vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to give my greatest thanks to Lord Jesus and
Mother Mary for the never ending guidance, bless, and love. Without them, it
would have been impossible for me to finish this work.
This great success would have never happened without a lot of help from
great people around me. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge my deepest and
sincere appreciation to my sponsor, Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. for every
single assistance, guidance, suggestion, support, kindness, and patience during the
process of accomplishing this thesis. My sincere gratitude also goes to all PBI
lecturers, who are never tired of giving me many valuable lessons.
I also express my gratitude to the headmaster of SMA Negeri 7
Yogyakarta, Dra. Reni Herawati, M.Pd.B.I. for giving me access to conduct the
research and the English teacher of grade eleven, Dra. Rahaju Prihadaryati for
giving me guidance and support. I would like to thank all students of both XI IPS
1 and XI IPS 2 academic year 2011/2012 for their help and kindness.
Profound thankfulness is addressed to my beloved parents, my father
Bapak Ambrosius Sumantri Widodo and my mother Ibu Maria Sri Maryati. I
thank them for every single prayer, love, trust, support, guidance, and patience
they have given to me. I hope this thesis could answer some of their prayer for me
and bring happiness in their heart.
I would like to give my special thanks to my friends and family Angga,
vii
my days. My gratitude is also expressed to my fellow PBI students, especially
Kanya, Clara “Umbel”, Wida “Wichan”, and Bezaliel Adit for their advice and
support. My enormous acknowledgement goes to everybody whom I cannot
mention one by one for lending me their power and courage.
And finally, the last but not least, this thesis would not have been
accomplished without an amazing person who always stands by my side even in
my hardest moment, Lusia “Uci” Suwantari Nugraheni. Her love, patience, and
support have converted me to be a much better person.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE...
PAGE OF APPROVAL...
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY...
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA
ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS...
ix
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Description...
1. Interrogative Question...
2. Definition of Bloom’s Taxonomy...
3. The Characteristics of Each Bloom’s Level of Learning...
B. Theoretical Framework...
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Method...
B. Research Setting...
C. Research Participants/Subjects...
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique...
E. Data Analysis Technique...
F. Research Procedure...
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Clasification of Questions’ Level...
B. Students’ Answer to the Interrogative Sentence...
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
x
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. The Table of WH Question’s Function and Example...
Table 2.2. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 1 and the Keywords...
Table 2.3. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 2 and the Keywords...
Table 2.4. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 3 and the Keywords...
Table 2.5. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 4 and the Keywords...
Table 2.6. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 5 and the Keywords...
Table 2.7. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 6 and the Keywords...
Table 2.8. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Each Level’s
Characteristics...
Table 4.1. The Classification of Question’s Level, the Example, and the
Percentage...
Table 4.2. The Classification of Question and Answer’s Correlation... 11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. The Comparison Between Yes/No Questions and W-H
Questions...
Figure 2.2. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Verb Be...
Figure 2.3. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using the Expression
do what...
Figure 2.4. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (1)...
Figure 2.5. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (2)...
Figure 2.6.Comparison Between the Old and the New Version of Bloom’s
Taxonomy...
Figure 4.1. Classification of Students’ Level to Produce Interrogative
Question... 8
9
9
10
10
12
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Letter of Permission...
Appendix B List of Questions and The Classifications Based on Bloom’s
Taxonomy...
Appendix C List of Matches Between Questions and Answers...
Appendix D Samples of The Students’ Worksheets... 43
46
51
xiv
ABSTRACT
Prabowo, Yulius Andar. 2013. An Analysis of Interrogative Sentences Made By Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program. Sanata Dharma University.
This study was intended to analyze the interrogative sentences and the responses produced by students of grade eleven of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. There are two objectives of this research. The first one is (1) to find out the levels of the interrogative questions produced by the students according to Anderson’s version of Bloom’s taxonomy on education. The second aim is (2) to examine the students’ answers to the interogative questions.
This research uses a document analysis. It involves an element of analysis based on Bloom’s taxonomy and its version published by Anderson and Krathwohl. The question-verb functions are used to analyze the students’ replies to the questions.
Having analyzed the data obtained, it can be concluded that the interrogative sentences made by the students whicharecategorized as level one, namely Remembering, are as many as sixty-three per cent (63%).In level two, namely Understanding, there are as many as fifteen point five per cent (15.7%).In level three, namely Applying, there are as many as eleven point five per cent (11.5%). In level four, namely Analyzing, there are as many as six per cent (6%). In level five, namely Evaluating, there are as many as one point three per cent (1.3%).In level six, namely Creating, there are as many as zero per cent (0%).Meanwhile, two point three per cent (2.3%)were categorized as non-WH questions because the questions were in Yes/No question form. As for the second objective, it can be pointed out that eighty-nine per cent (89%) of the answers to the questions can be categorized as matching with the question verb function. There werenine per cent (9%) of the answers that did not match with the questions. In the meantime, there were two per cent (2%) of the questions that were not answered by the students.
xv
ABSTRAK
Prabowo, Yulius Andar. 2013. An Analysis of Interrogative Sentences Made By Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kalimat interogatif dan respon yang dihasilkan oleh siswa-siswa kelas sebelas di SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Penelitian ini mempunyai dua tujuan. Tujuan pertama adalah (1) mencari tahu level kemampuan siswa berdasarkan teori taksonomi pendidikan milik Bloom versi Anderson. Tujuan kedua penelitian ini adalah (2) membahas jawaban siswa terhadap kalimat interogatif.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis dokumen. Metode ini melibatkan elemen analisis berdasarkan taksonomi Bloom beserta versi yang dipublikasikan oleh Anderson dan Krathwohl. Fungsi kata kerja kalimat tanya digunakan untuk menganalisis jawaban siswa terhadap kalimat tanya.
