TYPES OF TEACHER QUESTIONS AND STUDENT RESPONSES IN EFL CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES :A Case Study of Questioning in SMP in Mataram.

(1)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In classroom, teacher plays very important roles. The teacher can be as

controller, director, facilitator, and resource (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 1991, 2001,

2007). In conducting the role of controller, the teacher will determine what the

students do, when they should speak, and what language form they should use. As

a director of classroom, teacher is responsible to maintain students’ engagement

and motivation in order to flow smoothly and efficiently. As a facilitator, the

teacher will assist the students to make the learning process easier and more

comfortable. When teacher employs the role of resource, he/she will always be

available to meet when students need advice or consultation. In conclusion, if

teacher wishes to see successful teaching-learning processes in classroom, he/she

should be able to conduct those roles appropriately because the teachers’ different

roles were related to the students’ levels of participation and their positioning of

themselves as powerful or powerless students (Yoon, 2008).

In relation to the English language learning and teaching in classroom,

those teacher’s roles will affect the quality and quantity of input, output, and

interaction in the classroom. Input can be provided in good quality and sufficient

in amount if the teacher contributes maximally in the role of resource from teacher

talks (Ellis, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan, 1991) in explaining, commenting, or

(2)

2 intended output can also be triggered by teacher when he/she carrying out the role

of controller by giving commands or questions to the students in the classroom.

Interaction as the core of teaching-learning process and through it acquisition can

be facilitated (Long, 1983; Ellis, 1986; Johnson, 2001; and Brown, 2001) can be

maximized through the conversation between teacher and students in which

questioning-answering dialogue pattern is commonly adopted. To summarize, in

fulfilling good quality and enough input, output, and interaction, teacher questions

are the central point to take into consideration.

Regarding the importance of teacher questions in language learning,

teacher should know what kinds of questions which are potential to support

students in learning a target language. The emergency of knowing types of

questions are based on the reasons that certain sort of questions will likely trigger

the students to respond in more complex answers, provide more comprehensible

inputs, and create more genuine interaction. Take for example, when a teacher

uses more referential questions in classroom interaction, the answers from student

will be more in number of words used, more complex sentences uttered, and more

natural of communication developed (Brock, 1986). In other words, by using

referential question teacher gives more opportunities for students to receive

comprehensible input, more chance to produce output, and more opportunities to

create natural interaction.

However, being familiar with the types of questions only is not sufficient

to conduct effective teaching. Students as the addressee of teacher questions

(3)

3 are. Hence they cannot give any responses. To overcome this problem teacher

usually will modify their questions through negotiation of meaning in form of

simplifying, redirecting, paraphrasing (Chaudron, 1988), or even translating the

question into students’ first language (L1) in such way the students are expected

to give responses more easily.

Seeing the central role of questioning in language classroom to facilitate

students to have comprehensible input, to trigger students to produce language

production (output), and to create interaction in classroom, it is necessary to

conduct investigation to reveal the secret around the issue of teacher questions. It

is hopefully from the investigation, researcher will find what types of questions

which help students to learn language, how teachers modify their questions to be

more understandable, and what kinds of student responses are generated from

those given questions.

1.2 Research Questions

This study is conducted to find out the answers of the following research

questions:

1. What types of question do the teachers usually use in EFL classroom?

2. What modification techniques do the teachers employ when the questions

are not understood?

3. What sorts of responses do the questions generate from the students?

4. How can teacher questions facilitate language learning?

(4)

4 1.3 Objectives of the Study

There are four main purposes of conducting this study. The first purpose is

to identify the types of question used by English teacher during English

teaching-learning process. Those types of question will be classified into two main types;

display question and referential question and three sub types; comprehension

check, clarification request, and confirmation check. The second objective of this

study is to identify the modification techniques employed by the teachers when

their questions are not understood by the students. The main reason for identifying

the modification is the importance of them in providing variety of inputs and

opportunities for the students to practice the target language. The third purpose is

to investigate the sorts and the complexity of student responses due to the use of

those questions by the teachers during the classroom teaching-learning process.

The forth purpose is to investigate how questions can facilitate language learning

classroom activities.

1.4 Significance of the Study

Questioning has been identified as an important aspect of classroom

interaction in teaching-learning situation (Wilen, 1987a, 1987b; Willson, 1999).

Investigating the types of questions and modification of question used by the

teacher in EFL classroom is expected to provide new insight into the use of those

types and modifications of questions to facilitate better learning of English

language, to encourage the students in order to participate in teaching-learning

(5)

5 that one of the purposes of searching the teacher questions is to promote the

awareness of teacher in using their questions during classroom interaction. By

awareness as he states is meant more conscious use of language; noticing the

effects of interactional features on learning opportunity; understanding that

teachers and learners jointly create learning opportunity; and realizing the

importance of using appropriate questions. Teachers of English language will

particularly benefit from this study as the findings will be an eye-opener to them

on how to use question and their modifications appropriately to improve EFL

classroom interaction. Finally, the findings of this study are expected to be

another alternative effort of improving students’ competence in learning English

communicatively in the basis of classroom activities.

