TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS ... ii
DECLARATION ... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iv
ABSTRACT ... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Research Questions ... 4
1.3 The Purpose of the study ... 5
1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5
1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 6
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7
2.1 Definition of Question... 7
2.2 Types of Questions ... 8
2.3 Importance of Questioning in English Classroom ... 14
2.4 Functions of Questions ... 16
2.5 Questioning Strategy ... 18
2.6 Interaction and language Acquisition: input and output in second language acquisition... 22
2.7 Classroom Interaction and Questioning ... 24
2.8 Previous Study on Teacher’s Questioning ... 28
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEACRH ... 32
3.1 Research Design ... 32
3.2 Research Site ... 33
3.3 Research Participants ... 33
3.4 Data Collection Techniques ... 34
3.4.1 Class Observation ... 34
3.4.2 Questionnaire ... 36
3.5 Data Analysis ... 37
CHAPTER IV RESEACRH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 39
4.1 Data Presentation ... 39
4.1.1 Teachers’ understanding about questioning ... 40
4.1.2 Types of Teacher Questions ... 43
4.1.4 Kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond
to the teachers’ questions ... 65
4.2 Discussion ... 69
4.2.1 Teacher’s understanding about questioning ... 70
4.2.2 Types of teachers’ questions and students’ responses... 75
4.2.3 Questioning strategies ... 80
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 85
5.1 Research Findings ... 85
5.2 Conclusions ... 87
5.3 Some Implications ... 88
5.4 Limitations ... 89
5.5 Recommendations ... 90
REFERENCES ... 92
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 The number of questions used in each observation Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 2 Frequency of display and referential questions and the percentage in the
total sum ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3 Frequency of the questioning strategies used by the two teachers ... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Input and output in interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2 The Role of Interaction (Van Lier,1988) . Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Clasroom observation transcriptions………...102
Appendix 2 Questionnaire……….……….….133
Appendix 3 Surat izin penelitian……….137
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This section covers the introductory part of this thesis. It covers the
background, research questions, purpose of the study, significance of the study,
and the organization of this thesis. Those introductory parts will be presented
below respectively.
1.1Background of the Study
The role of questioning in teaching and learning process is very important
for teachers and students. It is widely accepted that questioning is a basic skill that
teachers are obliged to have in the classroom ( Gall, 1970; Suherdi, 2007; Fitriani,
2009; Sabeni, 2008; Winasaputra, 2008; Sofa, 2008). Regarding the importance of
questioning for teachers, Suherdi (2007) states that teachers are often considered
as “professional question-askers”. The skill for formulating questions, he adds, is
an important strategy in conducting classroom teaching and learning process.
In classrooms, the questions used by teachers have many purposes.
Through the questions, teachers can make students involved in learning activities
and to stimulate the student to think critically and learning more efficiently (Gall,
1970; Kim & Kellough, 1978). Gall regards the belief that question plays a
significant role in teaching as “a truism”. Teachers can also use questions in
ongoing assessment to assess students’ understandings on the materials being
learnt (Stiggins, 2006). Therefore teachers should have skills in questioning to
maximize the advantages they contribute in the classroom. They need to plan the
students toward further investigation and a deeper understanding of the concepts
being stressed.
Effective questioning posed by the teachers is believed to be able to focus
students’ attention to understand lesson content, arouse their curiosity, stimulate
their imagination, and motivate them to seek out new knowledge (Ornstein, 1990).
Besides, questioning is one of the best ways to develop teacher’s role as an
initiator and sustainer of classroom interaction (Nunan, 2001). In short,
questioning done skillfully would facilitate students’ language acquisition.