Setelah menganalisis data yang telah diperoleh, dapat disimpulkan bahwa kalimat interogatif yang dibuat oleh siswa dapat dikategorikan menjadi level satu, Remembering, sebanyak enam puluh tiga persen (63%). Level dua, Understanding, sebanyak lima belas koma tujuh persen (15,7%). Level tiga, Applying, sebanyak sebelas koma lima persen (11,5%). Level empat, Analyzing, sebanyak enam persen (6%).Level lima, Evaluating, sebanyak satu koma tiga persen (1,3%).Level enam, Creating, sebanyak nol persen (0%).Sementara itu dua koma tiga persen (2,3%) dikategorikan sebagai non WH question karena pertanyaan tersebut ditulis dalam bentuk Yes/No question. Sementara itu untuk tujuan kedua dari penelitian dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa delapan puluh sembilan persen (89%) jawaban pertanyaan dapat dikategorikan sesuai dengan fungsi kata kerja dari kalimat tanya. Sembilan persen (9%) dari total jawaban tidak sesuai dengan pertanyaan. Dua persen (2%) dari total pertanyaan yang tidak dijawab oleh siswa.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this study the writer would like to investigate interrogative sentences
made by grade eleven students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. This chapter
presents six parts, namely Research Background, Research Problems, Problem
Limitation, Research Objectives, Research Benefits, and Definition of Terms.
A. Research Background
English has become an international language used by many countries in
this world. English is used as a primary language in the United Kingdom, the
United States of America, and Australia. There are also countries which use
English as their second language, for example, Germany and France. In Indonesia,
English is considered as an important language to learn because most books in
universities are written in English. English facilitates people to acquire and master
various subjects (Suhendro, 2006: 307).
However, there are many English learners who still have problems to
construct and produce clear and understandable English questions. This is exactly
what this study is about. According to Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik
(1972), there are three types of questions in English language. They are Yes/No
questions, interrogative questions or simply known as WH-questions and
alternative questions. Among those types of questions, interrogative sentences are
is due to the fact that the answers to this type of questions tend to be freer and
opener compared to the other type of questions.
By using interrogative sentences, one will have a bigger chance of
gathering more information. Having the ability to produce WH-questions will also
increase the possibilities to get more information rather than only using the simple
Yes/No questions. Therefore, this research focuses on the WH-interrogative
sentences.
Mastering the usage of interrogative sentences to gather information is
very important for everybody especially for those who are still studying in schools
and universities. According to Neil Postman, an American author, a media
theorist, and a cultural critic, questioning is the most important intellectual tool
(Postman, 1979:154). Therefore, the ability to ask questions is very vital towards
human knowledge’s development, especially during the learning period such as in
high schools. In high schools, for example, the students are taught about the
focused knowledge that will be used in their life. This educational process period
is also important because the students are in the middle of their growing age from
being a kid into an adult.
To complete the research, the grade eleven students of SMA Negeri 7
Yogyakarta’s were chosen as the research subjects. During the period of the
teaching practice in the school, the researcher gave the students a task to produce
WH-questions based on a written text. Basically, the students were asked to gather
as much information as they could from the text using the WH-questions. The
ways. Some students used very simple kinds of questions. Meanwhile, the other
students used more complex questions. The answers to those questions were also
varried. Some students gave very clear information, some others did not.
Based on the fact above, the researcher decided to investigate students’
ability to make good and correct WH-questions or also known as interrogative
sentences. The writer would investigate the current students’ level to make
interrogative sentences using the theory of Bloom’s taxonomy. The research
would also investigate the students’ replies to the interrogative sentences.
B. Research Problems
Considering the situation explained in the research background, the
problems of this research can be formulated as follows.
1. What levels are the interrogative sentences made by students based on
Bloom’s Taxonomy?
2. How do students answer the produced interrogative sentences?
C. Problem Limitation
The scope of the study is to investigate students’ ability to make questions.
This research tries to find out students’ level in making interrogative sentences in
order to gather information. The levels are based on the theory of Anderson and
Krathwohl’s on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Therefore, any grammatical errors in the
research also tries to discover how the students respond to the interrogative
sentences.
D. Research Objectives
Related to the problem formulation, the two objectives that have to be
accomplished in this study are as follows.
1. To find out the levels of the interrogative sentences made by students based on
Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2. To find out how students answer the interrogative sentences.
E. Research Benefits
This study is highly expected to give essential contributions to those who
involved in this and future research. Those are as follows.
1. The English Teacher of SMA N 7 Yogyakarta
This study is expected to give contribution to English teachers especially
those who teach English in the grade eleven of senior high schools. They can use
this research result as background information to find out a solution to solve the
problems faced by the students and increase their skill to produce questions.
2. The Grade Eleven High School Studentsof SMA N 7 Yogyakarta
This study is expected to give contribution to the students to find out their
students will get some help from the teacher to solve their problems and increase
the students’ ability in producing questions.
3. Future Research
This study is expected to give contribution to the future research. The
findings of this research can be used as the background study for the future
research. Hopefully, other researchers will find out a solution to solve student’s
problems and increase the skill to produce questions by using this research as the
background study.