1.5 Definitions of Key Terms

In this section the researcher will elaborate the key terms that will be

frequently used in this study. The elaboration is aimed at giving definition,

avoiding misunderstanding and limiting the use of the terms, and understanding

the context in which the terms being used (Cresswell, 1994).

1. Question is defined as a functional or speech act label, and refers to an

utterance that seeks information or any statement intended to evoke a

response.

2. Display Question is the term used to refer to a question to which the

teacher already knows the answer (Nunan, 1989b: 29). In asking

(6)

6 doubts. Rather he/she wants the students to display or show some

previous knowledge that has been learned before. Such question like,

“What is the capital of Indonesia?” belongs to this category.

3. Referential Question refers to a question to which the teacher does not

already know the answer (Brock, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan, 1991;

Gebhard, 1999). For instance: Have you done your homework?

4. Modification of Question refers to the change employed by teacher to

make the question understandable. Three additional types associated

with the concept of negotiation or modification of meaning through

modification of question between interlocutors (Chaudron,

1993:130-131) or modified interaction, are comprehension check, clarification

request, and confirmation check.

5. Confirmation checks are moves by which one speaker seeks

confirmation of the other’s preceding utterance through repetition, with

rising intonation, of what was perceived to be all or part of the

preceding utterance.

6. Clarification requests are moves by which one speaker seeks assistance

in understanding the other speaker’s preceding utterance through

questions, statements such as “I don’t understand,” or imperatives such

as “Please repeat.”

7. Comprehension checks are moves by which one speaker attempts to

determine whether the other speaker has understood a preceding

(7)

7 8. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the process through which

someone acquires one or more second or foreign language in addition

to their native language (Nunan, 1991). In this study the term of SLA

will be interchangeably used with Second Language Learning (SLL).

9. Comprehensible Input is the part of the total input that the learners

understand and which is hypothesized to be necessary for acquisition

to take place (Ellis, 1997).

10. Input Hypothesis is the hypothesis advanced by Krashen to Explain

how learners subconsciously acquire language from input they

comprehend (Ellis, 1997).

11. Interaction Hypothesis is the name given to claim that the interactional

modification resulting from the negotiation of meaning facilitate

acquisition (Ellis, 1997).

12. The term classroom interaction in this study is defined as the

interaction between teacher and learners, and amongst the learners in

the class room (Tsui, 2001).

13. Output Hypothesis is the hypothesis which claims that the act of

producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain

(8)

8 14. Student Language Production refers to the answers or comments given

by the students orally, in classroom during English teaching and

learning process which is generated from the teacher questions.

1.6 The Structure of This Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. Besides the introduction part, there

are four other chapters. They will be introduced separately as follows:

Chapter I is the introduction of the whole study. It includes the

background of conducting study on teacher questions, and then presents the

research questions and the purposes of the present study. At the end of this chapter

researcher presents the key terms those frequently used in this study and the

description of this thesis structure.

Chapter II discusses the theoretical views by which the present study

underpinned. The theoretical views include the nature of questioning in classroom

teaching which covers the functions and purposes of questions in classroom

teaching; the position of questioning in classroom language learning which covers

comprehensible input hypothesis, interactional hypothesis, and output hypothesis;

the position on questioning in classroom interaction; and types of question.

Finally, this chapter ends by presenting some related studies conducted by many

researchers concerning about the question in classroom language learning.

Chapter III constitutes the methodological aspects of this thesis. In this

section, the researcher elaborates the methodological issues of the present study.

(9)

9 participants, research setting, techniques of gathering data, and techniques of

analyzing data respectively.

Chapter IV elaborates the findings and discussion. The analysis is carried

out based on the three research questions. The analysis is presented in sequence

starting from types of teacher questions and student responses, followed by

modification techniques used by the teachers, and the last is to what extent teacher

questions facilitate language learning. At the end of each elaboration, the

researcher presents the findings related to each research questions. Finally, at the

end part of this section the researcher discusses how the findings are seen from the

perspective of comprehensible input hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, and

output hypothesis.

Chapter V is the conclusion part. This part summarizes the findings

obtained from the present study. At the end of this section, the researcher will

elaborate some possible recommendations for conducting further similar related

studies. Then it discusses the limitations of the present study and puts forward

(10)

45 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this section, the researcher will elaborate the methodological aspects of

this study. The elaboration will include the research design, research method,

research validity, the participants, the research setting, techniques of gathering

data, and technique of analyzing data respectively.

3.1 Research Design

This study was conducted by applying qualitative research design in

which the researcher as the main instrument collected data by observing the

natural setting of classroom interaction. In this sense, this research is also called

“naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nunan, 1992; Cohen & Manion,

1994; Meriam, 1998; Silverman, 2005; Alwasilah, 2008). “Naturalistic inquiry”

refers to that the researcher tries not to intervene in the research setting and does

not try to control naturally occurring events, because the researcher wishes to

describe and understand the process rather than to test specific hypotheses about

cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, naturalistic inquiry is holistic, heuristic

and low in control (Hussin, 2007).

