THINKING SKILLS FRAMEWORK FOR CONSTRUCTIVIST
INSTRUCTION IN LITERATURE CLASS TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF INCLUSIVE AND DIFFERENTIATED CLASSROOM
Eunice W. Setyaningtyas
Satya Wacana Christian University
eunice.widyanti@gmail.com
Higher order thinking is essential for learning, and explicitly described by Bloom that the thinking skills must be taught. In a classroom with different level of capability, thinking skills can also be varied. In the research, the thinking skills framework suggested by Bloom was applied in forms of question that help students build concepts. The questions should be tools for students to enable them to step into the higher level of thinking, and to help teacher carry out the differentiated learning. The purpose of this research are to find out the type of questions teacher used, the interaction pattern, wait time alloted, and the significance to the differentiation strategy. This case study was held in one middle school in grade VIII during the Indonesian langugae subject, focusing on the literature topic. There were two teachers who were observed for 6 teaching sessions. Questions from the teacher were then
categorized itno Blooms‟ taxonomy, Chin‟s type of questions, interaction pattern, and Bower‟s verbal
acts category. The result of the research on teachers‟ questioning for the language classroom instruction in one middle school showed that most of the times, teachers used questions based on the lower order thinking, and did not adjust the learning for students. This habit needed a change from teacher‟s point of view, that students carry different learning profile and consequently they need learning process that meet their needs. Moreover, teachers have to use the appropriate tools for thinking to help students reach to the higher thinking skills.
Keywords: questioning skill, literature, higher order thinking, differentiation
1. Introduction
Curiosity is beginning of human‟s
endeavour to explore and understand how this universe works. The curiosity is often expressed in a form of questions. Socrates used questions as means of his teaching, and the use of questions continues until present that teachers are using it as guide to reach the learning goals. These questions should be made to arouse thinking, and it becomes a part in learning activity. Initial question can create may more questions as the result to development from what a person had learned. Questions are tools to learning, an in other words, questioning can be one of the indicators that a person is learning. Creating questions as tools to learning goals should be considered to help students
think and able to reach thinking to the higher
order thinking skills. Bloom‟s taxonomy of
learning. Thus, questions can lead students to help them learn constructively, which aims to shape students initiative, reflective thinking, and confidence in gaining their knowledge.
„Purposeful talk‟ as suggested by
Nuryatin (2010), means to create a situation where students and teacher involve in a collaborative way to construct knowledge, having a interaction to explore, connect, access, ang build students‟ knowledge. To literature works, the pursposeful talk happens through the script that is written in such a way that affects
reader‟s mind and feeeling. In the clasroom, the
purposeful talk will be carried out to meet the needs of the students in reaching the learning goal.
Students who are expected to learn constructively, consequently are also expected to think actively and independently to support their life later on. Meanwhile, students who have different characteristics from each other, also have different ways of capabilities to think and way of thinking. The unique characteristics, supported with distiguished functions of right and left hemisphere make a classroom learning design should have applied an approach that promote inclusivity and differentiation. The term inclusive and differentiated classroom believe that teacher should design the learning in special ways that support each individuals carrying their own uniqueness and characters to learn. There are several varieties in a differentiated classroom, such as the variety of the learning speed (fast / slow learners) or achievement (high / low achieving learners), interest, personalities, kinds of intelligences (as described in multiple intelligences), gender-based, learning needs in special context (ESL, vocational education, etc), and it can refer to the
learners‟ physical condition impairment (disability), mental health (disorders), or special condition like brilliant persons. When these students are in one classroom, as it is likely to be the condition seen in state schools in Indonesia, then the learning goals might be similar aligning to the curriculum, the needs can be different, and the process to work for the goals can be adjusted or specialized. Therefore, the questions as a tool or guide to thinking, are also adjusted to achieve the goals which are different for one to another.
Diverse students brings various levels of language skills they carry out to
communicate with others. In language classes, this ability should be seen more clearly especially in their first language classes where students would use language to learn about language. Literature classes, therefore, should also be potential places to observe how the question as a thinking tool in cracking the code in literacy works.