F. Definition of Terms
There are some terms mentioned in this study that need to be defined in
order to avoid misunderstanding and to lead readers to a better understanding on
the topic being discussed.
1. Interrogative Sentence
Interrogative sentence is the main focus of the research. Interrogative
sentence is a question which begins with an interrogative word or phrase
(Greenbaum, 1989:153). Although interrogative sentence has been clearly
defined, this kind of question can be used by many different people which may
cause different purpose and function for this type of question. In this study, the
interrogative sentences are questions which begin with an interrogative word or
2. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education
According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), Bloom’s taxonomy is a
classification of learning objectives and skills within education that educators set
for students. Bloom’s taxonomy can be applied in many different kinds of study.
In this study, the Bloom’s Taxonomy, a classification of learning objectives and
skills, is used to determine the students’ level to produce interrogative sentences.
3. Senior High School Students of SMA N 7 Yogyakarta
Senior High School students are the students between the ages of 16-18
years old and belong to the three levels of Senior High School. SMA N 7
Yogyakarta is a senior high school located at Jl. M. T. Haryono 47, Yogyakarta.
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the writer discusses the related literature which becomes
the basis of the study. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is
Theoretical Description, which involves some important theories related to the
research. The second part is Theoretical Framework, which provides the summary
of the specific theories which are used as the guideline to answer the problems.
A. Theoretical Description
There are three points to be discussed in the Theoretical Description. They
are interrogative sentences, Bloom’s Taxonomy theories, and Bloom’s levels
learning characteristics.
1. Interrogative Sentences
In English language, there are two types of questions. The first is the
Yes/No question. This question expects an answer which is Yes or No. The
second is WH-questions which is also known as interrogative questions.
According to Quirk (1972), interrogative questions are questions that contain
question words (who, what, how, etc) and expect a reply supplying the missing
information posited by the WH-questions.
Besides those definitions, there are also differences between the Yes/No
Sentence explained the comparison between Yes/No questions and WH-questions
by giving example as in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. The Comparison between Yes/No Questions and W-H Questions
STATEMENT: John likes coffee.
YES/NO QUESTIONS: Does John like coffee?
what
W-H QUESTIONS: Does John like coffee?
What does John like?
As explained in the figure above, the biggest difference between Yes/No
and questions is the precence of a question word within the question.
WH-questions always include a question word at the beginning of the question, while
the Yes/No questions do not use any question word at the beginning of the
question. The types of the question word used in the sentence are based on the
purpose of the question.
If the statement uses verb be, the pattern of Yes/No and WH-question becomes as
Figure 2.2. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Verb Be
STATEMENT: John is in class.
YES/NO QUESTIONS: Is John in class?
where
W-H QUESTIONS: Is John in class?
Where is John?
There is a change in the pattern of Yes/No when the statement uses verb
be. Compared to the previous pattern, the do/does is replaced with the verb be (is).
In WH-question, the do/does is also replaced with the verb be. The question word
is still used at the beginning of the question.
If the question uses the expression do what, the pattern becomes as in figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using the Expression do what
STATEMENT: John studies English every day.
YES/NO QUESTIONS: Does John study English every day?
Do what
W-H QUESTIONS: What does John do every day?
If the question uses the expression do what, the pattern of Yes/No
questions is preceded by the word do or does. It depends on the subject used in the
question. While in the WH-questions, the verb is replaced with do or does based
on the subject of the sentence. The questioned object is also replaced with a
If there is a preposition in the statement, the pattern becomes as in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (1)
John studies at the library every day.
Does John study at the library every day?
Where
Does John study at the library every day?
Where does John study every day?
When there is a preposition in the statement, the difference between the
pattern of Yes/No questions and WH-questions lies on the existence of a question
word in front of the sentence. The Yes/No questions do not have a question word
preceding the sentence. While in WH-questions, the questioned subject is replaced
with a question word used in front of the sentence. Another example of the pattern
if there is a preposition in the statement can be seen in figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (2)
John looks at Mary every day.
Does John look at Mary every day?
Who
Does John look at Mary every day?
This research focused on the use of interrogative questions. In
interrogative questions, each question word has a specific function. The function
and the example of interrogative questions are explained in table 2.1.
Table 2.1. The Table of WH Question’s Function and Example
Question Word Function Example
what asking for information about something
What is your name
asking for repetition or confirmation
What? I can't hear you. You did what?
what...for asking for a reason, asking why What did you do that for? when asking about time When did he leave? where asking in or at what place or
position
Where do they live?
which asking about choice Which colour do you want?
who asking what or which person or people (subject)
Who opened the door?
whom asking what or which person or people (object)
Whom did you see?
whose asking about ownership Whose keys are these? Whose turn is it? Why asking for reason, asking what...for Why do you say that? why don't making a suggestion Why don't I help you? How asking about manner How does this work?
asking about condition or quality How was your exam? how + adj/adv asking about extent or degree see examples below
how far Distance How far is Pattaya from Bangkok?
how long length (time or space) How long will it take? how many quantity (countable) How many cars are
there?
how much quantity (uncountable) How much money do you have?
how old Age How old are you? how come
(informal)
asking for reason, asking why How come I can't see her?
2. Definition of Bloom’s Taxonomy
According to Anderson &Krathwohl (2001) in The Taxonomy of
Educational Objective, Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification of the different
objectives and skills that educators set for students. The theory was proposed by
Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist at the University of Chicago in
1956. There are two versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy; the original one and the
revised version. Both versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy can be seen in diagram 2.1.
below.
