A study on questioning in PBI micro teaching course at Sanata Dharma University


Teks penuh








Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education


Gregorius Julian Cahyadi Student Number: 121214117





Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a

study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.

There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’ and

Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.

The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions

related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of



Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.

Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.

Penelitian ini menemuka n sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79 pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.




First of all, I would like thank The Almighty God for blessing my life. He gives me strength, chance, good people, patience, and health in order to assist me to finish my thesis.

My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Emanuel Sunarto, M.Hum., for his guidance, motivation, time, and patience. He kindly helped me by giving support and encouragement during thesis consultation. He had shown his quality as an advisor by routinely monitored, giving useful feedback and solutions.

I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved parents, Yulianus Gumpol and Cornelia Dewi Pramana, for their love, prayer, motivation, and

patience. I also would like to thank my brothers and sisters, Bang Alfon, Mas Edo, Bagas, Nadia, Dea, Yeyes, and Agapitus for their support. They convinced me that

I could finish my thesis well no matter what happened.

I thank to Julyan Adhitama, who helped me to proofread my thesis. Furthermore, I express my gratitude to the members of class D (Penguins), for being best friends during my study in PBI. They taught me a lot of meaningful things. My gratitude goes to members of Train8 (Thomas, Ajeng, Fira, Ave, and Regin) who helped me to lead them by giving motivation and suggestion so that I

could my role and finish SPD class. I would not forget anyone who had given me assistance that I cannot mention one by one.









ABSTRAK ... vii






A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Problems ... 4

C. Problem Limitation ... 4

D. Research Objectives ... 5

E. Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6


A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Types of Questions ... 8

a. Procedural Questions ... 9

b. Convergent Questions ... 9

c. Divergent Questions ... 10

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities ... 10



b. Understand ... 13

c. Apply ... 14

d. Analyze ... 16

e. Evaluate ... 17

f. Create ... 17

B. Theoretical Framework ... 18


A. Research Method ... 20

B. Research Setting ... 21

C. Research Participants ... 21

D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering techniques ... 21

1. Research Instruments ... 21

a) Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016 .. 21

b) Observation Table ... 22

2. Data Gathering Techniques ... 23

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 24

1. Data Reduction ... 24

2. Data Display ... 25

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification ... 25


A. Types of Question Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 27

1. Procedural Questions ... 28

2. Convergent Questions ... 29

3. Divergent Questions ... 30

B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 31

1. Remember ... 32

2. Understand ... 34

3. Apply ... 36



5. Evaluate ... 38

6. Create ... 39


A. Conclusions ... 40

B. Recommendations ... 41

1. For Students of PBI Micro Teaching Course ... 42

2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course ... 42

3. For Future Researchers ... 42





Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions ... 22

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ... 23

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions ... 24

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questioning ... 25

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course ... 27




Appendix A: List of Participants’ Questions in Micro Teaching Course ...45




This chapter is an introductory part. It presents the research background, research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A.Research Background

Teaching is a process of how to make students particularly experience a learning activity and motivate them to be good and useful people. In addition, teaching also gives big responsibilities to teachers in leading and guiding students. Therefore, teachers are determined to have certain good qualifications either in knowledge, attitude, or even a teaching technique. By having such qualifications, it is able to increase the quality of teaching learning process and give good impact to

students’ development.

One of the qualifications should be mastered as a teacher is questioning. It is commonly used in a class activity. Gall (as cited in Richards and Lockhart, 1996)

says “in some classrooms over half class time is taken up with question and answer

exchanges.” Based on the statement, it shows that questioning plays a critical role


diet of classroom interaction through which a variety of pedagogical and social

actions are carried out.”

There is saying “question is knowledge.” It means that the human curiosity

that comes from question will lead to knowledge. It seems simple but containing

useful things particularly for students’ development. Kerry (2002) in his book says

that “questioning transfers the emphasis in learning from the teacher to the student.

The teacher enquires, probes, challenges; the student is required to think speculate,

and contribute.” (p. 75). Thus, questioning is transfer knowledge from what

teachers have to students by processing it. Teacher needs to deliver critical questions to encourage students thinking critically to find the answer. For instance, high order questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and provide their own opinion will help them to develop the way of thinking. However, questions are given should notice what course is being taught because every subject has their own needs. For instance, vocabulary class may determine students’ memorization more than speaking class.


when given questions. Considering how important questioning and its questions is, experts believe that it is a tool that teachers have for helping students to build understanding (Wiseman and Hunt, 2008). The researcher is in line with the

experts’ argument that asking questions gives positive impact to students’

development and make a teacher easier to adapt with the class situation. In order to have qualified teachers in the future, the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) provides students with a course to facilitate what teacher

candidates’ need. The course is famously called Micro Teaching. The ELESP is a

department that is affiliated with the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education. This course is given in accordance with the provision of the ELESP that is being a study program that prepares and produces students to become English teachers who are professional, intellectual, humanistic, dignified, and acquiring the characteristic as educators.


questionings. Therefore, this research is expected to enrich knowledge particularly for teacher candidates in having a good questioning skill.

B. Research Problems

Based on the research background above, there are two research problems formulated in this study.

