THE TAXONOMY OF THINKING IN READING QUESTIONS
IN “LOOK AHEAD AN ENGLISH COURSE FOR SENIOR
HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL 1, 2, & 3”
A THESIS
As the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
BENY SEPTIAN PANJAITAN
Register Number 2123321009
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
i
ABSTRACT
Panjaitan, Beny Septian. NIM 2123321009. The Taxonomy of Thinking in Reading Questions in “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Level 1, 2, & 3”. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan. 2017.
This study aimed at analyzing the cognitive dimension based on Revised Bloom Taxonomy in reading questions in Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Level 1, 2, & 3. This study used quantitative research design. The samples were 141 reading questions which taken by using random sampling technique by using Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0. in Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Level 1, 2, & 3. The data were analyzed by using Table analysis of cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy. The analysis showed that the most dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in remembering (57.45%). The second dominant cognitive dimension is understanding (26.24%). The third dominant cognitive dimension is evaluating (10.64%). The fourth dominant cognitive dimension is creating (3.55%). The fifth dominant cognitive dimension is analyzing (2.13%). There was no cognitive dimension of applying that applied in reading question of the textbooks.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness and honour is given to his Salvation Redeemer,
Jesus Christ, who always gives the writer faith, love, and hope during the
completion of this thesis.
This thesis has been written in fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at English and Literatures Department of Faculty of
Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
During the completing of this thesis, the writer is indebted in a lot of
helpful assistances, suggestions, constructive comments, moral supports, and
guidance academic from many great people. Therefore, the writer would like to
express his gratitude and special thanks to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan 2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Languages and suggestions, advices, constructive comments, guidance to the completion of
this thesis
6. Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., his second Thesis Consultant and also as Academic Advisor for his advices, comments and guidance to complete
this thesis
7. Drs. Banu Susanto, M.Si., the Head of Administration Staff of Digital Library for the cooperation to complete this thesis
iii
9. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., the Staff Administration of English Department, for all helps in administration to finish this thesis
10.His beloved parents, Esan Panjaitan and Tiurma Rosmauli Siboro, who
always bring him in their prayer
11.Ridho Batara Panjaitan and Winda Clara Panjaitan, his brother and sister, for the prayer and love as brother and sister
12.His family in UKMKP UP FBS, Jehovah Jireh Small Group, including
Bang Bernard, Steven, Bang Wilson and Immanuel, and also his roommate, Marlond Matheus
13.His class-mates in Extension C 2012.
Finally, with the name of Jesus Christ, the writer says that he is in love to
be a part of everybody’s. Love and bless of his Father, Jesus Christ, will always hold and accompany people who are being a part of the writer’s life.
Medan, February 2017
The writer,
iv
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Framework ... 8
9. Cognitive Dimension Process ... 22
B. Relevant Studies ... 23
C. Conceptual Framework ... 25
v
B. Population and Sample ... 27
C. Technique of Collecting the Data ... 29
D. Technique of Data Analysis ... 30
CHAPTER IV DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS A. Data ... 32
B. Data Analysis ... 32
C. Research Findings ... 37
D. Discussions ... 38
E. Limitation ... 41
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 3.1 Conclusion ... 42
3.2 Suggestion ... 43
REFERENCES ... 44
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Cognitive Dimension of Original Bloom’s Taxonomy ... 19
Table 3.1 Population Reading Questions in Three Level Books ... 28
Table 3.2 Sample of Reading Questions in Three Level Books ... 29
Table 3.3 Data Analysis of Cognitive Dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy... 31
Table 4.1 Cognitive Dimension Distribution in Book Level 1 ... 33
Table 4.2 Cognitive Dimension Distribution in Book Level 2 ... 34
Table 4.3 Cognitive Dimension Distribution in Book Level 3 ... 35
vii
LIST OF FIGURE
Page Figure 2.1 The Differences of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Revised
viii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Pages Appendix 1 Cognitive Dimension Process... 47 Appendix 2 Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Key Words, Model
Questions, & Instructional Strategies ... 50
Appendix 3 Frequencies and Percentages of the Reading Questions based on Cognitive Dimension Process of Revised
Bloom Taxonomy in Look Ahead an English Course for
Senior High School Students Level 1, 2 & 3... 53
Appendix 4 Random Sampling by SPSS (Statistical Program
for Social Science) ... 55
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
English is getting more and more important in the communication world. It
is very essential for communicating among people all over the world. Indonesia,
as a developing country cannot deny the importance of English since there is
assumption that science comes from around the world. So, to get or to understand
the recent technology, Indonesians must master English well. Clearly, Indonesian
has been learning English to grab modern technology. In other words, the main
function of English in Indonesia is as an instrument, meaning that is used to get
science and technology for the sake of national development. Further, it is used to
get along with other people all over the world.
