TEACHER
’
S QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN
LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASSROOM
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
SUHARTINI
Registration Number: 8136111058
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
SUHARTINI. Teacher’s Questions in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Classroom. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate Scho ol State University of Medan. 2017.
ii ABSTRAK
SUHARTINI. Pertanyaan Guru dalam bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing di kelas bahasa Inggris. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2017.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, in the name of Almighty ALLAH, the most Gracious and
the most Merciful, first of all, the writer would like to thank God for His Blessing
in the completion of this thesis. Praises are also addressed to our prophet
Muhammad SAW who has guided us to the better life of today.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge her
deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistance which has been given to
her by a lot of people.
The highest appreciation goes to her parents and two advisors, Dr. Siti
Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd and Dr. I Wayan Dirgayasa T, M.Hum as her first advisor
and as her second advisor for their all guidance through the completion of this
thesis.
Then, her appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed as the Chief
of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Hollila Pulungan M.
Hum. as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program who have
assisted his in processing the administration requirements during the process of
her studies in the Postgraduate School of the State University of Medan.
The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers and examiners, Prof.
Dr.Sri Minda Murni, then Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum and Dr. Rahmad Husein,
M.Ed. They had given valuable inputs, suggestions, criticisms and improvements
for this thesis. She also would like to express his thankfulness for all lecturers
iv
Harahap, MM. as the headmaster of SMP Negeri 15 Medan, and the English
teacher Mrs. Anita, S.Pd have helped the writer to support the data.
Finally, her special gratitude is dedicated to her beloved parents, Alm.
Sukardi and my mother Almh. Ratnawati. And also special thank for my lovely,
soulmate and the sweetest of my heart H. Yanuarlin Lubis, SE. M.Siand also my
beloved son Gugun and daughters Hana and Sarah and the whole families who
always support her and no suitable word that can fully describe their everlasting
love and express how much she loves them.
Then, last but not least, her gratitude goes to the kind, generous and smart
friend who helped, spared, guided, corrected and gave much contribution in
finishing the thesis Misla Geubrina M.Hum and Masferu Zulfikar M.Hum
And also for my friends of LTBI B1 XXII who have supported her to
conduct this thesis, especially for Ratna Soraya, Habib, Sudariyani, Ilham Dodi
Trisna, Friscilla, Dewi Suhartini, Eka Rezeki Maha, Yosi, Wirda and others, for
their friendship and cooperation.
Medan, 19 December 2016
The writer,
Suhartini
v
2.1.2 The Reasons for Asking Questions ... 14
2.1.3 The Types of Teacher’s Questions ... 17
2.1.4 The Function of Teacher’s Questions ... 20
2.2. Teacher’s Skill of Questioning ... 21
2.2.1 Skills of Preparing Questions ... 22
2.2.2 Skills of Designing Questions ... 25
2.2.3 Skills of Controlling for Questions ... 26
2.2.4 Skills of Evaluating for Questions ... 31
2.3. The Effectiveness of Questions... 33
vi
C. Conceptual Framework ... 39
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ... 40
3.1 Research Design ... 40
3.2 Data and Source of Data ... 41
3.3 Instrument of Data Collection ... 41
3.4 Techniques of Data Collection ... 41
3.5 Trustworthiness ... 42
4.1.1.2 Display and Referential Questions ... 50
4.1.1.3 Yes/No Questions ... 52
4.1.2 The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Questions ... 55
4.1.2.1 Very Effective ... 55
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 71
5.1 Conclusions ... 71
vii
REFERENCES ... 75
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 The Criteria for Effective Questions (Ur, 1996) ... 34
Table 2.2 The Form of Effective Questions Assessment ... 35
Table 4.1 The Distribution of Types of Teacher’s Questions ... 54
Table 4.2 The Distribution of The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Questions ... 61
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Teaching learning process is a complex and multi-faced issue. Teachers‟
teaching and learners‟ learning are two important components to build up a
meaningful and effective educational context. In this context, teachers and
students learn from one another as they build up an environment of learning in a
class (Wood & Anderson, 2001).
