the class in constructing
simple sentences correctly. In fact, students showed their level of understanding in constructing
simple sentences concepts was enhanced. This was because the percentage of students who can
construct simple sentences was increased greatly.

b) How does the use of substitution tables help 6A2 students improve their performance in
writing simple sentences?

The findings from the semi-structured interview discovered how the substitution table
brought about the improvement in students in constructing simple sentences correctly. The
findings from the semi-structured interview have reflected on several points that showed how
substitution table helped the students in constructing simple sentences correctly. The substitution
table was identified to provide meaningful learning through the drilling sessions carried out by
the researcher which helped 6A2 students understood and internalized the concepts in
constructing simple sentences more effective. Repetition of explanations by both the researcher
and students ensured that 6A2 students understood the concepts of constructing simple
sentences. This was because, the repetition was very efficient in helping 6A2 students to

transfer knowledge from their short term to long-term memories (Harmer, 2007). Therefore, the
more students encounter the drilling process, the higher the opportunity for them to remember
and use it more often. When constructing simple sentences concepts were taken into
consideration, the explanation by both the researcher and the students allowed the students to
internalize the concepts in order to see the connection between the subjects and the verbs that
followed. The repetition in constructing simple sentences made the students to be conditioned
especially when the researcher gave sentences. 6A2 students were aware of the subjects and the
verbs that followed. This showed how the theory of behaviourism has been implemented.
According to Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (2000), behaviouristic theory of learning assumed
that what we do is determined by the environment we are in, which provides stimuli to which we
respond, and the environments we have been in the past, which caused us to learn to respond to
stimuli in particular ways.
Next, the used of colour coded has also evident how it helped 6A2 students in
constructing simple sentences. Substitution table with colour coding provided visual support
which helped 6A2 students memory retention. This was because, colour generated richer visual
instructional presentations on the assumption that it provided the learner with more information,
cues, and stimulation and consequently enhanced learning (Ajayi-Dopemu, 1984). Therefore, the
use of colour coding gave more information that scaffolded students learning process. In fact the
used of colour coding helped in 6A2 students memory retention due to the fact that it helped in
students imagination. This statement made sense as Spence, I., Wong, P., Rusan, M., & Rastegar,
N, (2006) stated that a study conducted in 1999 showed that children remembered colour cues
better than verbal cues. Therefore, combining lesson material with colours can help children to
memorize information. The use of the substitution table with colour coding led the students to

associate the colours with the fact and thus helping them to recall the information. The used of
colour coding, was also identified that it conditioned students awareness on different colour
used for the verbs. The fact that 6A2 students have been trained to identify the verbs is in red
and are in blue enhanced the students understanding in constructing simple sentences. Thus,
again the theory of behaviourism was applied effectively when students awareness of
constructing simple sentences was shaped by the used of colour coded.
In addition, the active participation of the 6A2 students throughout the teaching and
learning process also support 6A2 students increased in marks in their post-test. This was
because, students involved actively in the intervention and therefore undergone direct
experienced with the substitution table. Active learning goes beyond listening and taking note.
Bonwell & Eison (1991) define active learning as instructional activities involving students in
doing things and thinking about the things they are doing. Therefore, when 6A2 students tried
themselves to construct simple sentences in front of the class by using substitution table provided
experiential learning for them. 6A2 involved actively throughout the intervention sessions when
they substituted the sentences by themselves. This meaningful and active learning enhanced 6A2
students understanding on how to construct simple sentences correctly.

The 6A2 students

perception of the substitution table was positive and encouraging. Students responses showed
that their perceptions were consistent with the results of their post-test and also from the semistructured interview transcript. The positive improvements from 6A2 students results indicated
that the students were happy and agreed that the substitution table was effective in helping them
in constructing simple sentences. Three issues derived from the students responses were drilling
sessions, colour coded and active involvement. All 6A2 students agreed that these issues
contributed to the success of substitution table in helping them in constructing simple sentences.

This could be seen when the issues found from the semi-structured interview transcription were
parallel with 6A2 students perceptions.
As mentioned earlier, 6A2 students level of understanding in constructing simple
sentences could be seen when they revealed that the substitution tables helped them to construct
simple sentences correctly through the effective drilling sessions, the used of colour coded and
active involvements experienced by them. This finding complement the view that substitution
table was effective in helping 6A2 students in constructing simple sentences correctly.