English in Indonesia is stated as the first foreign language which is taught
as a compulsory subject at schools from elementary school up to universities and
even in some kindergartens, it has been taught as a local content.
There are four skills that must be learned in studying English, they are:
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Reading and listening are the receptive
skills, in which people extract meaning from the discourse they see or hear. Then,
writing and speaking are called as productive skills (Harmer, 2001: 199). These
skills are needed in order to be successful in learning English.
Reading is a process of drawing meaning or grasping information from a
2
2002:4). Educational Unit Curriculum (KTSP: Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan) about standard competence in reading states that students are
expected to be able to comprehend the meaning (sense) of both interpersonal and
transactional written text. In reading, the students are also expected to be
knowledge and familiar with what the teacher has explained in the context, while
in reading comprehension, the students are expected to have more skills than just
to explain individual text or passages after comprehending them.
Reading comprehension is the most basic purpose for reading. Grabe and
Stoller (2002: 17) state that reading comprehension is the ability to understand
information in a text and interpret it appropriately. Reading comprehension
requires very rapid and automatic processing of words, appropriate skills in
forming a general meaning, and representation of main ideas. The National
Reading Panel (2000) defined comprehension as the intentional thinking during
which meaning is constructed between the reader and text. This implies that the
reader interacts with the text content, using his or her vocabulary, background
knowledge, skills, motivation to read that text, knowledge of text structure, and
strategies to construct meaning. As the purpose of reading is to comprehend the
notions in the materials, it means, that without comprehension reading is useless
and meaningless.
Questions lead students to the comprehension. According to Turner
(1988:217), one of the most commonly used techniques for teaching or improving
reading comprehension is questioning. It is because questions play a central role
3
background, clarify a reasoning process, and even lead the students to a higher
level thinking (Gunning, 1992:231). In addition, Day and Park (2005:61) point out
well designed questions help students interact with the text, create and construct
meaning and begin to think critically and intelligently. Questions help students to
comprehension have to be graded from lower level to higher level comprehension.
Those graded questions will automatically increase students’ comprehension in
reading and create more critical in student’s thinking.
Gunning in Fitria et.al (2014:2) stated that taxonomies are appropriate
indicators of the relative position that questions occupy on a scale of complexity.
Test questions should be examined to make sure higher levels of questions being
asked. In short, taxonomy is a useful guide for constructing questions on a variety
of thinking levels and judging questions that have already been created.
Bloom’s taxonomy is appropriate to apply in reading questions in order to
get more critical comprehension. Bloom’s taxonomy offers six levels of thinking
namely knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. However, in 2001, Krathwohl has been Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The terminology used in cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy had
been changed into verb from noun. The cognitive dimension process includes
remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. The
use of verb in the terminology seems more suitable because it shows the thinking
of process which is the active process rather than the use of noun. The term
“knowledge” had been revised into “remember” because the term of
4
use of terminology “synthesis” and “evaluation” had also been changed into
“evaluate” and “create”.
English textbook which is one of the main instructional materials covers
all macro skills including reading. The textbook delivers reading materials
through kinds of reading texts and equips them with questions on reading that aim
at checking students’ understanding toward the texts. Therefore, teacher must be
able to choose appropriate textbook and reading materials that contain balance
order of thinking as stated detail in cognitive dimension. Based on the previous
research about Bloom’s taxonomy, the cognitive dimension of reading questions
was not balance because the reading questions only contained more low level of
thinking rather than the higher level. Rahmawati (2012) had conducted research,
which aimed to reveal reading questions categories in English textbook entitled
“Interlanguage: English for Senior High School Students XI” based on revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy. The frequency of each category of revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy within the reading questions is not distributed in balance. The category
Remember Factual Knowledge that is considered as the lowest level-order
thinking has the highest portion, while the other categories that are considered as
higher-order thinking have low portion.
Furthermore, based on researcher’s experience in Integrated Teaching
Practice Program (PPLT) in 2015 in senior high school that used English textbook
recommended by the government entitled “Look Ahead an English Course for
Senior High School Students Level 1, 2 & 3”, most of students feel inferior
5
textbook “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Students Level
1” page 13, which the title of the text is “Earthquake” and the reading questions
are as follow:
1. Who was involved in that story? 2. Where did the story happen? 3. What is the first event of the story? 4. What is the second event in this story? 5. The last event of the story is______
6. Among the three events, which event touches your heart the most?
7. What is the purpose of the writer telling this story? 8. Why do you have to use “past tenses” in the story? 9. How did the writer feel about this story?
From the reading questions above do not indicate to higher order thinking
because the question stems of these questions use the wh- question stems which is
including to remember dimension and indicating to lower order thinking, and
these questions do not help the students to use their thinking critically. This
situation makes students being less motivated to answer the reading questions.