The most important reason of using qualitative design is that this design

is an appropriate way to explore every day behavior, in this case the behavior of

teacher and students in classroom. For this, Silverman (2005: 6) states that ‘if you

(11)

46 social survey, may be the most appropriate choice. On the other hand, if you are

concerned with exploring people’s life histories or every day behavior, the

qualitative methods may be favored’.

Besides the “appropriateness“ reason in design, this study was carried out

on the appropriateness in research paradigm as well. As this study requires the

interpretation of researcher to understand the process of classroom setting, it used

interpretivism paradigm in which qualitative design is suitable to use (Belbase,

2007; Connole, et.al, 1990; Dash, 2005; Emilia, 2000; Gephart, 1999; Mackenzie

and Knipe, 2006; Williamson, 2006). In line with this, (Meriam, 1988) argues

that ‘education (classroom) is considered to be a process and school is a lived

experience. To understand the meaning of the process and the experience, it must

be interpreted then.

3.2 Research Method

In qualitative research design, there are several methods which are

prevalent used such as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case

study (Alwasilah, 2008). In this investigation the researcher used case study

method. Then this study is a qualitative case study which was characterized as

being “particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” (Meriam, 1988: 29).

To Meriam, a case study is particularistic because this study focused on a

particular situation (classroom setting) and a specific phenomenon (teacher

(12)

47 At the present study, the researcher presented a rich or complete

description on types of question used during the process of teaching and learning

English in classroom setting. For this, a case study is descriptive. Finally, a case

study is heuristic because it illuminates the researcher’s understanding of the

phenomenon under study.

This method was used because it has several advantages as what (Adelman

et. al, 1976 in Nunan, 1992: 78) proposed. The first is case study is strong in

reality as it can be used to identify and examine certain issues or concern in detail

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) Secondly, case study can represent multiplicity of

viewpoints and can offer support to alternative interpretation. Thirdly, if the result

of a case study presented properly, it may provide database which may be used

and reinterpreted by the future researchers. The last one is that the findings of case

study can be beneficial for immediate practice.

Based on the characteristic of qualitative case study, it was reasonable for

the present researcher to investigate a teacher questioning in EFL classroom

in-depth to understand the process of questioning in classroom setting holistically, to

focus the investigation particularly on the types of teacher questions, question

modifications, and student responses, and to give complete or “thick description”

on the issue of questioning in EFL classroom.

3.3 Research Validity

The feasibility and effectiveness of study must be ensured by the quality of

(13)

48 study the validity was ensured through two lenses of paradigm; positivism and

constructivism paradigm (Craswell & Miller, 2000). From the lens of positivism

paradigm, the validity procedure was conducted through member checking. In this

study, the researcher asked the participants’ check in two stances; transcribing and

interpreting the video recorded data. In the stance of transcribing video recorded

data, both participants were asked to make sure that the transcription was valid

based on the recorded data. In interpreting stance, the participants were asked to

check whether the questions in the transcription were questions or not. For this,

the researcher and the participants had the same perception on determining the

utterances into questions or not. From the lens of constructivism paradigm, this

study was validated by presenting thick description on the process and the setting

of this study based on the field notes during the observation.

Besides the two lenses of paradigms, this study was also validated by the

principle of retrievability (Hussin, 2006). In this study all the important moments

(questioning-answering activities) during the observations were video recorded

and the conversations were transcribed. The video recorded data and the

transcription of the conversation were accessible for necessary inspection.

3.4 Participants

To get the data of teacher questioning, this study involved two English

teachers and to get data on student responses there were 65 Junior High School

students participated. The first teacher was an experienced male teacher and the

(14)

49 The two English language teachers of the selected school who

participated in the study were selected based on accessibility (Kvale, 1996) as

there were only two teachers recommended by the headmaster to take part in this

study. In this study the teachers were coded as Teacher A and Teacher B. Their

academic qualifications and training were in English. They have graduated from

a local university majoring in English. Teacher A was male and has been

teaching in that school for about more than five years. He was responsible to

prepare the students in “Rintisan Sekolah Berstandar International (RSBI)” class

in which English is used as the medium of instruction particularly in English

subject and natural science subjects.

Teacher B was a female. She was a novice teacher at that school. She has

been teaching for about one year. Fortunately, she has been teaching in formal

English course for many years. She was recommended to give additional English

class at the afternoon after the morning class dismissed for volunteered students.

The data on student responses were taken from two groups of students.

The first 50 students of the two classes (25 in 8A and 25 in 8B) became the

participants of the study. The students were selected into this classes based on the

existing group. They were selected based on their rank when they were in the

last semester of the first year. On this regard they were classified into gifted

students as they were from the high achiever group of students.