Literature appreciation is meant to
sharpen students‟ analitical ability on language
and furthermore affect how and what students think about the world and their society. In order to deliver the message and its emotion to readers, literature works employ figurative language and it is written in such a way that it affects readers feeling, views, and perception.
Literature appreciation activity in common situation in schools is often understood as the competency to mention the instrinsic and extrinsic elements from a literature work. Based on a research by Harijanti (2003) in Indonesian
language class, teacher‟s eliciting pattern were
mostly found in the lowest level, which is remembering. This habit could cause the lack of thinking ablity in the higher level. Whereas literature appreciation could be more than just listing the technical things inside the script. Students need to be able to do reasoning behind every elements found in literature works, that later it creates new perspetive toward the message of the work itself and also deeper understanding of how students relates the work to their daily life, so that it becomes meaningful to them. To be able to lead students to this state, teachers as facilitators need to guide them without telling them explicitly the message or intention of the literature work.Questioning skill will be the tool to help students construct their knowledge for this competence.
Studying language through literature works may as well be difficult to design because students would have various degree of interest to literature. Dealing with various ability, characteristics, and interest of the students, this is where the thinking skills framework based on
Bloom‟s taxonomy put its part on the learning
goals. The questions leading students to achieve the goals can be adjusted according to the
their learning more meaningful. Some students may need to work on special task based on their ability/ intelligence character. Struggling students with physical or mental impairment may need to have other form of work to deal with the literature. While giving questions appropriately will help them fulfill their goal.
The background of the importance of questioning in learning had lead the researcher to find out about the teacher‟s questioning skill in literature class in middle school. The focus of the research was on teacher‟s questioning in teaching literature appreciation. Later in this
paper‟s discussion, the result will be analyzed
whether the questioning meets the needs of thinking skills in a differentiated classroom. The research was done to reveal the type of questions that the teachers used to facilitate
students‟ learning, the interaction, and also wait time given.
The research questions were formed as follows: 1) What kinds of questions given to of the research were to find the tendency of the use of questions type in instructional activity, the interactional patterns created in the instructional dialogue through question and answer activity, and to find out the wait time given for each type of questions and whether there woould be any variation according to the type. It was expected that the research result would give insight to teachers to carry out the questions and answer interaction during
students‟ learning process, with an extra focus teachers‟ questioning tendency to students, teachers were giving 2 to 3 questions in one minute in the lowest level of cognitive domain, with a very short wait time, even less than one second. A research by Shen & Yodkhumlue (2012) showed 79,2 % of the teachers‟ questiond were in the lowest level, as similar to
Nisa & Khan‟s reseach that showed 60% of the
teacher‟s questions, and it could not lift up students‟ ability to work on higher level.
Another interesting research result by Walsh & Sattes and Cotton (2006), saying that when teacher gave longer wait time for 3 to 5 seconds, the students would be more participative in their effort to reach the higher level. According to Almeida (2010), the type of questions would be different based on th subject matter an f the strategy occupied by the teacher, that was also explained ealier by Cotton (2006) that questions were used accordingly to the goal of learning. Tienken (2009) pointed out that the interaction using the productive questions and open participation increased students cognitive competence.
However, as written by Cotton, that a high-level question did not directly give quality answer. As a result, the consequence for teacher, as written by Korkmaz (2010) and Adedoyin (2010), and Shen & Yodkhumlue (2012), that mastering the questioning skill for teaching was necessary, responding students‟ asnwers, and to give follow up to students‟ answers to lever them to higher cognitive level. In relation to literature, Taglieber (2003) made the point that literature works could be used to train critical thinking for learners, with some steps including evocation, alternatives, reflective thinking, and evaluation. In addition, Collie and Slater (2008) stated the importance of learning literature for students. Since literature works carried authenticity that carry valuable variations, include knowledge, it improved language skills, and also preserving and developing the culture, then learning literature made students be involved their study of language code, imagination, and giving emotional repsonds to the literature works.
help each student be successful (Tomlinson in Butler, 2010).