Figure 2.6. Comparison between Old and New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy
There are some changes in terms that occur between both versions of Bloom’s
Taxonomy. The names of six major categories were changed from noun to verb
forms. As the taxonomy reflects different forms of thinking and thinking is an
active process, verbs were used rather than nouns. The subcategories of the six
major categories were also replaced by verbs and some subcategories were
or product of thinking not a form of thinking. Consequently, the word knowledge
was inapropriate to subscribe a category of thinking and was replaced with the
word remembering instead. Comprehension and synthesis were retitled to
understanding and creating respectively, in order to better reflect the nature of the
thinking defined in each category. (retrieved from
http://rite.ed.qut.edu.au/oz-teachernet/training/bloom.html)
In 1990s, Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised by his former student, Lorin
Anderson. According to Anderson & Krathwohl (2001), Bloom’s Taxonomy is
the representatives of three groups: cognitive psychologist, curriculum theorist
and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists (p.xxviii).
The new terms are defined as follows.
a) Remembering
This level is about retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant
knowledge for long term memory. This level also exibits memory of previously
learned material.
b) Understanding
This level is about constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic
messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring,
comparing, and explaining. This level also demonstrates understanding of facts
c) Applying
This level is about carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or
implementing. This level is also about solving problem to new situations by
applying acquired knowledge.
d) Analyzing
This level is about breaking materials into constituent parts, determining
how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through
differentiating, organizing, and attributing. This level is also about making
inferences and finding evidence to suport generalizations.
e) Evaluating
This level is about making judgments based on criteria and standards
through checking and critiquing. This level also presents and defends opinions
using the judgement.
f) Creating
This level is about compiling elements together to form a coherent or
functional whole. This level also reorganizes elements into a new pattern or
structure through generating, planning, or producing.
3. The Characteristics of Each Bloom’s Level of Learning
In order to measure students’ skill to produce interrogative question using
Bloom’s taxonomy, keywords of each level of learning are needed. The keywords
Table 2.2. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 1 and the Keywords
LEVEL 1 – REMEMBERING
Exhibit memory of previously learned material by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts,
and answers.
Key Words choose, define, find, how, label, list, match, name, omit, recall, relate, select, show, spell, tell, what, when, where, which, who, why
Questions
What is …?
Where is …?
How did ___ happen?
Why did …?
How would you explain …?
How would you describe ..?
Can you recall …?
Can you select …?
Can you list the three …?
Who was …?
The first level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy deals with recalling facts,
terms, basic concepts, and answers. Therefore, the first level’s keywords include
simple verbs such as choose, define, recall, show, and tell. Simple interrogative
questions such as what is ...?, where is ...?, who was ...?, and which one ...? are
also categorized into this level. Therefore, any interrogative question which
consists of those keywords or has similar meaning of those question examples is
Table 2.3. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 2 and the Keywords
LEVEL 2 – UNDERSTANDING
Demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating,
interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas.
Key Words classify, compare, contrast, demonstrate, explain, extend, illustrate, infer, interpret, outline, relate, rephrase, show, summarize, translate
Questions
How would you classify the type of …?
How would you compare …? contrast …?
Will you state or interpret in your own words …?
How would you rephrase the meaning …?
What facts or ideas show …?
What is the main idea of …?
Which statements support …?
Can you explain what is happening …? what is meant …?
What can you say about …?
Which is the best answer …?
How would you summarize …?
Level 2 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with organizing, comparing,
translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas. The
keywords of this Bloom’s taxonomy level includes explain, illustrate, classify,
compare, summarize, and translate. Thus, any interrogative question which
consists of those keywords or the similar meanings are categorized into the second
level of Bloom’s taxonomy.
Table 2.4. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 3 and the Keywords
LEVEL 3 – APPLYING
Solve problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and
Key Words apply, build, choose, construct, develop, experiment with, identify, interview, make use of, model, organize, plan, select, solve, utilize
Questions
How would you use …?
What examples can you find to …?
How would you solve ___ using what you’ve learned …?
How would you organize ___ to show …?
How would you show your understanding of …?
What approach would you use to …?
How would you apply what you learned to develop …?
What other way would you plan to …?
What would result if …?
Can you make use of the facts to …?
What elements would you choose to change …?
What facts would you select to show …?
What questions would you ask in an interview with …?
Level 3 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with applying acquired knowledges,
facts, techniques and rules in a different way. The keywords include verbs such as
apply, develop, plan, solve, and utilize. Those keywords show that in order to be
categorized into this level, the interrogative question should be asking the
answerers to act and do something to apply their knowledge.
Table 2.5. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 4 and the Keywords
LEVEL 4 – ANALYZING
Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make
inferences and find evidence to support generalizations.
Key Words
analyze, assume, categorize, classify, compare, conclusion, contrast,
discover, dissect, distinguish, divide, examine, function, inference,
inspect, list, motive, relationships, simplify, survey, take part in, test,
for, theme
How is ___ related to …?
Why do you think …?
What is the theme …?
What motive is there …?
Can you list the parts …?
What inference can you make …?
What conclusions can you draw …?
How would you classify...?
How would you categorize...?
Can you identify the different parts …?
What evidence can you find …?
What is the relationship between …?
Can you distinguish between …?
What is the function of …?
What ideas justify …?
The fourth Bloom’s taxonomy deals with analyzing information by
identifying motives or causes. Interrogative questions that are categorized into this
level are those which contain the keywords as analyze, compare, simplify,
assume, or words that have similar meaning with those keywords.