8.0

PLANNING FOR CYCLE 2

8.1.1

Planning

The researcher identified her intervention helped the students in constructing simple sentences
based on the

results from post-test, formative tests and semi-structured interview that the

researcher had carried out in Cycle 1. The data triangulation helped the researcher to get
information about the effectiveness of intervention in Cycle 1. But from the findings, the
researcher concluded that she needs to give some extra time in drilling part in cycle 2 because
her drilling part in cycle 1 was insufficient to get the students to explore more to substitute the
sentences in Cycle 2, therefore the researcher planned to allocate 45 minutes to drill the students
and the researcher gives the students more opportunity to practice and more exercises on how to
construct simple sentences. By plan this, the researcher wants to know whether or not the
intervention in cycle 1 could be sustained that understanding of writing in simple sentences,
because the success was only at that time.
Besides that, the researcher also plans to improve in cycle 2 with sentence strips with rainbow
colours coded for the column phrase. The researcher highlights the words using the colour
coded cards. This will carry out to enhance the vocabulary using the colour coded card in the
sentence strips. Because the researcher found out in cycle 1, the students unable to understand
and associate the vocabulary tested such as fertilizers, hoe and weeds. By doing this the
researcher wants the students to understand the meaning of the words clearly

8.1.2

Action

In this step, I planned to conduct the intervention sessions which were drilling and the colour
coded for the column phrase to make further improvement in the pupils result for 45 minutes

in each session.15 minutes was increased compared to Cycle 1. I will drill the students based on
another sentences that are related with the picture. Drilling and colour coded part will be carried
out again after the school hours. Here, I will use the sentence strips with rainbow colours to
enable the pupils to understand the words better. It is because, to enhance their vocabulary. The
students have to say out and match the correct sentence strips to make correct sentences based on
the picture. Then, with the sentence strips I will drill them many times until they manage to write
correct sentences on their own. After that, I will take out everything and distribute the formative
tests. In the tests again they have to construct 5 sentences.

8.1.3

Observation

Observe is the third step of this model. During this step, I will observe how the intervention was
taking its effect in overcoming the problem by collecting data through the data gathering
methods such as pre-test post-test, formative tests, teachers log and interview, I also want to
investigate the effectiveness in my intervention session after the increment of 15 more minutes in
Cycle 2. Observation will be recorded by using the teachers log. Students responses would be
gathered by using an individual interview. I will use structured interview to get accurate
responses. Formative test will be carried out at the end of every session to investigate the
achievement of the effectiveness of the intervention in Cycle 2. After I complete the three
sessions, I will carry out a post-test again which was similar to the pre-test to check on the
pupils progress in learning. The post-test took about 30 minutes too. The post-test in Cycle 1 and
the post-test in Cycle 2 will be used to investigate the significant improvement of the pupils
scores and to reflect the effectiveness of intervention carried out in Cycle 2. The data gathered

will be analyzed qualitatively as well as quantitatively and will be analyzed to see the pupils
progress in constructing simple sentences.

8.1.4

Reflection

The effectiveness of the intervention will be seen from the observation of the post-test, formative
tests, teachers log and interview. The data gathered would be analyzed qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. Besides that, I would also identify the strengths and weaknesses in my
intervention. Based on the reflection, the intervention strategy will be able to develop the pupils
vocabulary in their writing lesson because vocabulary is the part of writing.

Table 5
Schedule of Implementation in Cycle 2

Date/Session/T
ime

(9 August
2015)
Session 1
45 minutes

( 10 August

Steps/Procedure
1. Introduce the sentence
strips with rainbow
colours coded.
2. Drill the pupils to
construct sentences using
the sentence strips
correctly according to the
pictures.
3. Record in teachers log.
4. Formative test: Pupils are
require to construct 5
sentences using the verb
is.
1. Teacher repeats the steps

Additional
Information
Example:
Sentence strips with
rainbow colours
coded.

Data Collection:
Teachers log,
Formative test 1.
Example:

2015)
Session 2
45 minutes

1 to 4 in session 1 using
another sentence strips
with rainbow colours
coded.
2. Formative test: Pupils are
requiring constructing 5
sentences using the verb
are.

Sentence strips with

rainbow colours
coded.

Data Collection:
Teachers log,
Formative test 2

(11 August
2015)
Session 3
45 minutes

1. Teacher repeats the steps

1 to 4 in session 1 using
another sentence strips
with rainbow colours
coded..
2. Formative test: Pupils are
require to construct 5
sentences using the both
is and are.