Before designing a learning activity, a teacher has to understand how students make process in learning and how they develop concept and skills. Additionally, to relate to the thinking skills framwork by Bloom, the teacher has to know the level of knowledge where students are at, and then it can be decided to where must the students step into when they are given a task to create products or projects as the result of their learning.
3. Methodology
This paper is based on the research in a middle school to two language teachers to find out about their skill in applying the thinking skill framework in the form of questions. The ethnomethodology research was led to a Classroom Interaction Analysis, which provided a analysis of speech acts in the classroom using particular patterns that can reveal the interactional forms (Malamah & Thomas, 1987). The steps of this research were 1) preparation of instruments for data collecting, studying the lesson plan from the subject teacher, 2) observation in literature classrooms to collect data and initial analysis, 3) data analysis with categorization and forming interpretation based on the findings. The subject held in SMP N 3 Salatiga in 2012. The subject of research were two Indonesian language subject teacher in SMPN 3 Salatiga. The object of the research were the interaction of teacher and students focusing on the question and answer part in the learning process. The observation was done in six sessions (10 hours in total) for prose and poetry topic in grade VIII.
The technique of data collecting were the recording, which later the result will be scripted, and written documentation, done by non-participatory observation, and interview with the teachers. The instrumet was the researcher as the main observer. Therefore, trianggulation method had been fulfilled. The
data was analyzed with categorizing strategy by organizing, selecting, and doing reduction to take the focus on the questions and answers. These question sentences will be coded based
on the type from Blooms taxonomy, Chin‟s
category of questions, and interaction pattern analysis by Bower. The second technique was the contextualization strategy by interpreting based on the findings.
The categorization of the questions was
based on Bloom‟s taxonomy (remembering,
understanding, applying, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), and Chin‟s question type (closed, open-ended, focusing, measuring, comparing, action question, reasoning, and problem posing). After that, the questions were also categorized to interaction patterns (probing, prompting, redirecting, compliance, and rethoric), and to Bower‟s verbal acts, which are: sociating, organizing, directing, evaluating, and eliciting.
4. Result and Disccussion
The result showed there were 397 questions in 10 hours class sessions (4 hours for poetry, 6 hours for prose), that made the average of 39,7 questions in one session. One session was held for 40 minutes, so it means that one question was given in every minute. Based on
Blooms‟ taxonomy of thinking skills
framework, the most questions given were in the remembering and analysis level. Based on
Chin‟s category, the focusing questions were the
highest, in open-ended type questions. The number of question was higher in the poetry class. The questions were mostly asking for the intrinsic elements from the short stories and the poems.
The questioning part had followed the pateern of IRF/E (Initiate-Response- Follow up/
Evaluate). Therefore, students‟ answers were
This condition brought strength and weakness. The questions and aswer part helped students learn the basic, however, because the questions were given in every minute, students felt tired of getting more and more similar questions from the teacher. This caused the students felt reluctant to give answer to
teacher‟s questions. Moreover, the questions were made the same for all students, whether it was given to individual, group, or class. This questioning technique had not meet the needs for differentiated classroom where students needs various learning process because they are unique different individuals. Although the learning goal is the same, the task could be differentiated, and thus the thinking skill required could be adjusted. As the result of the condition above, when the teacher gave the question for the whole class, the more silent could not have the same chance to utter their opinion because there were students who were talkative and give answers directly. Fast learner students would have needed more challenge in the activity, struggling students needed more time to work on.
It was also shown in the classes that the numerous questions, apparently, did not
guarantee students‟ success in doing the next
similar assignment. This could also effect to the thinking habit, seeing that most of the questions were in remembering and analyzing level, then students were not prepared well yet to step into the higher order thinking. Eventhough, our mind does not work always in an exact order from the lowest to higher level, but rather going back and forth. Thus, that is what the students need, in relation to the differentiation, that students need to be prepared to think divergently.
or not.