At this point, learning process gains a role as a mean for negotiation and
the success of this negotiation mainly depends on the quality and quantity of
learners‟ participation to information sharing in the class as getting students to
speak to use the language they are learning is a vital part of a teachers job and
responsibility to adopt the target language to promote their communication with
learners within which teachers‟ questions maintain the talk via extending and
leading students into continuance. (Yan, 2006).
It means that the significance that departed from the duties and
responsibilities of teachers are severe enough to educate their students in class. As
the English teacher in classes, requires plenty of practice, needs cooperation
between the teacher and students in class to join fulfill the verbal communication
and the teaching-learning procedure. Teachers‟ questioning has traditionally been
viewed as an important component of teacher talk and the core of effective
2
Questioning is one of the most regularly employed teaching strategies.It is
used by many teachers during their teaching process. They consider that it is an
effective tool to build students‟ understanding and to stimulate them to participate in
learning. Thus, almost all teachers ask questions in the class every day to individual
students, to small groups, and to the whole class.
Studies relating to EFL (English as Foreign Language) teaching have pointed
out the need for teachers‟ questioning. It can be inferred that in EFL classes,
especially in Indonesia, where the target language is seldom used outside the
classroom, questioning can be considered as the most powerful device to stimulate
students to communicate. A common problem that EFL (English as a foreign
language) teachers are facing is to deal with a passive class, where students are
unresponsive and avoid interaction with the teacher. This is especially true when a
teacher seeks interaction in a teacher-class dialog, such as asking questions to the
class as a whole, expecting at least one student to respond.
It means that the teachers are facing a challenge of how to create a
conducive learning environment which is effective for the learners to attain good
achievements in the subject. Without considering a proper plan to use questions as
a learning tool, teachers are likely to miss a powerful opportunity to create the
type of dynamic and interactive dialogue that promotes an environment in which
students actively analyze and process information to answer good questions.
As Tsui (1995) states that in EFL classroom, teachers spend two thirds of the
classroom time for lecturing. They do most of the talking whilst students remain
silent. However, the most important factor within any effective language
3
talking time (STT) should be more dominant than teachers‟ talking time (TTT). It can
be reached when the students participate actively during the lesson.
Therefore, when the students never speak English, teachers‟ question can
be used to lead, to extend, and to control communication in order to enhance
students‟ exposure to the target language. Furthermore, employing questions in
language classrooms also help teachers, to check what students‟ know and can do,
to gain students‟ attention to the task, to review and revise on what have been
learned, and to help in managing classroom. For instance:
Teacher : Morning everybody. Have you finished your homework? Students : Morning, Mom. Yes, I have finished, Mom.
Not yet Mom.
Teacher : Why haven’t you finished yet, dear? Come on collect your exercise books now.
From the conversation above it could bee seen that there were two types
of teacher‟s question used to the students in the classroom namely yes/No
question dan referential question. Yes/No question based on the conversation
above was marked by teacher‟s question “ Have you finished your homework? .
and then the students respon by answering “ Yes, I have finished and Not yet”.
While the second types of teacher‟s question used in classroom was referential
question which the teacher‟s questions contain an elaboration as such reason. It
was marked by teacher‟s questions “ Why haven’t you finish yet, dear?. Both of
those teacher‟s questions asked to the students were commonly used in the
classroom. And the questions are efective which aim to make the class is to be
condisive in order to the learning process run effectively. And it is one of the
procedural to manage the class and it is useful to ensure the smooth flow of the
4
Therefore, teachers use questions to engage the students and sustain an
active style to the learning. The teacher also uses questions as part of the
assessment of learning in order to determine how they best structure, organize and
present new learning. However, developing questioning approaches requires much
greater emphasis on the time provided for students to think individually,
collaboratively and deeply to enable them to develop answers and to share better
answers. This will improve their thinking and engagement.