Example:
Sentence strips with
rainbow colours
coded.

Data Collection:
Teachers log,
Formative test 3
(16 August
2015)
Post-test
(30 minutes)
(18 August
2015)
(22 August
2015)

1. Conduct the post-test

2. Collect the post-test
result of each pupil to be
analyzed.
3. Interview the pupils
1. Analyze the formative
tests and post-test result.
2. Use quantitative method.
3. Compare the different.
between pre-test and
post-test for every pupils.
4. Tabulate the percentage
into a table and analyze

Post-test
Construct 5 simple
sentences.
Interview
Data that will be
analyzed:
-pre-test
-Post-test
-formative test
-teachers log
-interview

it.
5. Write the result of
findings and conclude it.

9.0

CONCLUSION
Conclusion, students problem in constructing simple sentences could be addressed

effectively by using the substitution tables, because the the improvement shown in students
mark from pre-test to the post-test indicated that the intervention used was effective in helping
6A2 students in constructing simple sentences. The theory of behaviouism was effectively
implemented through the drilling sessions. Besides, the used of colour coded, and students
active involvement also contributed to the success of substitution table in helping 6A2 students
in constructing simple sentences. Therefore, the effort in helping students constructing simple
sentences was not an impossible as teachers played the vital role in planning and designing the
suitable intervention to be used in addressing the problem.

9.1

REFLECTION

The findings showed that substitution table was successful in helping 6A2 students
constructing simple sentences. Thus, the researcher believed that the substitution table should
continue to be used and that it has a place in our language classroom especially for the less

proficient population of our learners. Although experts claimed that drilling was a traditional
approach to be used nowadays in the classroom, the findings made the researcher believed that
meaningful drilling together with the use of colour coded and students involvement were
effective to be used in the classroom as well knowledge about the students style of learning
enabled the researcher to carefully design the steps and exploit the substitution table to be used in
the classroom. This proposed that a simple method used in the classroom still could bring
positive impacts towards students learning if only the teacher managed to understand how to
address the problem identified in consideration with students needs.
However this action researcher still has limitations, it focused only on constructing
simple sentences, it exposed students to the basic rule of constructing simple sentences
throughout the intervention. The researcher realized that students have to master many patterns
of constructing sentences, so that they would not face any difficulties or confusion in the future.

9.2

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The action research indicated that there were increase in students interests and
participation in constructing simple sentences. However, students knowledge on the types of
constructing sentences was limited. Therefore, the researcher would like to recommend that
future researchers address different types of constructing sentences such as compound and
complex sentences. This will expose students to different types in constructing sentences that
they may face and use later. Furthermore, broad knowledge in constructing sentences enables the
students to vary their writing styles and therefore improve their writing skills. Researchers may
want to try giving different level of sentence constructions that provide more challenges to

students. This should be done within a longer period of time as the researcher might need to
indicate students level of achievement first before the researcher could actually determine the
next level of sentence constructions to be mastered by the students. This is important, because
the researcher will not give something beyond the students capability.

REFERENCES
Ajayi- Dopemu, Y. (1984). The effect of colour on students cognitive
achievement in video instructions. Media and Development countries: EMI, (2), 64-69

Anderson, J.R., Fincham, J.M., Douglass, S., (1999). Practice and retention: a
unifying analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 25, 1120-1136
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement In The
Classroom. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education
Celce-Murcia, M. (ED.). (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Corder,S.P. (1967). The significance of a learners errors. In: IRAL5, 4:161-170
Dorn, D. (2000). Building Essays: A reader centered writing guide. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). ESL/Efl teaching: Principles for success.
Portsmith, NH: Heineman.
Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S. M. (2000), Student-centered learning environment, In
D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments
(pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrene Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. England: Pearson Education Limited
Larsen-Freeman. 1986. Techniques and principles in language teaching, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Nesamalar Chitravelu, Saratha Sithamparam. Teh Soo Choon, (2005). ELT
Methodology: Principles and practice. (2nd ed.). Shah Alam: Oxford Fajar Sdn.
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners.Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behavoiurism. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Spence, L., Wong, P., Rusan, M., & Rastegar, N. (2006). How colour enhances visual memory
For natural scenes. Psychological Science, 17.