When conducting observation, those students were in the second semester

of the second year of Junior High School in the academic year 2008-2009. The

(15)

50 international based standard school. Consequently, they must use English for all

the time during classroom activities. For this, almost all the students join

additional English course outside their formal schooling time. These two classes

were taught by Teacher A.

The second group of students who participated in this study was 15

students from the mixture class. They were asked voluntarily to join the

afternoon English class to have extra lessons on English. Characteristically, the

students in this class were more heterogeneous than the first two classes as some

them from “RSBI” class and some from regular class, some from first years and

some from second year. This class was taught by Teacher B.

3.5 Research Setting

This study was conducted in a Junior High School (SMP) located in

Mataram. The reason of choosing this school was the accessibility of the

researcher into this school. But the most important consideration of choosing this

school is that the school was at the beginning of establishing bilingual classroom

in which English is obliged to use both by teacher and all the students.

There were three classes as the focus of observation. The first class was

8A class which consists of 25 students. This classroom was designed and fully

facilitated to support the comfortableness of teaching-learning process. This room

was also facilitated with air conditioner, four sets of computer, and one set of

(16)

51 students as well. The situation and the facilities available in this classroom were

the same as the room of 8A class.

The third class was a mixture class which consists of 15 students from

non-bilingual class. The room for this class was not designed and facilitated as 8A

and 8B were. There was not computer, television, or air conditioner found in this

class. This class was programmed for giving additional English lesson for those

students of non-bilingual class. This class was labelled mixture because the

students were from many classes. There were some students from the first year

students and some others from second year students.

Those three classes (8A, 8B, and mixture class) were at the second

semester of academic year 2008/2009. Those two classes (8A and 8B) conducted

teaching-learning in morning shift from 07.30 a.m to 01.00 p.m. They get English

lesson three times a week. The mixture class, on the other hand, was conducted at

the afternoon after morning shift starting from 02.00 a.m until 03.00.

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques

There were two main techniques used to collect data in this study namely

observation and video recording. The observation was conducted to identify

teachers’ questions and students’ response, while the video recording was utilized

to ‘capture many details of lesson that cannot easily be observed such as the actual

language used by teachers or students during a lesson’ (Richards & Lockhart,

1994). No interview conducted because those data collected from the observation

(17)

52 3.6.1 Observation

One of the purposes of conducting this study was to find out types of

questions used by the teachers in their English classroom activities. For gaining

the data concerning that purposes, direct observation techniques was used.

Observation types utilized in this study was non-participant observation. The

researcher did not involve in the classroom activities. He took seat at the back of

classroom without intervening the activities he investigating and eschewed from

group membership (Cohen & Manion, 1994).

The observation was conducted by using the observation guidelines which

has been approved by the researcher advisor. The format and the model of the

observation guidelines can be seen as an appendix in this thesis.

During the observation the researcher didn’t find what makes this technique

problematic. For example, as what Bailey (2001) argues that the presence of the

observer will affect the naturalness of the interaction in the classroom as what he

states in this quotation.

“The historical development of second language (L2) classroom observation is not limited to the use of observation instrument, and it has not been without problems. Teachers (and perhaps learners) have sometimes felt like objects being observed without input or consultation, whose behavior and key decisions were reduced to tally marks on a page by observers who might or might not understand the day-to-day workings on the language classroom. As a result, a tension emerged in some areas between the observers and the observed” (Bailey, 2001: 115).

On the contrary to Baleiy’s argument, the researcher found that the

participants, particularly the students acting very naturally. It seemed that they

(18)

53 other people in their classroom. This was reasonable because the school has been

frequently used to conduct research as such. The situation of such classroom was

also found when the researcher carried out preliminary research in a Junior and a

Senior High Schools in Bandung in which many researchers have chosen these

schools as setting to conduct various kinds of research.

Although the researcher did not find what many researchers worried about,

he anticipated the possibility of unnaturalness of the setting by explaining the

purposes of the observation to the teacher and the students. The explanation was

also delivered to the principal in case of getting permission to do research in his

school. In this sense, the natural behavior of the classroom was ensured.

For this study, the researcher conducted six observations. The first

Observation was conducted in 8A class when the students got the material of

news item by making summary of two articles taken from English newspapers or

English magazines individually. Before observing this class however, the teacher

asked the researcher to introduce himself to the students in front of the class. In

the introduction, the researcher introduced his identity, his educational

background, and explained the purposes of his presence in that class. At this time,

several students asked some questions as the teacher asked them to do so. This

was also done in his observation in 8B class. The second observation was carried

out in 8B Class with the same material as in 8A Class. The third observation was

done in 8A Class with the material of narrative which was included in drama of

various stories. The next observation, the fourth, was conducted in 8A Class with

(19)

54 observation five and six were carried out in the mixture class with the material of

question tag and passive voice respectively. The distribution and the description

[image:19.595.112.514.227.618.2]

of the observation can be seen at the table below.

Table 3.1: Distribution of Observation

During the observation, the researcher made field notes for all the

classroom activity to have description of context in which the teaching-learning

process happened. Description of each session can be seen at the appendix on this

study. These descriptions were used when analyzing and interpreting the data. To

gain data on the types of questions used, the modification of questions employed,

and the student responses, in this study, the researcher used video recording.