Historically, teachers have asked questions to check what has been learnt
and understood, to help them gauge whether to further review previous learning,
increase or decrease the challenge, and assess whether students are ready to move
forward and learn new information (factual checks – ie „Closed‟ questions). This
can be structured as a simple „teacher versus the class‟ approach, where the
teacher asks a question and accepts an answer from a volunteer, or
selects/conscripts a specific student to answer. These approaches are implicit in
any pedagogy, but teachers need a range of „Open‟ questioning strategies to
address different learning needs and situations. Teachers must also pitch questions
effectively to raise the thinking challenge, target specific students or groups
within the class.
Moreover, students fear to produce words in an activity that demands them
to speak up. However, students should be encouraged to use the target language
because students‟ communicative competence is improved through practicing the
language for communication. Actually, the students possibly practice to use the
target language, but they are afraid to speak up, so they tend to be quiet. The
5
do not understand the lesson nor know the answer, but also it might be caused by
the teachers who still do not master or even not know the skill in questioning.
This guidance informs teachers how to pre-plan their questions and select
approaches for promoting classroom talk; prepare their „open‟ and
„high-challenge‟ questions; pre-determine the level and type of challenge they wish to
set, who they will target and how they will target specific groups in the classroom.
Teacher : What are the characters of the story in this text?
Annisa : Cinderella, and fairy.
Farhan : Prince.
Amelia : Step mother
From the conversation above there is a question which the teacher
questions by using the characters of the story in this text. Namely “What are the
characters of the story in this text?. This question refers to display question which
the students can answer what teacher asked. It is proved by students‟ answer who
can describe by word by word namely “Cinderella and Fairy, Prince and Step
mother”. This question is very effective because the teacher‟s question includes
clarity, learning value, interest, availability and extension. It is caused teacher‟s
question Convergent. It is an useful question to encourage the students response.
According toTanaka (2011), questions may process a variety of purposes.
Therefore, questioning is not only about gathering information from respondents,
but includes some other functions. The functions of teachers questions are not
only interrogative, but can also be instructional cues or stimuli that convey content
elements and directions (what to do and how) to students in the classroom. It
6
information between teachers and students during the process of teaching and
learning.
In other words, if all teachers have a full understanding of the function and
the reason of their questions and it can be the positive effects that they can help
the students learn the subject matter in depth, so that they can self-evaluate the
questioning techniques applied in their lessons particularly in the English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) context in which Junior High School teachers teach
English to their students.
As what Brown (2001:169) states that one of the best ways to develop
teachers‟ role as an initiator and sustainer of interaction is to develop a repertoire
of questioning strategies. Therefore, what kind of and how questions are used in
the class is important to provide an effective interaction. It will happen if the
teachers can make the effective questioning to ask the students in
teaching-learning process.
Effective questioning by the teacher directs students into understanding
lesson content, arouse their curiosity, stimulate their imagination, and motivate
them to seek out new knowledge. If executed skillfully, questioning would elevate
pupils' level of thinking (Muth & Alverman, 1992; Orlich, Harder, Callahan,
Kauchak, & Gibson, 1994; Ornstein, 1995; Hussin, H., 2006). Correspondingly,
this elevates students‟ inquiry in the form of challenging assumptions and
exposing contradictions that lead to acquisition of new knowledge. As it can be
7
Teacher : How does Cinderella feel about her step mother?
Rafli : Sad
Putra : Kejam.
Agnes : Cruel.
Teacher : Yes, Putra that’s right. Good Agnes. Rafli, Do you understand
with this question? Maksudnya How does her step mother
treat her? Do you know the meaning of treat?
Rafli : Silent
Based on the conversation above there are two types of questions which
the teacher asked to students in the classroom namely Display and Yes/No
Question. Display question who teacher used to ask in the class such as “How
does Cinderella feel about her step mother?”. This question refers to display
question which the students can answer what teacher asked. It is proved by
students‟ answer who can describe word by word namely “sad, kejam and cruel”.