1. What types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

2. What levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

C. Problem Limitation

The study focuses on the analysis of questions by students when they have teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching course. Specifically, the focus is questions in a verbal way produced during the simulation. The researcher employs the theory of types of questions suggested by Richards and Lockhart (1996) to analyze the first research problem which is types of questions. For the second research problem, the researcher uses the theory of Anderson, et al. (2001) in


D. Research Objectives

Based on the research problems, the objectives of this study are as follows. 1. To find out the types of questions asked by students’ teaching practice in Micro

Teaching class D batch 2013

2. To analyze the levels of questioning used by students’ teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013

E. Research Benefits

By conducting this study, it is expected to give benefits especially in English Language Teaching.

1. Micro Teaching Students

This study is able to enrich students’ knowledge on levels and types of questions. It also helps students to reflect their questioning skills so that in the future they are able to improve their performances and know how to ask questions properly.

2. Micro Teaching Lecturers

Lecturers are expected to guide and take responsibility on students’ teaching


3. The ELESP Sanata Dharma University

The finding of this study is expected to raise awareness of English Department on the issue of questioning especially in Micro Teaching course. In addition, it helps the ELESP to make a good teaching material about questioning. 4. Future Researchers

Future researchers are expected to conduct more aspects of questionings used in Micro Teaching course. In addition, future researchers may investigate levels and types of questions based on subjects or courses taught in Micro Teaching course, school, and campus particularly the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.

F. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding and to give better understanding of some terms, the researcher provides their definitions.

1. Questioning

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions (“Questioning”). Questioning is fundamental to good teaching and learning (Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.1). In addition, it is one of the skills and techniques in teaching. By questioning, it helps students to review, check on comprehension, stimulate critical thinking and control classroom activities (Blosser, 1991).

2. Micro Teaching


to a small number of pupils in a short duration of time.” In this case, Micro Teaching is a course offered in the sixth semester of the ELESP Sanata Dharma University. This course provides teaching practice simulation with allocated time for students to practice and to master teaching skills before experiencing Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL) in junior or senior high schools.

3. Levels of Questioning





A.Theoretical Description

In this section, the researcher provides relevant theories and reviews similar research studies. Thus, the researcher employs the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to examine the levels of questioning and uses the theory of types of questions. 1. Types of Questions

There are several types of question suggested by experts. In this study, the researcher employs theory suggested by Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). Based on the theory, there are three types of questions, namely procedural, convergent, and divergent. According to Qashoa (2013), the use of such

classifications is able to engage students’ participation and make them to take part

in classroom interaction. He also argues that the types are better used in heterogeneous class since it makes students feel more successful and challenged (p.54). However, the researcher elaborates the theories with some others in order to support the study.


activity and sometimes used for asking willingness. Meanwhile, the lowest type is divergent questions.

a. Procedural Questions

Procedural questions have a relation with classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.186). It means that this question has a function as opposed to the content of learning. As an illustration, the following questions such as how are you? or have you done, class? contain different meanings and they have their own purpose as complement of questions relate to mastering content of a lesson. The first question is used in pre-activity. The

intention of the question is to ask about students’ condition and make them be ready

to follow activity. In the second question, the teacher asks for students’ confirmation in doing exercises or discussions. Based on the example above shows that procedural questions have a different function from questions designed to help students master the content of a lesson (Richards and Lockhart, 1996).

b. Convergent Questions

The second type is a convergent question. In short, Gallagher and Aschner (as cited in Wilen, 1987) define convergent as a question that tends to demand a

students’ responses along a single direction which requires a single correct or best


Then, it does not need high order thinking. Furthermore, convergent questions focus on the recall of previously presented information. The additional function of convergent questions is to introduce the topic before the teacher begins lesson and explains the content of learning.

c. Divergent Questions

The last is a divergent question. Wilen (1987) states that this question is less predictable than the convergent question. The teacher may not expect and know the response or answer given by students. Richards and Lockhart (1996) add that divergent questions do not seek short answers and responses and they require high-level thinking. Students should be able to provide their own information and to view a topic from new perspectives. The examples of divergent questions are how have computers had an economic impact on society? and how would business today function without computers? The teacher can provide divergent questions after asking convergent questions (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187)

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions

(“Questioning”). In addition, people propose questioning in order to find out

answers and more information. In the context of classroom situation, questioning is an activity which involves interaction between a teacher to students and students to

students. The questioning activity may happen when a teacher checks students’

understanding, tests students’ knowledge, or because of students’ curiosity. It


Levels of questioning vary from an expert to another. This study employs

levels of questioning based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Krathwohl (2001)

says that the taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction. It means that the taxonomy provides an important framework focusing on higher order thinking. By providing it, this taxonomy can assist teachers in designing

performance task, crafting questions, and giving feedback to students’ work.

Anderson et al. (2001) in their taxonomy divide the six categories of the cognitive process dimension (p.31). They are remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Those levels are often used in the objective of learning as well-known as C1 until C6 in Indonesia curriculum

a. Remember

Anderson, et al. (2001) say that remember is a process to retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term memory. They add the scope of this level.