3.6.2 Video Recording

To get “the actual language used by the teacher and the students, as well as

interpersonal dynamics and affective climate of the classroom” (Nunan, 1989:

79), video recording was used in each observation. However, in classroom

observation not all sessions of the teaching-learning process were video-recorded.

The researcher only recorded the phases of teaching-learning process when there Participants Observations Type of

Lesson

Duration in

minutes Class

No. of Student

s

Teacher A

I News Item 70 8A 25

II News Item 70 8B 25

III Narrative 65 8A 24

IV Narrative 75 8B 25

Teacher B

I Question Tag 60 Mixture 7

(20)

55 were any questioning activities took place. In the observation I and II which were

conducted in 8A class and in 8B class, for instance, the researcher only recorded

the classroom event when the student were told to report their summaries on the

articles in front of the teacher through interview technique. In observation III in

8A class, there was no event recorded as the classroom activity was set in group

discussion in which the teacher did not involve in. He just gave general instruction

and suggestion on how to perform the dialogue on the drama script. At this time

the researcher only made field note on how group discussion happened. The last

observation for teacher A was recorded when he moderated the students to take

part in group presentation. The recording was focused on the last part of the

presentation in which the students were asked to give comments or questions to

the groups who presented their material at that time.

The last two recordings were conducted in Teacher B’s class when she

taught the material of question tag and passive voice to the students of mixture

class. Tough this class was flooded by questioning activities, not all of them were

recorded. The similar patterns of questioning were skipped to overcome the

overloaded data on the same categories.

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques

In analyzing data from field notes and video recording, first of all, the

researcher made description of each observation based on the notes taken during

the observation. The result of the description will be used to provide more detail

(21)

56 certain utterances. After having the description, the next step was transcribing the

data from video-recording. In making this transcription several codes used to

indicate specific features of the transcription. Those codes were T for teacher, S

for one student, Ss for many students, … for pausing, * for no response, and ( )

for non-verbal responses.

After having the transcription, then the researcher classified the utterances

into two categories, teacher questions category and student responses category.

After all the utterances have been categorized, then the researcher classified all the

teacher questions based the taxonomy of question which adapted from the frame

work of Long (1983). The categories are display question, referential question,

comprehension check, clarification request, and confirmation check. In this step

the researcher confirmed the participants whether their utterances belong to

question or not. This was done because there were many utterances, especially

uttered by Teacher B, were not in interrogative pattern but generated responses

from students.

The next step was categorizing the techniques of modifying question

employed by the teachers when their questions were not understood by the

students. For this purpose, the researcher analyzed the transcription to find out

which teacher questions could not generate student responses and which ones

could generate incomplete responses. In classifying the techniques of modifying

questions, the researcher referred to the frame work of Chaudron (1988) who

classified the techniques into repetition, rephrasing, and additional question. As

(22)

57 the researcher used another additional classification which have been used by Wu

(1993). The classification was decomposition technique and probing technique.

Finally, to analyze the student responses to answer the third research

question, the researcher categorized them into verbal response and non-verbal

response. In categorizing the verbal responses, work of Wu (1993) was used to

categorize the verbal responses into restricted category and elaboration category.

While for categorizing non-verbal responses, the frame work of Lörscher ( 2003)

was operationalized.

The sequence of conducting the present study starting from determining

the background, formulating the problems into research questions, determining the

techniques of collecting and analyzing data, presenting the findings, to

(23)

[image:23.595.121.508.165.679.2]

58 Figure 3.2 Sequence of Conducting the Present Study

Fact

Theory Problems

Teacher Questions

Research Questions Background

Conclusion & Recommendation

Data Analysis, Findings, and

Discussion Data Collecting Techniques

Observation + Video Recording Validity: member

(24)

96 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is the end part this thesis. Here the researcher will elaborate the

conclusion drawn from the present study and some possible recommendations for

conducting further related studies.

5. 1 Conclusions

This thesis investigates teacher questioning in EFL classroom activities of

two English teachers in a Junior High School in Mataram. The purposes are to

identify the types of questions used by the teachers in EFL classroom activities,

techniques of modifying questions, types of student responses, and how

questioning facilitates students in learning L2.

The findings of the present study show that the two participants use

different types of questions during their EFL classroom activities. Teacher A who

teaches writing and reading using authentic material uses more referential

questions than other types. This finding supports the previous studies conducted

by Brock‘s (1986), Yamazaki’s (1998), and Shomoosi’s (2004) research, while

Teacher B who teaches grammar uses more display questions than the other types.