But from the students‟ answers are considered correctless (sad) based on the text
about. Here the students have any wrong interpretation about what teacher
questioned. Then the teacher changes the question to be ““How does her step
mother treat her?”. From this question, the teacher expects that the student can
answer correctly. But the result is nothing. Finally the teacher reformulates the
question specifically by “Do you know the meaning of treat?”. It is kinds of
yes/no question which the first question is display to be yes/no. In fact that the
student (Rafli) has any limitation in mastering vocabulary. It is marked by word
treat. From the questions above it can be said that display question that teacher
used is effective. It is proved which the question contain clarity, learning value,
8
effective. It is characterized with clarity, interest and learning value. The reason of
the teacher used these questions to encourage students to answer what the teacher
questioned. It is called as divergent dan convergent.
Those phenomena above have shown that teachers have known the
purpose and the way to ask the questioning in teaching learning process, but they
do not know the types of teachers questioning and the skills of questioning. It is in
line with Brualdi (1998) states that the teachers should create the various
questions based on the purposes of the questions and teachers must be able to ask
question efectively in order to teach well. Effective questions depend on the using
of teachers‟ skills. It means that when the teachers ask questions there must be
having knowledge and skills in questioning for teachers in teaching learning
process.
In line with all explanations above, this study would like to describe the
teachers questioning in (EFL) classroom in SMP Negeri 15 Medan.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study above, the problems are formulated as
the following:
1. What types of teacher‟s questions are used by the teacher in EFL
classroom?
2. How far the effectiveness of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom?
3. Why does the teacher ask those questions in EFL classroom?
9
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problem of the study, it attempts to reach the following
objectives:
1. To find out the types of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom.
2. To describe of the effectiveness of those questions in EFL classroom.
3. To find out the reasons of those questions asked by the teacher in EFL
classroom.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
With reference to previous explanation, questions not only take place in
daily conversation but also in the teaching learning process. This study attempts to
investigate the teacher‟s questions which shown the conversation between teacher
and students in EFL Junior High classes. The aspects will be observed in this
study are the types of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom proposes by Tsui
(1995), the effective of those questions according to Ur (1996) and the reasons of
those questions asked by the teacher according to Richards & Lockhart (2000).
1.5 The Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be relevant and significant
theoretically and practically. The findings could give contribution to all readers
for those who are concerned with this field. In the following significances of the
study are stated theoretically and practically.
a. Theoretically
10
i. The enrichment of questions knowledge in the field of teaching especially
in the teacher‟s questions.
ii. To widen horizon in the theory of teaching especially in the teacher‟s
questions.
b. Practically
Practically, the usefulness of the findings is described as the following:
i. This research can be a source for especially other researchers who want to
conduct a research on questioning, and generally for every teacher in
conducting teaching process.
ii. By knowing the types of teacher‟s questions in English classroom, it is
expected for the teacher will improve the teachers‟ skills of questioning in
teaching-learning process.
iii. The teachers should be selective and having preparation in giving
questions to the students in English classroom which are useful as the teachers
71
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analysis on the previous chapter, the study made it
possible to arrive at the following conclusions:
1. Focusing on how the teacher’s question produced in EFL classroom, the
research relates the findings of the types of the teacher’s question with
the learning opportunities created by analyzing them through classroom
management and teacher-student relationship analysis. During the
five-week classroom observation, the conducted research has shown the expected types of teacher’s question which are possible to occur in the
classroom interaction. The types of the teacher’s question was based on
the Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology in which the features or types of teacher’s questions were adopted from Tsui’s Theory (1995).
There were three types of teacher’s questions used by the English teacher
in classroom namely open and close question, display and referential
questions and yes/no questions. There was one new types of teacher’s question found in the construction and obstruction types of teacher’s
question. Namely unfinished sentence questions. Each types came with
different of questioning by the teacher in the classroom. Even the number
of occurrence was not significant; the teacher still produced the types of
teacher talk which belonged to obstruction types. Teacher echo and teacher
72
echoed the students’ answer which had no specific benefit for the students.
Moreover, teacher interruptions also led students to have fewer
opportunities as it resulted in the teacher took over the discussion which
made students had no space to contribute.
