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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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
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
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
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 …?
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
Questions Do you agree with the actions…? with the outcome…?
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.
answer, the percentage of student’s questions and answers compatibility will be revealed.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