Table 2.6. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 5 and the Keywords
LEVEL 5 – EVALUATING
Present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas, or
quality of work based on a set of criteria.
Key Words
agree, appraise, assess, award, choose, compare, conclude, criteria,
criticize, decide, deduct, defend, determine, disprove, dispute,
estimate, evaluate, explain, importance, influence, interpret, judge,
justify, mark, measure, opinion, perceive, prioritize, prove, rate,
recommend, rule on, select, support, value
How would you prove …? Disprove…?
Can you assess the value or importance of …?
Would it be better if …?
Why did they (the character) choose …?
What would you recommend…?
How would you rate the …?
What would you cite to defend the actions …?
How could you determine…?
What choice would you have made …?
How would you prioritize …?
What judgment would you make about …?
Based on what you know, how would you explain …?
What information would you use to support the view…?
How would you justify …?
What data was used to make the conclusion…?
What was it better that …?
How would you compare the ideas …? people …?
Level 5 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with evaluating information. This
level includes present and defend opinion based on validity of ideas based on a set
of criteria. Any interrogative questions which consist of keywords such as
criticize, defend, judge, prove, or words with similar meaning are categorized into
this level.
Table 2.7. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 6 and the Keywords
LEVEL 6 – CREATING
Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern
or proposing alternative solutions.
Key Words
adapt, build, change, choose, combine, compile, compose, construct,
create, delete, design, develop, discuss, elaborate, estimate, formulate,
modify, original, originate, plan, predict, propose, solution, solve,
suppose, test, theory
Questions
What changes would you make to solve …?
How would you improve …?
What would happen if …?
Can you elaborate on the reason …?
Can you propose an alternative…?
Can you invent …?
How would you adapt ___ to create a different …?
How could you change (modify) the plot (plan) …?
What could be done to minimize (maximize) …?
What way would you design …?
What could be combined to improve (change) …?
Suppose you could ___ what would you do …?
How would you test …?
Can you formulate a theory for …?
Can you predict the outcome if …?
How would you estimate the results for …?
What facts can you compile …?
Can you construct a model that would change …?
Can you think of an original way for the …?
Level 6 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with compiling information and
combining elements to create a new alternative solution. This highest level of
Bloom’s taxonomy includes some keywords, such as formulate, elaborate,
compose, construct, design, or any words which have similar meaning. Basically
the purpose of this highest level is to create something new.
The website ecampus.oregonstate.edu listed the characteristics of each
level of learning. It describes each level using 4 keywords each.
Table 2.8. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Each Level’s Characteristics
The Cognitive Process Dimension
Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create
Describe Interpret Experiment Explain Assess Plan
Tabule Predict Calculate Different
iate Conclude Compose Appropriate
Use Execute Construct Achieve Action Actualize
The table above explains the characteristic of each level of Bloom’s
taxonomy with 4 main keywords. Those keywords will become the standard
requirement in categorizing the level of every interrogative sentences. The
interrogative sentences will be categorized in a level of Bloom’s taxonomy as
long as it includes the keywords or words with similar meaning.
B. Theoretical Framework
As the framework, some points can be summed up in order to make the
analysis of the problems easier. The problems are students’ level on producing
interrogative questions and how the students answer the questions. There are two
points that are highlighted, namely the difinition of interrogative question, and
The Bloom’s taxonomy.
Interrogative question is a type of question that contains WH element
(who, what, how, etc). This type of question expects a reply supplying the missing
information posited by the WH-questions. Each WH element has a specific
function which will determine the expected answer of each question. This theory
is used to fulfill the second research objective, which is to find out how the other
students answer the interrogative sentences. The theory is employed to find out
whether the students respond to the question with a compatible answer or not. By
answer, the percentage of student’s questions and answers compatibility will be
revealed.
In relation to the first objective of the study, which is to find out the levels
of the interrogative questions produced by students, the Bloom’s Taxonomy will
be used as the measurement of student’s skill and learning process. Based on the
cognitive aspect in Bloom’s Taxonomy, there are six levels of learning. Those six
levels from the lowest to highest are remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Each level has different keywords and
characteristic. Employing this theory, the level of students’ skill to produce
interrogative questions can be measured by categorizing the questions made by
the students using the keywords and the characteristic of each level of learning. It
will show in which level of learning the students are and eventually answer the
23
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter gives further information on how the study was conducted. It
gives information on how the data were gathered and analyzed to answer the
problems. This chapter consists of Research Method, Research Setting, Research
Participants/Subjects, Research Instrument and Data Gathering Technique, Data
Analysis Technique, and Research Procedure.
A. Research Method
In this study, the writer employed document analysis method to answer the
research problems. The writer has two problem formulations. The first problem is
based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, i.e. what are the levels of the students’ ability to
produce interrogative sentences. Second, how do the other students answer the
very questions. According to Ary & Razavieh (2002), document analysis focuses
on analyzing and interpreting recorded materials within its own context. This
method was used because the primary data of this research were written
documents. The documents were students’ worksheets which contained
interrogative questions made by the students during a class activity. Therefore,
B. Research Setting
The research was conducted during the writer’s teaching practice period at
SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta between August-October 2011. SMA Negeri 7 was
chosen because the school was the place where the writer had his teaching
practice. It was also because the school had many achivements in English subject.
Those are being the winner of English writing competition and English debate
competitions. The school also had enough facilities that can be used to improve
student’s English skill. There were viewers located in every class. For the
eleventh grade of social classes, there were also sound systems provided and
ready to be used. Based on those reasons, the writer decided to conduct the
research at SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta.