Remember knowledge is essential for meaningful learning and problem solving as that knowledge is used in more complex tasks. For example, knowledge of the correct spelling of common English words appropriate to a given grade level is necessary if the student is to master writing an essay (p.66).


In this level, there are two processes of cognitive: recognizing and recalling. Anderson et al. (2001) says that recognizing involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory in order to compare it with presented information. They explain that in recognizing, the students recall for a piece of information that is identical to the presented information. Then, they determine whether the information matches with previously learned knowledge or not. Recognizing is used when students are able to connect their memories with what they have experienced or known before. As an illustration, Reeves (2011) gives a clear example of recognizing. The question “which of these numbers is one thousand?” requires student to recognize the correct answer in one possibility (p. 201).

Actually, recalling has the same procedure as well as recognizing. Anderson et al. (2001) specifically define its cognitive process as follows.

Recalling involves retrieving relevant from-long term memory when given a prompt to do so and it is usually in form of question. In recalling, students search long-term memory for a piece information and brings that piece of information to working memory where it can be processed. For instance, in literature, an objective could be to recall the poets who wrote various poems. A corresponding test question is “Who wrote The Charge of the Light

Brigade?” (p.69).


b. Understand

Students are said understand when they are able to construct meaning from instructional languages, including oral written, and graphic communications. Besides, students understand when they build connections between the new knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). In this category, there are six cognitive processes like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, and comparing.

Interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one representational form to another. It may involve converting words to words, pictures to words, words to pictures, numbers to words, words to numbers, and the like. Translating, paraphrasing, representing, and clarifying are alternative terms for interpreting (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). Exemplifying according to Anderson, et al. (2001) occurs when a student gives a specific example or an instance of a general concept or principle and it involves identifying the defining features of the general concept or principle. For instance, a teacher gives four kind of texts (only one of which is a descriptive text) and asks students to name the text that is descriptive.

The third cognitive process is classifying. It begins with a specific instance and requires the students to find a general concept or principle. Classifying involves

detecting relevant features that “fit” both the specific instance and the concept


statement that represents presented information a general theme. Alternative terms of summarizing are generalizing and abstracting.

The fifth is inferring. It occurs when a student is able to abstract a concept or principle that accounts for a set example by encoding the relevant features of each instance. Mayer (2002) says that inferring involves drawing a logical conclusion from presented information. For instance, when learning Spanish as a

second language, the objective may be “Students will be able to infer grammatical

principles from examples.” Then, to assess the objective, students are given article

noun pairs “la casa, el muchacho, la senorita, el pero.” What they need to do is formulating a principle when to use the article la and el (p.229)

Comparing usually involves making comparisons among instances within the context of the entire set (Anderson et al. 2001). Furthermore, they say that detecting things such as similarities and differences between two or more objects are the part of comparing the cognitive process. The alternative terms for this cognitive process are contrasted, mapping, or matching.

According to Anderson et al. (2001), explaining cognitive process happens when a student is able to construct and use a cause-and-effect model of a system. Reeves (2011) adds when people understand, they are able to express information or concepts in their own words or explain a meaning of something to a new situation and idea (p.202).

c. Apply


knowledge. In addition, it requires students to know (remember) and then understand either knowledge or information (Reeves, 2011). When students are given apply questions, they need to implement certain concepts or knowledge in finding answers and solutions.

There are two cognitive processes in the applying level. They are executing and implementing. Mayer (2002) says that executing requires students to apply a procedure to a familiar task. In this type, students need to make a choice about what steps are used and they are determined to modify it if the chosen procedure goes wrong. To illustrate the situation, here is the example given by Mayer.

A sample objective in elementary level mathematics is learn to divide one whole number by another, both with multiple digits. Then, in order to assess the objective teacher gives worksheet to students containing 15 whole number division exercises and ask them to find the quotients (p.229). The second cognitive process of apply is implementing. According to Mayer (2002), implementing occurs when a student applies one or more procedures to an unfamiliar task. Anderson et al. (2001) argues that since students need selection, they must possess an understanding of the type of problem encountered as well as the range of available procedures. It means that students need to know and understand the problem then solve the problem using the selected procedures. Implementing has correlation with understand and create levels. Here is the sample objectives and corresponding assessments.


d. Analyze

Anderson et al. (2001) says that analyze involves breaking a material into its constituent parts and determining how the parts are related to each other and to an overall structure. Most of courses insist students to have a good analyze ability. Therefore, this category is often used in teaching-learning activity and students are hoped to be able to differentiate facts and opinions then make conclusions for supportive information. In 2002, Mayer adds the objective of analyze learning is to determine relevant or important pieces of a message (differentiating), the ways in which pieces of a message are configured (organizing), and the underlying purpose of the message (attributing).