This corroborates the studies of Wu (1993), Xiao-yan (2006), Hussin (2006),

David’s (2007), Tan (2007), and Chun-miao (2007). This means that this study

gives additional support to the related previous studies. From this finding, it can

be inferred that the two teachers are very different in using questions during their

(25)

97 in teaching. Authentic materials and group discussion trigger the teachers to use

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

For further investigation the following aspects could be the focus to take

into consideration. Firstly, the further study could be focused on what makes the

teachers use different types of question in their classroom teaching. The study can

be directed to aspects of classroom teaching; 1) to what extent the material,

especially ,authentic material (Gilmore, 2007) used in teaching process affect

teachers in using certain types of questions, and 2) what kinds of classroom

activities contribute to the use of different types of questions. Secondly, the

further studies can be directed toward how teacher questions can increase

students’ language development. The studies can be emphasized on how

questioning can increase students communicative competence in listening,

(27)

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET...i

APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS...ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...iii

DECLARATION...iv

ABSTRACT...v

TABLE OF CONTENTS...vi

LIST OF TABLES...viii

LIST OF FIGURES...…...ix

CHAPTER I...1

INTRODUCTION...1

1.1 Background...1

1.2 Research Questions...3

1.3 Objectives of the Study...4

1.4 Significance of Study...4

1.5 Definitions of Key Terms...5

1.6 The Structure of This Thesis...8

CHAPTER II...10

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...10

2.1 Questioning and Classroom Teaching...10

2.1.1 Definition of Question...12

2.1.2 The Purposes of Questioning...13

2.1.3 The Functions of Questioning...16

2.2 Teacher Questions and Classroom Second Language Learning...21

2.2.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis...23

2.2.2 Output Hypothesis...25

2.2.3 Interaction Hypothesis...27

2.2.4 Classroom Interaction and Questioning...30

2.3 The Types of Teacher Questions...37

(28)

iv

2.5 Studies on Questioning...42

CHAPTER III...45

METHODOLOGY...45

3.1 Research Design...45

3.2 Research Method...46

3.3 Research Validity...47

3.4 Participants...48

3.5 Research Setting...50

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques...51

3.6.1 Observation...52

3.6.2 Video Recording...54

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques...55

CHAPTER IV...59

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS...59

4.1 Types of Teacher Questions and Student Responses...59

4.2 Questioning Modification Techniques...73

4.3 Teacher Questions and Classroom Language Learning...79

4.3.1 Teacher Questions and Language Input...79

4.3.2 Teacher Questions and Interaction...83

4.3.3 Student responses and Students’ Output...91

CHAPTER V...96

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...96

5.1Conclusions...96

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research...98

REFERENCES...99

APPENDIXES...109

Appendix 1: Transcript of Video Recording...109

Appendix 2: Observation Guideline...130

Appendix 3: Field Notes...133

(29)

v LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 2.1: Bloom’s Question Taxonomy………...38

2. Table 3.1: Distribution of Observation……….……… 54

3. Table 4.1 Number and percentage of question types ..…….……....…… 62

(30)

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 2.1: Input & output through teacher questioning………...………22

2. Figure 2.2: The Input Hypothesis Model of L2 learning and

production………...………..24

3. Figure 2.3: Process of classroom interaction……… 31

(31)

99 REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2003). “L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development”. Language Teaching Research 7, (3), 347–376.

Alison, K. (1994). “Guiding Knowledge Construction in Classroom: Effects of teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain”. American educational Research Journal Summer, 31, (2), 338-368.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2008). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Allwright, D. (1983). Centered Research: State of The Art Classroom-Centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning A Brief Historical Overview. TESOL QURTERLY,17 (2).

Allwright, D. (1989). Interaction and Negotiation in Classroom: Their Role in Learner Development. Available in

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile50allrigh.pdf.

Bailey, K.M.(2001). Observation in (Eds)Carter, R and Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Belbase, S. (2007). Research Paradigms Politics of Researchers. Available in http://www.iltaonline.com/newsletter/01-2005may/latedialog-lynch.htm Accessed on 22 May 2008.

Bitchener, J. (2004). The Relationship between the Negotiation of Meaning and Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study. LANGUAGE AWARENESS 13, (2), 2004.

Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Ally and Bacon, Inc.

Brock, C. (1986). The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, (1), 47-59.

Brown, G.D. & Edmondson, R.(1984). Asking Question. Wragg, E.C.(Eds.) Classroom Teaching Skills. Great Britain: Billing & Sons Limited, Worcester.

(32)

100 Busching, B. and Slesinger, B. (1995). Authentic Questions: What do They Look

Like? Where do They Lead? Language Arts, 75, (5), 341- 351.

Cabrera, M.P. & Martinez, P.B. (2001). The Effects of Repetition, Comprehension Checks, and Gestures, on Primary School Children in EFL Situation. ELT Journal, 55, (3), 281-288.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in Classrooms: A sociolinguistic Perspective. Review of Educational Research, 62, (2), 157- 178.

Carter, M. and McCarthy, M. 2004). Talking, Creating: Interactional Language, Creativity, and Context. Applied Linguistics, 25, (1), 62-88.

Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (2001. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.

Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of Input: Topic Reinstatements and their Effects on L2 Learners’ Recognition an Recall. TESOL QUARTERLY, 17, (3), 437 – 458.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Languge Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from the Modern Language Journal, 1916-2000. The Modern Language Journal, 81, (i), 57-76.

Chavez, M. (2006). Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and teachers' self-perceive... International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, (1), 49-102.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (1), 1315–1346.

Chun-miao, X. (2007). A Study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching, 4, (4), 29-37.

Clavin, K.K. (2007). Non-Verbal Communication in the ESL Classroom. Available in http://kathleenclavin.org/files/non-verbal_communication5.pdf

(33)

101 Clifton, J. (2006). Facilitator Talk. ELT Journal, 60, (2), 142-150.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. 4th Edition. London: Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane.

Commeyras, M. (1995). What Can We Learn from students’ questions? Theory Into Practice, 34, (2), 101-106.

Connole, H. et al. (1990). Issues and Methods in Research. Study Guide. Adelaide: South Australian College Advanced Education.

Danelson, K. (2008). The Art of Asking Questions: Two Classes That Changed My Teaching Life. English Journal, 6, (97), 75-78.

Darn, S. (2008). Asking Questions. Retrieved on March 28 2009 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/asking-questions

Dash, N. K. (2005). Research Paradigms in Education: Towards a Resolution. Journal of Indian Education, 19, (2), 1-6.

Day, R. R. (1984). Student Participation in The ESL Classroom or Some Imperfections in Practice. Language Learning, 34, (3), 69-98.

Dilon, J.T (1978). Using Question to Depress Student Thought. School Review, 50-61.

Dilon, J.T (1981). “To Question and Not To Question During Discussion”. Journal of Teacher Education, XXXII, (6), 15-20.

Dilon, J.T (1982). “Cognitive Correspondence Between Question/Statement and Response”. American Educational Research Journal Winter, 19, 94), 540-551.

Dillon, J.T. (1987). The Multidisciplinary World of Questioning. in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Ellis, R.(1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994a). The Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. et al. (1994b). “Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the

(34)

102 Ellis, R.(1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Emanuelssone, et al. ( 2008). “The Price of Participation: Teacher Control Versus Students Participation in Classroom Interaction”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, (2), 205-223.

Emilia, E. (2000). Research Method in Education (Hasil Pemikiran).Diktat Kuliah Mata Kuliah Qualitative Research. Universitas Pedidikan Indonesia: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris.

Eng Ho, D.G. (2005). “Why Do Teachers Ask the Questions TheyAsk?”, RELC Journal, 36, 297-310.

Enright, D.S. & McCloskey, M.L. (1985). Yes, Talking!: Organizing the Classroom to Promote Second Language Acquisition. TESOL QUARTERLY, 19, (3), 431-453.

Farmer, L.S.J. (2007). What is the Question? IFLA Journal, 33, (41).

Fitriani (2009). Pentingnya Guru Menguasai Keterampilan Mengajar. Jambi Express, Minggu, 24 Mei 2009. Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from

http://jambiekspres.co.id/new/index.php/guruku/2506-pentingnya-guru-mengusai-keterampilan-mengajar.

Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a Theory of Question Asking. Psychological

Research, 43, 407-420.

Gabrielatos, C. (1997). A Question of Function. Abstract of 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Greece, 12-13 April 1997.

Gall, B. and Rhody (1987). Review of Research On Questioning Techniques in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Gall, M. (1970). The Use Question in Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, (5), 707-721.

Gall, M. et al.(1978). Effects of Questioning Techniques and Recitation on Student Learning .American Educational Research Journal, 15, (2), 175-199.

(35)

103 Gebhard, G.J. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. USA:

The University of Michigan Press.

Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods Research Method Forum, 4 (summer 1999).

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic Materials and the Authenticity in Foreign Language Learning. Language Teaching, (40), 97-118.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf.

Goodboy, A.K. & Myers, S.A. (2008). The Effect of Confirmation on Student Communication and Learning Outcomes. Communication Education, 57, (2), 153-179.

Graesser, A. C. & Person, N. K. (1994). Question Asking during Tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Spring, 1994), pp. 104-137.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching, New Edition. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Third Edition Completely Revised and Updated. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Forth Edition. UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61, (3), 193-201.

Hussain, N. (2003). Helping EFL/ESL Students by Asking Quality Questions. The Internet TESL Journal, IX, (10), October 2003.

(36)

104 Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and Production Process in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, (2), 168-196.

Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education limited.

Johnson, R. (1997). Question Techniques to Use in Teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, (8), 45-49.

King, A. (1990). Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in The Classroom Through Reciprocal Questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, (4), 664-687.

King, A. (1994). Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, (2), 338-368.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Great Britain: Pergamon Institute of English.

Krashen, S.D. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present and Future. RELC Journal, 39, 178.

Kruse, J. (2009). More than Questions? .Available in

http://educatech.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/more-than-questions/

Lang, R H. and Evans, N.D. (2006). Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effective Teaching. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lei, X. (2009). Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom. English language Teaching, 2 (1), 75 – 79.