C. Research Participants/Subjects
The participants of the research were the eleventh grade of social classes
of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. There were only two majors in the school; science
and social. The social classes were chosen because the major was the one that was
taught by the writer during his teaching practice and also considered as more
exposed to foreign language especially English. The subjects of this research were
the result of students’ written exercises during the class’ activity. Each student
was asked to make five interrogative questions about analytical exposition texts
which were previously made by the students. There were 216 total questions
produced by the students. Those questions became the primary documents to be
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
There were two instruments which are used in this study. The first
instrument was the documents. The documents which were used in this study
were the students’ written question sentences. There were 216 total questions
made by the students. The data were gathered by the writer during a class activity.
During the activity, each student was asked to make 5 WH-questions about
analytical exposition texts which were previously made by the students. After the
class activity, the questions were submitted along with the analytical exposition
texts. The second instrument was human instrument. In this study, the researcher
became the human instrument by processing and analyzing the data in order to
answer the research problems.
E. Data Analysis Technique
After the writer obtained the written documents of student’s work, the
writer began to analyze it. The steps of analysis can be noted as follows.
First of all, the question sentence data were sorted by the writter. The
writer analyzed each sentence in order to classify each question into categories
based on Bloom’s taxonomy. The grammatical errors occured on the data do not
affect the classification process. It was because the classifications are determined
by the verb keywords which exist in every question. The classifications of the data
Level of Questions Examples of Questions Total Number of
Questions Percentage
Level 1
Remembering
Level 2
Understanding
Level 3
Applying
Level 4
Analyzing
Level 5
Evaluating
Level 6
Creating
Not interrogative
questions
Total number of questions
Then the total questions of each classification was counted using a formula
as follows.
The percentage of each classification = total questions in each level x 100% total number of questions
By looking at the percentage and detail analysis, the researcher found out
students’ level of ability in producing question sentences.
Then how the students had responded to the questions was identified by
whether the students had answered the questions properly or not. The
classification of the data is presented in a form of table. The table is as follows:
Categories
Total Number
of Questions
Percentage
compatible question and answer
Not compatible question and answer
The writer also counted the total of proper answer in percentage using a
formula as follows.
The percentage of compatible answer = total answers in each categories x 100% total number of answers
F. Research Procedure
There were steps in conducting this research.
1. Preparing the Research
Before conducting the research, the researcher had asked for
permission from the headmaster of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta to conduct the
research. Then the researcer came to the English teacher of eleventh grade of
2. Conducting the Research
In the class, the researcher asked the students to write interrogative
sentences about the articles they had made in the previous class activity. Each
student was asked to make 5 questions. After having finished, the researcher
collected the questions to examine.
3. Analyzing the Data
The researcher identified and classified the questions based on the
level of learning explained in Bloom’s taxonomy in order to meassure the
students’ skill in producing an interrogative sentence. Then the researcher
analyzed how the students had answered each question to find out whether
29
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a discussion of the data analysis. This chapter
includes data presentation and data discussion. The first section (A) deals with the
discussion about the students’ level in producing interrogative questions. This
section is the answer of the first research problem. The second section (B) is
discussing how the students answer the interrogative sentences. This part answers
the second research problem.
A. Clasification of Questions’ Level
In this section the writer classifies the questions which have been made by
the students into the levels of learning based on Bloom’s taxonomy. The
classifications are determined by the existance of each level’s keywords. The
keywords are as listed in Chapter II. The classification is also determined by the
insight meaning of the question. Therefore, grammatical errors that occur within
the question are not the focus. Another issue that occured was that some of the
keyword verbs were overlaping the verbs used by the students. On that case, the
researcher was paying more attention to the meaning and purpose of each question
in order to classify the question’s level.
There are some examples of such a case. The first example is the sentence
“What is boyband?”. This question is considered as a very simple question. This
Remembering. Therefore, this question is categorized into the level 1 –
Remembering.
The second example is the sentence “*What is the different about
computer than laptop?” This question sentence is grammatically incorrect, but it is
not a problem because grammar is not the main focus of the analysis. The
problem is the question does not have any verb keywords which are listed in the
table of Bloom’s Taxonomy and keywords featured in chapter II. Therefore, in
this case the researcher should analyze the question based on its meaning and
purpose. This question is meant to ask about identification and comparation.
Therefore, this question is categorized into level 4 because “identify” and
“compare” are the keywords of level 4.
The result of the analysis is as listed in table 4.1.
Table 4.1. The Classification of Question’s level, the Example, and the Percentage
Level of Questions Examples of Questions Total Number
Questions Percentage
Level 1
Remembering What is Boyband? 136 63%
Level 2
Understanding What is the purpose of the text? 34 15,7%
Level 3
Applying
What is your effort to protect wild
Level of Questions Examples of Questions Total Number
Questions Percentage
Level 4
Analyzing
How could you declare that Big
Bang is that good? 13 6%
Level 5
Evaluating
*What the your opinion about
mineral water? 3 1,3%
Level 6
Creating - 0 0%
Not interrogative
questions *Is facebook useable for all age? 5 2,3%
Total number of questions 216
From the table above, the writer notes 136 out of 216 of the total questions
made by the students are categorized into level 1 - Remembering based on
Bloom’s taxonomy. Those questions are considered simple questions. The goals
of which are basically to exhibit memory of previously learned material by
recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answer. Although most of the question
categorized in this level, for the example “What is Boyband?”, are obviously
simple basic questions, some other questions seem to be more complicated
questions, for example “Why global warming is dangerous?”. At the first glance,
this question is included into a higher group of level based on Bloom’s taxonomy
is because the answer of the question is literary written in the paragraph that the
question made to. Those categorizations could be different when the answer is not
literary written in the paragraph. It means the students should compile the idea of
the paragraph in order to answer the question.