Differentiating involves distinguishing the parts of a whole structure in terms of their relevance or importance (Anderson et al. 2001). It means that differentiating requires students to determine relevance or essential things with the overall structure. Mayer (2002) adds that this cognitive process occurs when students discriminate relevant from irrelevant parts or important from unimportant parts of presented materials. For instance, in differentiating apples and oranges, the relevant thing in the context of fruit is internal seeds, not colors or even shapes. Discriminating, selecting, distinguishing, and focusing are alternative terms for differentiating.


biases, values, or intention underlying communications (Anderson et al. 2001. p.82). They add that attributing involves a process of deconstruction, in which students determine the intentions of the author of the presented material.

e. Evaluate

Evaluate is defined as making judgments based on criteria and standards (Mayer, 2002). There are a few criteria used in evaluating such as quality, effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency and the use of those criteria are determined by students or other factors. Anderson et al. (2001) state that not all judgments are evaluative. Therefore, evaluating focuses on the criteria related to effectiveness of a result then it is compared with planning and procedures which are being used. The cognitive processes of this category are checking and critiquing.

In 2002, Mayer states that checking happens when students detect inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product, determines whether those things has internal consistency as it is being implemented (p.230). Anderson et al. (2001) find that when checking is combined with planning and implementing, it involves determining how well the plan is working. This cognitive process is usually called as testing, detecting, monitoring, and coordinating. The second is critiquing. Mayer (2002) argues that it requires students to find inconsistencies among products, detect internal consistency, and even make judgment. When making critique, students have to use external criteria and judge it.

f. Create


product by organizing several elements into a different pattern or structure. Similarly, Mayer (2002) says that students are determined to produce an original product. Creating is connected with previously learned knowledge. There are three cognitive processes in this category: generating, planning, and producing. The process of generating represents the problem and arriving at alternatives or hypotheses that meet certain criteria (Anderson, et al, 2001, p.68). Besides convergent thinking, Mayer (2002) adds that generating also involves divergent thinking and forms the core of what can be called creative thinking. It means that create provides opportunities for students to assemble parts of knowledge into a whole using creative thinking and problem solving.

The second is planning. It involves devising a solution method that meets a

problem’s criteria, that is developing a plan for solving the problem (Anderson et

al. 2001). In 2002, Mayer adds that in planning, students may establish a sub goal, for instance breaking a task into subtasks to be performed when solving the problem. The last is producing. Here, it carries out a plan for solving a given problem that meets certain specification. It is not only producing but inventing a product. He says that students are given a functional description of a goal and must create a product that satisfies the description. The situation of this cognitive process is like a teacher asks students to create or make a recount text based on their experiences.

B. Theoretical Framework


requires teachers to have a good questioning skill in order to support the teaching-learning activity and develop students’ critical thinking. Before becoming teachers in regularly school, teacher candidates need to be trained particularly their questioning skill in Micro Teaching course as it plays an important role either for them or students.

Addressing the first research problem about types of questions, the researcher employs the theory of Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). The use of the theory is intended to identify what types of questions asked by the students of Micro Teaching course. Based on the theory, there are three levels of questions, namely, procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions.





This chapter presents the discussion about the method employed in this research. The detailed discussion includes the research method, research setting, research participants, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In conducting this study, the researcher implemented qualitative research. Creswell (2014) states that qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to social or human problem. In addition, qualitative research focuses on reports of experience or on data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically (Hancock, Ockleford, and Windridge, 2009, p.6). The purpose of qualitative research is to give total picture of the study in a detailed description so that readers have better understanding on the phenomenon (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh, 2010). The researcher employed qualitative research to understand and describe a phenomenon on students of micro teaching questioning in their teaching practice.

This study specifically belonged to content analysis. “Content analysis is defined as a tool to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts

or sets of texts” (Writing@CSU, 2004). Similarly, Rose, Spinks, and Canhoto


The data were collected from the video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The content that was analyzed is questioning part and its questions. It was transcribed into the written form to assist the researcher in identifying levels of questioning and types of questions.

B. Research Setting

This research was conducted in PBI Micro Teaching class D Batch 2013 at Sanata Dharma University. There were 14 participants and each participant was given one section and 25 minutes allocated time to have teaching practice.

C. Research Participants

The participants who were involved in this research were 14 students of Micro Teaching class D batch 2013. They were in sixth semester of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.

D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques.

1. Research Instruments

In order to gather the data and answer the research problems, the researcher used two instruments, namely video recording and observation table.

a. Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016


of videos. The videos were recorded during the teaching practice section based on time allocation. The duration of teaching practice simulation for each participant was maximum 25 minutes. Every participant taught different topic for levels of junior and senior high schools and it was adapted based on curriculum 2006 and 2013. The researcher did the observation and note typing from the video of teaching simulation to collect the data. Then, the collected data which were in form of utterances or questions were analyzed using several techniques.

b. Observation Table

In order to support collected the data, the researcher used an instrument as tool named observation table. This observation table was functioned to classify the collected data. In gathering data for the research problems, the researcher used observation table as follows.

Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions

Participant Number of Case

Form of

Questions Time Context

Types of Questions




PC: Procedural Questions CV: Convergent Questions DV: Divergent Questions


Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning


Participant Number of Case Questions Time Context


The table above shows how the data are classified into each category of level. The top row of the table represents the levels of questioning. Every level is placed in a separated table. The left side of the table marks every participant. The columns of form of questions and time are used to record what participants asked and when it happened in minutes and seconds. There is a column of number of case. Its function is to give a call number for every question so that readers are easy to find examples of levels of questioning. The context column is used to explain the situation and purpose when the participants proposed questioning.