Lincoln, Y.S & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

Long, H.M. (1987). The Experimental Classroom. ANNALS, AAPSS, 490, March 1987.

Long, H.M. (1981). Input, Interaction, and Second-Language Acquisition. Annals New York Academy of Science, 259-278.

Lörscher, W. (2003). Nonverbal Aspects of Teacher-Pupil Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003.

(37)

105 Ma, Xiaoyan. (2008). The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes.

International Education Studies,1, (4).

Mackenzie, M and Knipe, S.(2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology Issues In Educational Research, 16, accessed on 22 May 2008.

Marke, N. (2002). Language in Development: Questions of Theory, Questions of Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 36, (3).

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology A Textbook for Teacher. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989a). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989b). Understanding Language Classrooms A Guide for Teacher-Initiated Action.London: Prentice Hall Group (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative Language Teaching: Making it Work. ELT Journal, 41, (2).

Ornstein, A.C. (1987). Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching. NASP Bulletin, 71; 71-79.

Ornstein, A.C. (1990). Strategies for Effective Teaching. Chicago: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.

Otero, J. & Graeser, A.C (2001). Elements of a Model of Question Asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, (2), 143-175.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007a). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (1), 36- 37.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007b). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (2), 32- 33.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007c) Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning Part III. Journal of Developmental Education, (31), (3), 34- 35.

(38)

106 Pica, T. et al.(1987). The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL

QURTERLY, 21, (4).

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. and Linnell, J. (1996). Language

Learners’ Interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30(1): 59-84.

Pinter,A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poulos, A. and Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of Feedback : The Students’ Perspective. Assesement and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, (2), 143-154.

Sabeni, M. (2008). Keterampilan Bertanya dasar dan Lanjutan. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://beni64.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/keterampilan-bertanya-dasar-dan-lanjut/

Sadker and Sadker (1990). Questioning Skills in (Eds.) Cooper, J.M. (1990) Classroom Teaching Class, Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath Company.

Seedhose, P. (1996). Classroom Interaction: Possibilities and Impossibilities. ELT Journal 50; 16-24, 1996.

Shannon, F. (2005). Interactionist Theory In SLA. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From http://fredshannon.blogspot.com/2005/11/interactionist-theory-in-second.html

Shomoossi, N.(2004). The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction : A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Matrix, 4, (2).

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Sofa, P. (2008). Keterampilan Menjelaskan dan Bertanya. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://massofa.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/ketrampilan-menjelaskan-dan-bertanya/

Steensig and Drew (2008). Introduction: questioning and affiliation/ disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies, 10, (5).

(39)

107 Suherdi, D. (2006). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach.

Bandung: UPI Press.

Suherdi, D. (2008). Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: UPI Press.

Suter, C. (2001). Exploring Teacher’s Questions and Feedback. Module One Assessment Task.

Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In (Eds.) Lantoolf (2000) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2007). The Output Hypothesis: Its history and Its Future. A seminar handout. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From

http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf.

Tan, Zhi. (2007). Questioning in Chinese University EL Classroom. Regional Language Centre (RELC) Journal, 38, (1), 87- 102.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3, Number 3, September, 1997. Retrieved on April 24, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html.

Thomas, M. (1987). Classroom Interaction. Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (1996). Teacher Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal, 50, 279-289.

Tollefson, J. (1997). A System for Improving Teachers’ Questions. In Ed. Kral, Thomas (1997) Teacher Development Making the Right Moves, Selected Articles from English Teaching Forum 1989- 1993.

Tsui, A. B.M (2001). Classroom Interaction in (Eds) Carter, R and Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. B.M. (1985). Analyzing Input and Interaction in Second Language Classrooms. RELC Journal 1985; 16; (8).

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of Negotiation on Language Learner’ Output. Language Learning, 47, (4), 589-636.

(40)

108 Varlander (2008). The Role of Students’ emotions in formal feedback situations.

Teaching in Higher Education, 13, (2), 145-156.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, (1), 3-23.

Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the Talk of the TESOL Classroom. ELT Journal 60, 133-141.

Wilen, W. (1987a). Effective Questions and Questioning: A Classroom Application, in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Wilen, W. (1987b). Improving Teachers’ Questions and Questioning: Research Inform Practice. in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Williamson (2006). Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library Trends, 55, (1), 19, Accessed on 22 May 2008.

Wilson, J. (1999). High and Low Achievers’ Classroom Interaction Patterns in an Upper Primary School. Paper presented at AARE Conference- Melbourne Australia 29th November – 2nd December 1999.

Winataputra, U. S. (2008). Keterampilan Dasar Mengajar. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://solselku.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/keterampilan-dasar-mengajar/

Wu, Kam-Yin (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisted. RELC Journal, (24), (22), 49-68. Accessed on May 22 2008.

Xiao-yan, MA (2006). Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. A Dissertation Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of M.A. in English Language and Literature.

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited Guests: The Influence of Teachers’ Roles and Pedagogies on the Positioning of English Language Learners in the Regular Classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45, (2), 495-522.