Meanwhile, 34 out of 216 of the questions made by the students are
categorized into level 2 – Understanding. Those questions which are categorized
in this level were basically asking about the student’s understanding toward the
topic either by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving
descriptions, and stating main ideas. One of the questions categorized in this level
was “What is the purpose of the text?”. This question is clearly asking about
general idea of the text. In order to answer this type of question, the students need
to fully understand the content of the text. It is because the answer is not literary
written in the text. Another type of question which is categorized to this level is
the question “How many kind of pigs which involved in in the text?”. This type of
question could be answered with either short or long answer. Whichever the
answer is, this question is asking about the classification of certain thing. The verb
of this question is classified as one of the keywords of the level 2 –
Understanding, therefore this type of question is categorized into level 2.
There were 25 out of 216 questions which are categorized in level 3 –
Applying. Level 3 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with applying acquired knowledge,
facts, techniques and rules in a different way. One example of the questions which
are categorized into this level is “What is your effort to protect wild animals? Can
could be used to determine the level of this question based on Bloom’s taxonomy.
But, by looking at the purpose of the question, which is asking about the student’s
effort to protect wild animals, it is clear that this question can be categorized into
level 3. This question is asking about how the students apply their knowledge in
certain field. Therefore, this question is categorized into level 3 – Applying.
In level 4 – Analyzing of Bloom’s taxonomy, there are 13 out of 216 total
questions. This level deals with analyzing information by identifying motives or
causes. One of the questions which is categorized into this level is “How could
you declare that Big Bang is that good?”. The purpose of this question is asking
the students to identify the causes of information. The information is about Big
Bang declared as a good boyband. Therefore, this question is categorized into
level 4 – Analyzing. Another example of questions which are included in this
level is the question “*Why that SMS is most popular than call?” This question
was grammatically incorrect, but it is still categorized into level 4. It is because
the question is asking the students to identify the causes of information.
Grammatical errors are not the focus of this research.
There is only 1 question that can be categorized into level 5 – Evaluating.
This level deals with presenting and defending opinion based on a set of criteria.
One of the questions which is categorized into this level is “*What the your
opinion about mineral water?”. In spite of the grammatical error that occurred,
this question is clearly asking the students to present their opinion based on a set
There are no questions from the data that can be categorized into level 6 –
Creating. This highest level of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with compiling
information and combining elements to create a new alternative solution.
Questions that can be categorized into this level are those which are asking the
students to create a new idea. Unfortunately, there are no such questions among
the data. Therefore, there are no questions categorized into level 6 of Bloom’s
taxonomy.
There are also questions in the data which cannot be categorized into W-H
questions. It means those questions cannot be categorized into any level of
Bloom’s taxonomy because the focus of this research is about WH-questions.
There are 5 out of 216 questions which are included in this category. The
examples of those questions are “*Is facebook useable for all age?” and “Do you
have laptop?”. Those two questions were written in a Yes/No question form,
which is not the focus of this research. Therefore, such questions are categorized
into a special categorization named Not Interrogative Questions.
The categorization of students’ skill clasifications based on the Bloom’s
level of learning is presented in figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Classification of Students’ Level to Produce Interrogative Question
The diagram shows that the interrogative questions made by the students
were generally distributed into the middle-low levels area. Most of the
interrogative questions produced by the students (63%) are categorized into level
1 – Remembering. There are 15.7% of the questions categorized into level 2 –
Understanding. Then, 11.5% of the questions are categorized into level 3 –
Applying. Meanwhile, there are only few questions categorized into the
middle-high level area. There are only 6% of the questions categorized into level 4 –
Understanding. Then there are only 1.3% of the questions categorized into level 5
– Evaluating. Surprisingly, there were no questions that can be categorized into
level 6 – Creating, which is the highest level. Lastly, 2.3% of the questions are not
considered as interrogative questions. It means that the students’ ability to
produce interrogative was still low. Most questions made by the students are only
basic simple questions.
B.Students’ Answer to the Interrogative Sentences
In this section the writer is discussing about how the students answer the
interrogative sentences. The main focus is the match between the question word’s
function and students’ answer to the question. The match is determined based on
the table of WH-question’s function and example shown as listed in chapter II.
The grammatical errors do not really matter in this case because the focus is on
the match between each question and answer. It does not matter either whether the
answer is logically correct or not as long as the question and answer are matched
Question: *Why carbon monoxide is dangerous for human?
Answer: Because it can cause central nervous system and heart attack,
moreover can kill us
Those question and answer are matched. The question above used the question
word why, which means the question is asking for reason. Meanwhile, the student
answered the question by using a sentence that begins with the word because. It
indicates an explanation for reason. Therefore, those question and answer are
matched. The answer apropriately fulfilled the question’s expectation.
Question: *Where we can biking?
Answer: As strong as we can or as can as we wish.
The question and answer do not match. The question used the question word
where, which means the question is asking about place. Meanwhile the student
answered this question by a statement which explains about manner. The question
and answer are not matched to each other because the answer does not fulfill the
question function’s expectation.