2. In spite of that, the overall teacher’s question showed that the efectiveness of questioning when the teacher’s question at the EFL was frequently very
effective, effective, quiete effective, less effective and ineffective
produced. All those effectivenesses based on the the criteria Ur (1996)
which covered clarity, learning value, interest, availability and extention
were as the result. This result had proven that the teacher managed to keep
giving the students the language support. It goes in line with the fact that
the students were young learners which meant that they had very limited access to the new language. By producing this positive feature of teacher’s
question, teacher succeeded to maintain the flow of interaction in the
classroom by creating learning opportunities for students. Such as
courages and confidences to answer or respons what the teacher
questioned.
3. The reasons of teacher used teacher’s questions in English classroom
were procedural, convergent and divergent. In addition to that, the good effectiveness of teacher’s question produced by the teacher was supported
by other aspects of her teaching ability. Through the field notes taken
during classroom observation, the teacher managed to show her ability in
managing the classroom and developing a good relationship with the
73
ability in controlling the language use in the classroom. The three combinations of producing a constructive teacher’ question, managing the
classroom as a whole, and developing a good and supportive relationship
with the teacher becomes the way for the teacher and students to have a
good learning environment such as check the routines and class
management, encourage the students respons eventhough high or low level
thinkng to give their own answers and express themselves instead of just
recalling previous lessons. It is useful to ensure the smooth flow of the
teaching process in classroom having a good environment of learning
leads students to have more opportunities to learn which will have a good
impact on their learning achievements..
5.2 Sugestions
Based on the conclusion previously stated, then suggestions are follow:
1. As it was found in this study, it suggested to the readers especially teacher
should have knowledge about the types of questions so that it affected to the
feedback in the teaching-learning process so that student-centered approach
will be reached out.
2. The readers especially the teachers were suggested to have some creation that
the question was to be effective. The effective question can be created if the teacher knows what students’ interest. Moreover the teacher can relate with
the question what will be asked so that it elicites students’ courges and
74
has never learned or even heard by the students especially for the specific
materials in English that has so many new terms.
3. The readers especially teachers who teach the subject in English are
suggested to have elicitation in question slowly because the limitation of the
students in English especially vocabularies. For having feedback, even the
answer in wrong. It is suggested to have encouragement to help the students
in keeping their activities in the teaching-learning process since it is hard to
involve the students in the teaching-learning process especially for English
75 REFERENCES
Arends, R. 1994. Learning to Teach. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Bond, N. 2007. 12 Questioning Strategies That Minimize Classroom Management Problems. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(1), pp.18-21.
Brualdi, A. C. 1998. Classroom Questions. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 6(6). Online. Available at: <http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=6> Accessed 15 May 2012.
Brown, G. 1975. Microteaching. London: Mathuen.
Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd Edition).London: Longman, Pearson Education.
Cotton, K. 2001. Classroom Questioning. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS).
Online. Available at: <http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.htm>Accessed 13 June 2012.
Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman
Dillon, J. T. 1988. Questioning and Teaching: A manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press, (Chapter 3).
Department for Education and Skills. 2004. Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools, Unit 7: Questioning. United Kingdom:
Department for Education and Skills. Online. Available at:
<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/wsassets.s3.amazon aws.com/ws/nso/pdf/027c076de06e59ae10aeb9689a8a1c04.pdf> Accessed 14 April 2012.
E. C. Wragg – G. Brown, 2003. Questioning in the Secondary School (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library)
Ellis, K. 1993. Teacher Questioning Behaviour and Student Learning: What research says to teachers? (Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Westernstates Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico).
Ellis,R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ellis,R. & Fotos,S. 1999. Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ellis,R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76
Hussin, H. 2006. Dimensions of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom Practice in Malaysia. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language.
Hymam, R. T. 1972. Strategies Questioning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Inomori, T. 2010. Planning Writing Class with Questioning, My translation from Japanese Writing no jugyo wo ‘hatumon’ de tsukuru. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.22-24.