Wait time also affect students answers. In the research result, is that when students did not give the answer quickly, the teachers would soon repeat the questions, or gave prompting questions. Short wait time was usually given for low order and closed questions (<1 to 1 second), while 3 to 7 seconds was alloted for low, high order, and open-ended questions, and 8 to 12 seconds was for high order and open-ended questions. This indicated that teachers realized that the more difficult the question, the more time needed to answer. However, even when the teacher gave high order thinking questions with enough wait time, sometimes the answers from student were not as expected or they just did not have a good answer. This could have been because the questions given to often and lack of variation that made the students reluctant. The length of wait time also could be adjusted to different students because one students may be faster and slower than the other in processing the concept.
For a differentiated classroom, remembering in mind that good questions does not always get good answer, the there should be special ways to help students organize their thinking and reasoning skill to improve their answers. To facilitate students with various characters in learning how to think, tools to thinking in each level in the taxonomy are available. The first helpful tools are of course the operational verbs for each level. In designing a learning, teacher must aim to a certain activity goal according to the potential of the students, and using the appropriate verbs will be important. In the case of the language classroom where the research was held, there
wasn‟t any significant tools to help students
organize their thinking and share what they thought of the matter to other learners. The use of the tools could have been very helpful for the class to interpret the poems or short story, such as the Y-chart, SWOT analysis to study the characters, fishbone diagrams, attribute lists, mindmaps, or tables. These tools are important to be selected carefully by the teacher to match certain groups of students with diverse characteristic and needs. For example, to be able to understand a character in a short story, remembering and analyzing stage. Therefore, teacher need to carefully design the learning so that it can take students to the higher order thinking as well. In designing the activity, teachers also need to be aware and consider the
students‟ characteristics, and design special
learning or thinking process. Numerous questions to give in the same levels does not guarantee that it can prepare them to step to the higher level. In consequence, teacher must provide balanced level in giving questions based on the taxonomy. The most appearing interaction happended for prompting and probing. This can help students in achieving their goal in learning because teacher make a personalized teaching when guiding with those questions. Wait time after giving a questions need to be considered according to the level of
difficulty and students‟ ability to process.
Teacher must also consider the characters of students when teaching using the thinking skill framework, and when it is applied in forms of questioning session, so that the learning can build a purposeful talk for knowledge construction for those learners. Using tools like diagrams, tables, and lists can support and enrich the learning. The teaching sttrategy then, also need to be reviewed if the purpose is to give each students meaningful learning starts from their condition.
judgement easily, and sometimes make connection without careful consideration. This could be misleading and cause insignificance in teaching the higher order thinking skills itself. Last but not least, future research can explore the effectiveness of the thinking tools or practical strategies for each level of thinking skills, and how they work for students having diverse characteristics, ability, and interest.
REFERENCES
[1] Adedoyin, O. “An investigation of the effects of teacher‟s classroom questions on the acheievements of students in mathematics: case study of botswana community junior secondary school”. European Journal of Education Studies.2(3). 2010.
[2] Butler, Melanie. “Using Differentiated Instruction in Teacher Education”.
Downloaded from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ907012 . 2010. [3] Collie, J., and Slater, S.. Literature in the
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008
[4] Cotton, K. Classroom Questioning. USA: North West Regional Educational Laboratory. 2006.
[5] Harijanti, S. “Pola interaksi verbal wacana proses belajar-mngajar di SMU Negeri 4 semarang”. Tesis Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia UNNES.2003.
[6] Korkmaz, Özgen, Yesil, and Rustu. “A comparison of different teaching applications based on questioning in terms of their effects upon pre-service teacher‟s good questioning skills”. College Student
Journal. 44 (4). 2010.
http://questia.com/library/journal/1G1- 248733635/a-comparison-of-different-teaching-application-based (Downloaded 1 December 2013).
[7] Shen, P. and Yodkhumlue, B. “A case study of teacher‟s questioning and students‟ critical thinking in college EFL reading classroom”. International Journal of English Linguistics.(2) 1. 2012. http://www.ccsenet.org/journals/index.php/ ijel/article/view/14682/0 (downloaded 1 December 2013).
[8] Tienken, C.H., Goldberg, S., and DiRocco,