Here is the result of the analysis on the correlation between student’s
question and answer:
Table 4.2. The Classification of Question and Answer’s Correlation
Categories
Total Number of
Questions-answer
Percentage
Match question and answer 193 89%
Unmatch question and answer 19 9%
After analyzing the data, it was revealed that 197 out of 216 (89%)
questions and answers are matched. It means that the students’ answers fulfill the
question function’s expectation. Meanwhile, there are 19 out of 216 (9%)
questions and answers which are not matched to each other. According to the
table above,4 out of 216 (2%) questions were not answered by the students.
There are also some unique cases that occur among the data. These
questions and answers are matched, but with some considerations. These
examples will explain the unique cases that occurred:
Question: *What must we do for avoid impact from smoking?
Answer: *More prayer for God. Life usual healthy.
In this case, the question is asking about manner by using the words what must we
do. While the question’s answer also explains about the manner, which means the
question and answer are matched. The problem is the answer statement does not
logically answer the question. However, they are still considered matched because
the answer fulfills the question function’s expectation, even tough the answer is
logically incorrect.
Question: *Why evolution can make extinction of animal?
Answer: *Because an animal is no one else again because an animal
become a other animal.
This case’s question is asking for reason by using the question word why. But a
problem occurred in the answer. The answer is gramatically incorect that made it
difficult to be understood. However, the question and answer are still considered
the sentence is explaining about reasons. The implied meaning of the answer,
regardless the grammatical erorrs, is also explaining about reasons.
Question: *How impact from global warming?
Answer: *This air will not clean, make TBC.
In this case, the problem occurred in the question sentence. The purpose of the
question is asking for information. However, the problem is the question which
uses the question word how instead of what. Meanwhile, the answer corectly
explains the information. In the end, those question and answer are considered
matched because the implied meaning of the question is asking for information.
Even though the question and answer are gramatically incorrect.
Question: *Which the theory about the dinosaur extinct?
Answer: *There are 2 theory, there are climatic theory and comet theory.
This case has the same problem as the previous case. A problem occurred in the
question sentence. The question is intended to ask for information. Instead of
using the question word what, the question used the question word which. This
situation may cause a confusion because the original function of the word which
was asking about choice. Fortunately, the answer correctly fulfilled the original
question’s expectation. Therefore, the question and answer are considered
39
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter concludes the study in two ways. The first is the conclusion
of the research finding and the data analysis in chapter IV. The second is the
suggestion for teacher and other researchers or students who wish to conduct
research on the same issue.
A. Conclusions
Concerning the first research objective, which is to find out the levels of
the interrogative questions produced by students based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, it
can be concluded that the interrogative sentences made by the students are
categorized as level one, namely Remembering, as many as 63 per cent. In level
two, namely Understanding, there are as many as 15.7 per cent. In level three,
namely Applying, there are as many as 11.5 per cent. In level four, namely
Analyzing, there are as many as six per cent (6%). In level five, namely
Evaluating, there are as many as one point three per cent (3%). In level six,
namely Creating, there are as many as zero per cent (0%). Meanwhile two point
three per cent (2.3%) cannot be categorized in any levels because the questions
were made in a form of Yes/No question instead of WH question. From the
percentage of each level, it could be concluded that students’ skill to produce
interrogative question is still low because most of the questions are categorized
so many grammatical errors that occur among the interrogative sentences made
by the students.
The second conclusion concerns the second research objective, which is to
find out how the other students answer the interogative questions. Students
answered the questions in many ways. There were 89 per cent of the answers to
the questions that can be categorized as matching with the question verb function.
There were nine per cent (9%) answers which did not match with the questions.
In the meantime, there were two per cent (2%) of the questions which were not
answered by the students. From the research results, it can be summed up that the
students ability to answer the questions is considered good because the students
could answer most of the questions with a decent answer.
B. Recommendation
The recommendations are adressed to teachers, students, or other
researchers who also have an interest in this topic.
1. For Students
Concerning the current students’ level to produce interrogative sentences,
which is still low, the writer suggests that the students have more practice to
produce interrogative sentences. English interrogative sentences seem to be a
simple thing to learn, but it takes a lot of time to get used to it. The students can
practice to make interrogative questions at school and also in their daily life.
Concerning so many grammatical errors that occur in the students’
a good question or information is useless if it is hard to be understood, especially
because of the grammar. It is better to make the sentence meaningful and
understandable.
2. For Teachers
Based on the finding of this thesis, the teachers have an important role in
developing supportive atmosphere to learn language. The teachers could
encourage the students to use English all the time during the class, facilitate
students to use English interrogative questions during the learning process to
improve students’ ability to produce the questions. Teachers’ role in language
learning is very important. They manage the students’ process of learning.
3. For Other Researchers
Since the participants and areas of this research were limited, the writer
recommends other scholars to conduct researches involving more participants and
larger areas. The writer also suggests further research on other specific issues
related to students’ ability to make and answer interrogative questions, such as
42
REFERENCES
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Belmonth, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Anderson, L. W. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assesment A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edupress Inc. (n.d.). Quick flip questions for the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.edupressinc.com
Essberger, J. (n.d.). W H question words. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/wh-question-words.htm
Fisher, D. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved May 3, 2012 from http://ecampus.oregonstate.edu
Greenbaum, S. (1989). A college grammar of English. New York: Longman.
Krohn, R. (1977). English structure sentence. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Norish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press.
Postman, N. (1979). Teaching as a conserving activity, New York: Delacorte Press.
Quirck, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd.