J. Richards and C. Lockhart, 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Johnson, K.E. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kifle Azerefegn. A Study on the Types of Teacher Questions and Questioning Strategies. (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University Institute Of Language Studies, 2008), 7.
Lestari, A.D. 2009. The Teacher’s Technique of Basic Questionings in English Classroom Activity. Semarang: Semarang State University.
Leven, T. and Long, R. 1981. Effective Instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lightbown, M. P. and Spada, N. 2006. How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Publications.
Mackey, A. 2007. The Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Maeda, Y. and Abe, M. 2010. Considering Class Development Through Questioning: Project in Niigata High School, [My Translation From Japanese Hatumon ga
Mauigoa, L. 2006. Enhancing Teacher’ Questioning Skills to Improve Children’s Learning and Thinking in Pacific Island Early Childhood Centres. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work
McComas, W. F. and Abraham, L. 2005. Asking More Effective Questions. Online.
Available at
:<http://www.usc.edu/programs/cet/private/pdfs/usc/Asking_Better_Questions.pdf > Accessed 10 June 2012.
77 English Language Teaching in Eldoret Municipality, Kenya, Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 324.
Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.
Nakajima, Y. 2010. Prescription à la carte for ‘Questioning’: Questioning is Art, My translation from Japanese ‘Hatumon’ no syohosen à la carte. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59 (1), pp.36-39.
Nicholl - Tracey, 2007. Questioning: A tool in the Nurse Educator’s Kit, Nurse Education in Practice. Vol. 7, 288-289.
Ohno, R. 2010. Teaching English Through The Moral Point of View, My Translation from Japanese Eigo no jugyo wo ‘doutoku no kankaku’ de. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59 (1), pp.20-21.
Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Teaching Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. 2002. Theories of Teaching in Language Teaching. In: J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19-25.
Rosenshine, B.1971. Teaching Behaviours and Student Achievement. London: Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
Rowe, M. B. 1986. Wait- time: Slowing Down may be a way of Speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 37.
Sakai, H. 2010. Questioning in Class for ‘Listening’and’Speaking’instructions. My Translation from Japanese ‘Kiku’ ‘hanasu’ jugyo ni okeru hatumon. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.25-27.
Scrinvener, J. 2005. Learning Teaching. UK: Macmillan Education.
Seda Ozcan, 2010. The Effects of Asking Referential Questions on The Participation and Oral Production of Lower Level Language Learners in Reading Classe. Izmir: Izmir University.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
78
Stevens, R. 1912. The Question as A Means of Efficiency In Instruction: A critical Study of Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Sullivan, P. 2000. Playfulness as Mediation Communicative Language Teaching in a Vietnamese Classroom. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by James P. Landtolf. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, T. 2010. Questioning-Centred Lesson Planning: Practice in Junior High School, My Translation from Japanese‘Hatumon’ chūshin no jugyo planning. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.14-16.
Tanaka, T. 2010. Good Questioning and Bad Questioning: What is the Questioning That Can Change Class? [My translation from Japanese Yoi hatumon, warui hatumon: jugyo wo kaeru hatumon toha. The English Teachers Magazine, 59(1), pp.10-13.Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom Interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.120-125.
Tanaka, S. 2011. The Power of Asking Questions in Getting L2 Classrooms Activated, Japanese title Communicative na eigokyoiku ni okeru hatumon ryoku. ARCLE Review, 4, pp.6-16.
Thompson, G. 1997. Training teachers to Ask Questions. Teaching Journal, 50, pp.99- 105.
Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.120-125.
Tsui, 1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction (London, UK: Penguin English).
Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, W. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. London: Routledge.
Wilen, W. 1991. Questioning skills for teachers. What research says to teacher. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Wilen, W. and Clegg, A. 1986. Effective questions and questioning: A research review.
Theory and research in social education, 14(2), pp.153-161.
Wajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
Wood, A. T., & Anderson, C. H. 2001. The Case Study Method: Critical Thinking Enhanced by Effective Teacher Questioning Skills. The 18th Annual International Conference of the World Association for Case MethodResearch & Application.