2. Data Gathering Techniques


In addition, the researcher also took notes if there were any levels and types besides the observation table.

E. Data Analysis Techniques

This section presents how the data were analyzed. In this study, the researcher used qualitative data analysis as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) to analyze the data. There are three steps in analyzing, namely, data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification.

1. Data Reduction

Miles and Huberman (1994) state that data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, and transforming the data based on field notes or transcriptions (p.10). In this step, the researcher selected the relevant data and listed question forms from the videos. Then, the collected data were classified based on their levels and types. After collecting and classifying the data, the researcher recorded them using a table. For the first problem, the form of the table is as following.

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions

No Types of Questions Number of Questions Percentage

1 Procedural questions 2 Convergent questions 3 Divergent questions


Table 3.3 aimed to help the researcher analyzing the data of levels of questioning. The table recorded the number of every type in form of number and percentage.

For the second research problem, the researcher used Table 3.4 to record and analyzed the data. The table had the same function as Table 3.3. Specifically, it was used to record the number of every types of question.

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questionings

No Levels of Questioning Number Percentage

1 Remember 2 Understand

3 Apply

4 Analyze 5 Evaluate 6 Create

2. Data Display

The second step was data display. A display is an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p.11). At this stage, the researcher provided how the result of data was displayed. The researcher used a form of text to display the data. Specifically, the text was used for explanation was narrative text.

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification


did verification through the existing field, using further data collection, and reviewing among colleagues. However, the conclusion was verified during research





In this chapter, the researcher presents the results and discussion of the data to answer the research questions as stated in chapter I. There are (1) what types of questions Micro Teaching students occur when performing teaching simulation and (2) what levels of questioning are asked by students of Micro Teaching in their teaching practice simulation.

A. Types of Questions found in Micro Teaching Course

In this part, the researcher presents the data of the second research problem. There are 262 questions asked by the participants. Based on the findings, the researcher finds that there are three types of questions during the teaching practice simulation. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions. The details of the findings are showed in the table as follows.

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course

The table above indicates that all types of questions occur during students’ performance. Besides, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ capacity in asking questions. The total number of questions relate to the types of questions are 262.

No Types of Question Number Percentage

1 Procedural Questions 123 47 %

2 Convergent Questions 118 45 %


1. Procedural Questions

Richard and Lockhart (1996) state that procedural questions only relate to classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management. It means that this type does not have any relation with the content of learning (p.186).

Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows that procedural is the number one type of question used in the teaching practice simulation. Most of the participants state this question to open the class at the beginning. Here are some examples of procedural.

[145] How are you today? [297] How was your holiday?

For case [145], most of the participants state the question to open the class and only few say [297] because the schedule when having teaching practice is different. Case [145] is classified as a classroom procedure and routine so that it is a part of procedural question. The participant uses the question to check students’ condition and make sure if they are ready to join the class. Case [297] is also stated to open the class. It is like a chit-chat or informal conversation in order to attract

students’ attention.

Procedural questions can be used when the participant asks for students’ willingness such as the following cases.

[163] Can anyone help me? [208] Mario, can you read?

[213] Anyone who want to lead the prayer?


are grouped as classroom procedures and routines and have no relation with the topic of the day.

Another function of procedural questions is asking for students’

confirmation. It is delivered after the participant has finished explaining the main topic, giving instructions or commands, and checking assignments. Here are the following examples.

[209] Is it understood or not? [235] Have you finished, guys? [257] Anyone get this sheet? 2. Convergent Questions

This type seeks for similar students’ responses and focuses on a central theme (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p. 186). Besides, convergent questions require short answers and statements so that they do not need high level of thinking. Based on the Table 4.2, 45% type of question belongs to convergent.

Before starting the lesson, some participants propose questions to lead the students to the topic. They ask various convergent questions such as the following cases.

[146] What do you do before the class?


students’ favorite food. Then, the participant chooses one of students to explain the

steps of making his breakfast, in this case is indomie. The researcher sees the both case [146] and [218] may engage students’ participation in the teaching-learning activity.

The data findings show that convergent questions are also stated in the end of the class. Most of the participants restate questions that are delivered in the beginning of the lesson. The function of these questions is to review materials that have been learned. Here are the following questions.

[292] What have we learned today? [405] What is the generic structure?

In case [292], the participant states the question to make a conclusion of the lesson. Then, students respond by giving an answer about the topic of the day. For instance, if in the beginning the participant says the class would learn a report text, students give the same words. The same case happens to [405]. In the beginning, the participant provides information about the generic structure of a text. Then, in the end, the participant proposes the same question to review and recall students’ knowledge on the materials. Therefore, the functions of questions [292] and [405] are to review the lesson and make a conclusion by recalling previously learned knowledge.

3. Divergent Questions


others. This finding has the same result as Gallagher and Aschner’s (as cited in Wilen, 1987) which find that divergent questions are seldom used by classroom teachers (p.15).

The finding is also supported by Sukur (2016) which states that divergent questions are rarely employed in Micro teaching course. However, the researcher finds some divergent questions in the following examples.

[150] From the video, what question that you can ask?