So, based on the background of the study elaborated above, the purpose of
this study is to analyze the reading questions by using Cognitive Process
Dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in “Look Ahead an English Course for
6
B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background above, the problems of the study are formulated
as follows:
1. What are the cognitive dimensions of Revised Bloom Taxonomy applied
into reading questions in “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High
School Students Level 1, 2 & 3” ?
2. What is the dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
in reading questions in “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High
School Students Level 1, 2 & 3?
C. The Objectives of the Study
Related to the problem formulated, the objectives of the study are
presented as follows:
1. The application of the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy
into reading questions in “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High
School Students Level 1, 2 & 3”.
2. The most dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom Taxonomy in
Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Students Level 1, 2
7
D. The Scope of the Study
This study is limited on the reading questions in “Look Ahead An English
Course For Senior High School Students Level 1, 2 & 3” which apply the
cognitive dimensions Revised Bloom Taxonomy and critical thinking theory.
E. The Significances of the Study
These research findings are expected to be useful for:
1. The teachers to select the book based on students level of thinking
2. The researcher and those who are interested to conduct the further
42
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the data analysis, the conclusion has explained as follows:
1. The reading questions in “Look Ahead an English Course for Senior
High School Students Level 1, 2 & 3” textbooks contain
remembering, understanding, analyzing, evaluating and creating level
of cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy proposed by
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). It means that the book doesn’t apply
cognitive dimension based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
completely.
2. The dominant cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
proposed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) in reading questions in
“Look Ahead an English Course for Senior High School Students Level
1, 2 & 3” is remembering level. It means that the books were design to make the students only for evaluating students’ preparation and
comprehension, diagnosing students’ strengths and weaknesses, and
reviewing and/or summarizing content.
43
B. Suggestion
Regarded to the conclusion above, it is suggested that:
1. The English teacher should cover cognitive dimensions process based
on Revised Bloom Taxonomy in reading questions by developing or
adding questions needed and be selective to choose the reading
materials.
2. The other researcher can use the study of reading questions to
44
REFERENCES
Abbott. S. 2014. The glossary of education reform. viewed on May 30 2016, http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
Anderson, K. 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg : Sweden. viewed on 25 May 2016, http://www.liaise-kit.eu/ia-method/checklists
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Anggraeni, Anggi. 2013. The Analysis of Reading Questions Based on Revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy in English Textbooks for Senior High Schools Grade X. Thesis. English Department, Faculty of Letters, State University of
Malang : Malang.
Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek Sixth Revision. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Wadswort
Ayaturrochim. 2014. The Analysis of Reading Tasks in “English in Focus”
Textbook Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Thesis. Department Of Language And Arts, Faculty Of Teacher Training And Education, Universitas Bengkulu : Bengkulu.
Bloom, B. et al.1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I Cognitive Domain. David Mckay. New York.
Brown, H.D. 2004. Language Assessment Principle and Classroom Practices. California: Longman.
Burns, P., Roe, B. & Ross, E. 1999. Teaching reading in today’s elementary schools (7th ed.).New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Creswell, J. W. 2012. Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. USA: SAGE Publications.
45
Day, R., & Park, J. 2005. Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language.17(1), pp. 60-73. viewed on 20 May 2016, http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl
DepDikNas. 2008. Panduan Pengembangan Bahan Ajar. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Fitria, E. 2014. An Analysis Of Reading Comprehension Questions In Textbooks “English Texts In Use And Look Ahead” For Senior High School Grade X . Universitas Negeri Padang : Padang.
Forhand, M. 2010. Bloom's Taxonomy. viewed on 23 May 2016, http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom's_Taxonomy
Giles, J. 1987. The English Hand Book. Education Department of South Monash: Publication Branch.
Harmer, J. 2007. How To Teach English. London and New York : Longman Inc.
Klingner, Janette K., Sharon Vaughn & Alison Boardman. 2007. Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. New York: The Guilford Press.
Krathwohl, D. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), pp.212-218. viewed on 23 May 2016, http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel--Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
46
Rahmawati, I. K. 2012. An Analysis of Reading Questions in English Textbook Entititled “Interlanguage English for Senior High School Students XI” Based on RBT. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: State University of Malang.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sudarwati, Th.M., & Eudia Grace. 2007. Look Ahead 1: An English Course for Senior High School Students Year X. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Sudarwati, Th.M., & Eudia Grace. 2007. Look Ahead 2: An English Course for Senior High School Students Year XI. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Sudarwati, Th.M., & Eudia Grace. 2007. Look Ahead 3: An English Course for Senior High School Students Year XII. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Turner, T. N. 1988. Comprehension: Reading for meaning. Higher level of comprehension: Inference, Critical, and Creative reading. Questioning techniques: Probing for Greater Meaning. In Alexander, J. E. (Ed.). Teaching Reading. (3rd ed.). pp.159-238. Glenview: Scott, Foresman, and Company.