[183] What do you think about the moment that always update in the news? Case [150] is categorized as a divergent question since the question is asked by students is less predictable. The participant states the question to explore

students’ ideas about the video and determine them to create a product (question).

In this situation, there are no wrong answers because all responses are acceptable. In case [183], the participant gives an open-ended question. It means that student can present any answer and the participant may not expect the responses given. However, case [150] and [183] do not seek single answer and short response but look for a variety of possible answers that can make longer discussion about news. B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course


Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course

Levels of Questioning Number Percentage

Create 1 0.6%

Evaluate 7 4.9%

Analyze 12 8.3%

Apply 11 7.7%

Understand 34 23.6%

Remember 79 54.9%

The table indicates that all levels of questioning occur during the students’ performance. In addition, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ teaching capacity in asking questions. The total number of levels of questioning employed by the students are 144. Remember is the most frequently applied in Micro Teaching class and create has the least number compared with the others. The detailed description and explanation of the data findings are discussed in the following sections. 1. Remember

Remember involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory (Mayer, 2002, p.228). Students will identify and match questions with presented information when they are given things that are related to previously learned knowledge (Anderson et al. 2001). Based on the findings, most participants deliver the remember question in opening and closing the class. Here are some examples of the cases.


Case [39] is asked when the participant opened the class and the question is categorized as an introductory part. The participant previously asked students’ experiences on receiving and making invitation card. Several students have the situation and the participant instructs them to mention phrases or words used in the card based on their experiences.

For case [65], it is expressed after the participant asked a specific moment about greeting and farewell. Several students experienced such situation and they are asked to give some examples on how to say something in greeting and farewell.

Remember questions can also be differentiated from the context or situation. To give an illustration, here are the examples.

[24] : Which one is transition words?

[51] : What is language features of recount text? [78] : What is the generic structure?

Basically, those questions do not belong to level of remember. However, if readers see from time and situation where those are delivered, they are. The situation for the first sentence is when the teacher has just explained about transition words. In the explanation, the teacher gives some examples of transition words. Then, students are given a text and asked to mention the transition words. It means that the students retrieved relevant knowledge from a long-term memory, in this case was the transition words, then compare and match it with the presented information.


situation, the teacher restates it in order to review the topic and recall the knowledge.

The researcher sees that remember level becomes the highest frequency because Micro Teaching students have the tendency to restate questions. For instance, a teacher asks the purpose and the generic structure of a text in the beginning of the class. Then, he/she proposes the same questions in the end of class activity to make lesson review. In addition, Micro Teaching students often ask questions relate to experiences in the past so that students need to retrieve their memory.

2. Understand

When students are able to build connection between the new knowledge and theirs, they are said understand (Anderson, et al. 2001). This level has six cognitive processes. In this case, the researcher finds 5 types of understand occurring in the teaching practice. They are interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, comparing, and explaining.

[87] : What have you learned from video?

Case [87] belongs to interpreting. Mayer (2002) states that interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one form representation to another such as words to words, pictures to words, and the like (p.228). The

researcher sees that the participant uses a video in order to stimulate the students’

thinking. It is a kind of warming up before going to the main activity. By asking the question, the students might state opinions using their own words.


Case [103] is expressed after the participant has explained the concepts or

principles of the topic. In order to check the students’ understanding, the participant

asks the question and hoped the students can give some examples. Thus, this case belongs to exemplifying.

[112] : Which one is the title?

In case [112], the participant and students are analyzing a text. The participant has explained the generic structure of a text and gives an example. The researcher sees that the aim of this question is to make the students are able to determine and categorize something, in this case is the title. Therefore, case [112] is classified as exemplifying.

[111] : Do you know what the difference between report text and descriptive text is?

Case [111] above is classified as comparing cognitive process since the question intends to contrast differences between two texts. Several things can be compared from those texts such as meaning, purpose, language features, generic structure, and the like. The question is delivered in the beginning of the activity when the participant talks the main topic.

[94] : So, do you know how to make application letter?


3. Apply

Reeves (2011), says applying knowledge requires students’ memorization

and understanding. Further, an application level refers to an outcome where students use the new information they have learned (Price and Nelson, 2010). In this level, the researcher finds two types of application levels, executing and implementing. Here are the examples of executing.

[121] : Inggit, may I borrow your book? [122] : Tita, can I borrow your paper?

In case [121] and [122], the participant gives direct questions to two students after explaining and giving examples of the topic. Here, the two students face the same situation as the different substance in which the first case uses may and the second one uses can. The participant proposes the questions in order to see how far the students are applying acquired knowledge. Fortunately, the students can give the right response.

[119] : If your teacher is your father, and you talking with him at home, what would you say?


4. Analyze

Analyze level gives students to learn more of the nature of something by distinguishing its components and figuring out how those relate to each other (Reeves, 2011). Additionally, the outcome of this level requires that students understand both the content and the structural form of the material (Price and Nelson, 2010). Table 4.1 presents 6,7% of the questions which belong to this category.

There is one of three types found. It is organizing. Organizing process is also called as structuring. Structuring refers to analyzing the organizational structure of a work. The following cases are the examples.

[129] What is the text structure of this thing?

[133] Can you identify what is the generic structure of this?

In cases [128] and [133], the participant uses the questions to ask students analyze and identify the structure. Those questions are stated after the participant distributes sheets containing a recount text. Based on the explanation in the beginning of the class, the students determine the elements or parts of generic structure of recount text.

Another type of analyze question is found when the participant asks students to determine a kind of text by stating the following question.

[132] What kind of text this is?

The participant states the question as part of topic that would be learned in

the class. The researcher analyzes that question [132] requires students’ ability to


generalization. In this context, the students should be able to categorize texts by identifying things such as language features, generic structure, and their function. 5. Evaluate

In brief, evaluate involves making judgments based on criteria and standards (Mayer, 2002). In addition, people must have knowledge of what is being judged as well as knowledge of the judgment criteria (Reeves, 2011). This level of questions 4,9% occurs during teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching. It means there are 7 evaluative questions asked by several participants. Here are the examples.

[137] Is it informal or formal? Why?

[140] Why you can say that it is the orientation? [142] Can you explain why?

If readers take a look at the data findings, most of the participants stated

evaluative questions using “why”. They use [137] to ask the students give answers

and their reasons. This question practices the students to present and defend opinion by making judgments about the answers based on a set of criteria. The criteria here are things, situation and even principles which are established and categorized as informal and formal. Case [140] and [142] are also classified as evaluative

questions because they demand the students’ opinions. In this case, students are


6. Create

The last level of questioning found in teaching practice simulation is create. This is the lowest frequency with 0,6% or in the number of 1 question. Creative questions form a coherent whole by putting elements together (Anderson et al. 2001). In this level, the students are determined to have and produce original products. It can be seen from the following questions.

[144] What question can you ask from the video?

In this situation, a product refers to question that is made by students. Before playing a video, the participant asks students to make questions and present them to class. Only several students could understand and followed the instruction. It portrays that how difficult is to make questions especially the essential or critical ones. This level of question requires the students to compile information together and then invent a product or even propose alternative solutions.





This chapter presents the research conclusions and recommendations of this research. In the conclusion part, the researcher provides the results of the research problems. For the recommendation part, the researcher gives some suggestions that are addressed to Indonesian teachers and future researchers.

A. Conclusions

Based on the research results and discussion in the previous chapter, there are there are three types of questions found during the students’ performance. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions. The total number of cases are 262 questions. The procedural type is on the top list with 123 questions compared with two others. It occurs when the participants check students’

conditions, ask for students’ confirmation and willingness. This type is used as

classroom procedures and routines. The second place is the convergent questions. There are 118 cases related to the type. It involves recall previously learned knowledge, short and response answer. Meanwhile, the divergent questions have the lowest number with 21 cases. The finding of divergent questions in this study

has the same result as Sukur’s (2016). In her study about the teacher’s question, she

finds that divergent questions are the lowest frequency used by students of micro teaching compared the others.


finds 144 questions that are related to the levels of questioning and remember level is the most frequently used by 79 cases. The remember level is mostly found in the beginning and in the end of class. For the understand level, there are 36 cases and most of the participants place them in the middle of the class activity, explaining about the main topic, and discussing the exercise. Meanwhile, the apply level has 11 cases. It occurs after the participants explain materials and they give a few questions to students. The questions given have a function to test students in solving problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge and information. There are 10 analyze level appearing in Micro teaching course. This level is often found when the participants ask students to analyze parts of structure of a text. Evaluative level has 7 cases. Most questions stated by the participants have a function to make students present and defend their opinions and answers by using certain criteria. The last but not the least, the create level only finds 1 case that makes it is the lowest frequency compared with the others. This case happens when students make questions based on the provided video. The analysis shows that the use of high level of questioning are less common compared the others. In addition, the researcher sees that the students of Micro Teaching might have lack of knowledge about questioning so that the distribution of questions are not equal each other.

B. Recommendations


1. For PBI Students of Micro Teaching Course

Through the results of this study, it is expected that PBI students of Micro Teaching have to possess the questioning skill well. They should make self-reflection on their questioning skill after watching their video recordings. If it is needed, they may have some discussions with other friends and even lecturers about their performances in teaching practice.

2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course

Lecturers of Micro Teaching course should spend at least one meeting talking about questioning with their students. In that meeting, lecturers should explain things related to questioning such as levels of questioning, how to make questions based on the levels or even tips of making questions based on the subjects that are being taught. When giving feedback on students’ performance, one of points the should be reviewed is their questioning skill.

3. For Future Researchers

This study only focuses on students’ questioning in general. Therefore,




Anderson, L. W. et al. (Eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and

Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). An Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to Ask Right Questions. Arlington: NSTA Press. Bowman, M. (1994). Using Video in Research. Retrieved on November 15, 2016


Chafi, E.M. & Elkhouzai, E. (2004). Classroom Interaction: Investigating the Forms and Functions of Teacher Questions in Moroccan Primary School. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 06, 353-361. Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Questioning. In Pedagogy and

Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools (Unit. 7). Retrieved

on February 02, 2017 from


Fusco, E. (2012). Effective Questioning Strategies in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hancock, B., Ockleford, E. & Windridge, K. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Retrieved on November 10, 2016, from https://www.rds- yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/5_Introduction-to-qualitative-research-2009.pdf

Jewitt, C. (2012). An Introduction to Using Video for Research. Retrieved on

November 15, 2016, from


Kerry, T. (2002). Explaining and Questioning. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4). Retrieved on October 24, 2016, from http://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice, 41

(4). Retrieved on October 24, 2016, from


McComas, W. F. & Rossier, L, A. (n.d.). Asking More Effective Questions. Retrieved on November 20, 2016, from https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-


Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Book (2nd Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2010). Questioning (p.1201). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pagliaro, M. M. (2011). Exemplary Classroom Questioning: Practices to Promote Thinking and Learning. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Edition.

Price, K. M. & Nelson, K. L. (2010). Planning Effective Instruction: Diversity Responsive Methods and Management. Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Reeves, A. R. (2011). Where Great Teaching Begins. Virginia: ASCD.

Richards, J. C. & Lockhart C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, S., Spinks, N. & Canhoto, A. I. (2015). Management Research: Applying the Principles. Oxon: Routledge.

Singh, Y. K. & Sharma, A. (2004). Micro Teaching. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.

Sukur, N. K. D. (2016). A sarjana thesis on an analysis on woman language

features and teacher’s questions in micro teaching class at sanata dharma

university. Retrieved on November 07, 2016, from http://library.usd.ac.id/ Qashoa, S, H. (2013). Effects of Teachers Question Types and Syntactic Structures

on EFL Classroom Situation. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 07, 52-61.

Wilen, W. W. (1987). Questions, Questionings Techniques, and Effective Teaching.

Retrieved on November 07, 2016, from


Writing@CSU. (2004). Writing Guide. An Introduction to Content Analysis. Retrieved on February 11, 2017, from www.umsl.edu/~wilmarthp/mrpc-web.../content-analysis.pdf



01:14 The teacher opened the

meeting by asking students habit

147 Where do you eat? 01:22 The teacher responded students’ answer  148 What do you do usually

after the class?

01:52 The teacher asked students’ activities

149 Do you know what will we learn today?

03:43 The teacher wanted students

to guess what material

150 From the video, what question that you can ask?

05:36 The teacher asked students

to make question 

151 Any volunteer? 08:12 The students asked for students’ willingness  152 Can you choose one of

your friends?

09:54 The teacher asked a student

to choose another friend  153 Understand? 11:08 The teacher checked students’ confirmation


Have you done, class? 11;15 The teacher checked

students’ confirmation due

11:24 Students gave answer for

each verb and subject 

156 Who is she? 11:35 The teacher responded

students’ answer 

157 How about the verb? 11:41 The teacher asked students

to find a verb 

158 And the second sentence, what is the subject?

11:52 A student answered for the

subject 

159 And how about the verb? 12:02 The teacher asked students

to find a verb 

160 And the verb? 12:12 The teacher asked students

to find a verb 

161 When we use this text, do you know what is the language feature?

12:29 The teacher asked students

to analyze language features

12:50 All of students answered yes


for students to ask  165 That’s all/ Do you have any


18:25 The teacher gave a chance

for students to ask about instruction

166 So, have you done, class? 19:48 The teacher asked students’

confirmation 

167 Play, are you sure? 22:04 A student answered and the teacher responded it  168 Where do you answer sings

and plays?

22:51 The teacher asked the detail

of answer from a student  169 Number 12, What is the


23:02 A students answered the

subject was 

170 What will “it” be followed? 23:10 The teacher responded

students’ answer 

171 Do we need to add s or es? 23:15 The teacher responded

students’ answer 

172 In this sentence, what is the subject?

23:29 A students answered the

subject was 

173 When the subject is my sister, what is the verb will you use?

23:51 The teacher gave a situation

and students had to give solution or answer

174 Is it followed by “s” or

“es”? 23:57 The teacher responded students’ answer 

175 So let's review, what have you learned today?

24:37 The teacher did review

 176 What is the function of the

simple present tense?

24:57 The teacher responded

students’ answer 

177 Do you know about it? 25:09 The teacher asked students’

confirmation 

178 Okay, do you understand? 25;17 The teacher asked students’

confirmation 

P2 179 How was your holiday? 00:18 The teacher opened activity

by asking students’ holiday 

180 Anyone want to share about your holiday?

00:43 The teacher asked students’ willingness to share their story

181 Dee, want to share something?

01:35 The chosen student told her


182 How many of you get greeting from someone?

01:56 Most of students raised their hands

183 What do you think about the moment that always update in the news?

03:30 Few students gave opinion 

184 What is news? 04:35 The teacher asked students to explain about news based on their knowledge


Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ......................................................................
Table 3 2 Participants Questioning . View in document p.12
Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions
Table 3 1 Participants Questions . View in document p.35
Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning
Table 3 2 Participants Questioning . View in document p.36
Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course
Table 4 1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course . View in document p.40
Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows
Table 4 2 presents 47 type of question belonging to procedural It shows . View in document p.41
Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course
Table 4 2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course . View in document p.45



Unduh sekarang (82 Halaman)