In reality, however, it seems that effective questioning does not always
happen, even among teachers with considerable experience in teaching. Nunan
and Lamb’s (1996) research on questioning in language education reveals that
over the years, teachers still pose questions in much the same way as always, with
most of the questions low-level, despite improvement in materials, curricula, and
methods of teaching. Teachers tend to pose a series of specific, factual, and low-
level questions that hardly challenge students to think of the answers as they can
be readily lifted from text (Moore, 1995). This condition also happens in the
teaching and learning process when the researcher conducted an informal
observation in a Senior High School in Kendari. It seems that the teachers’
knowledge on how to pose questions effectively is still limited. On the other hand,
the society at large assumes that teachers know how to pose questions effectively
because they spend a large part of their time in class posing questions to their
Based on that informal observation related to the way of the teacher poses
the question in the teaching and learning process, teacher did not seem to apply
many types of questions as well as appropriate questioning strategies in their
teachings. They did not give any opportunity to the students to involve in the
teaching and learning process. This has brought about a consequence that the
teaching learning process in the classroom does not occur as what is expected.
Therefore it is important to portray the teacher’s activities in the classroom to see
whether the way s/he conducts the teaching and learning activity is worth
applying in the teaching context.
As commonly known that in the classroom, the interaction between
teacher and students are often initiated, controlled, and dominated by the teacher.
Thomas (1987) and Van Lier (1988) describe that kind of classroom interaction as
IRF pattern in which teacher Initiates the interaction by giving questions, gives
Response, and provides Feedback to the students’ responses. From this, it is
inferred that questioning plays a central role in classroom interaction.
Teachers’ questioning strategies have been the main concern in most
investigation of classroom practice. Woods (1991) in her study reported that
teacher frequently pose specific questions that demand a narrow range of possible
right answer. As a result it no wonders that responses obtained from students are
rather predictable. As well, Jan et. al. (1993) found the similar results in their
study on teachers’ behaviors in using question.
As the students’ answers are much effected by the teachers’ questions, in
posing questions in term of the level types of question and the questioning
behaviors (Nunan, 1996). This is important to take into account because skillful
questioning can arouse student’s curiosity and interest, stimulate their
imagination, and motivate them to search out knowledge (Ornstein, 1987). In
summary, good questions given by the teacher can challenge the students to think
critically and help clarify concepts and problems related to the lesson (Paul and
Elder, 2007).
Based on the description above, it is very important to investigate the
teachers’ understandings about questioning, the types of questions, and the
questioning strategies that the teachers use in eliciting student’s responses, and the
kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond to the teachers’
questions.Therefore, the need of investigating the teacher’s questioning related to
these phenomena has triggered the researcher to conduct this research.
1.2Research Questions
Based on the issues of questioning stated in the background, the researcher
intends to carry out a research relating to teachers’ questions in English language
classroom activities. This research attempts to find out the answers of the
following research questions.
1. What are teachers’ understandings about questioning?
2. What types of questions are employed by the teachers in the classroom?
3. What questioning strategies do the teachers use in eliciting student’s responses
4. What kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond to the teachers’
questions?
1.3The Purpose of the Study
There are four main purposes of conducting this research. The first
purpose is to find out the data about the teachers’ understandings on questioning
in English teaching and learning process. The second objective is to find out the
data about the types of questions employed by the teachers in the classroom.
Those types of question will be classified into two main types; display and
referential questions. The third purpose is to find out what questioning strategy
used by the teachers in eliciting students’ responses when the questions are not
understood. The main reason for identifying those strategies is the importance of
them in overcoming the students’ absence in responding teachers’ questions. The
forth objective is to identify the kinds of students’ responses elicited by different
types of questions posed by the teachers.
1.4Significance of the Study
This research is significant in that 1) it attempts to investigate the teachers’
questioning in English language classroom. This research hopefully will enrich
the teachers’ knowledge about many kinds of questionings as well as strategies on
questioning so they can select and use appropriate questions in the classroom
instruction, 2) it supports an existing theoy on questioning in teaching and
1.5Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One presents the
introduction. It covers the background of the study, the research questions, and the
purposes of the study as well as the significance of the study.
Chapter Two presents review of related literature relating to teacher
questions. It will discuss the importance of questioning, the types of questions and
the questioning strategy in teaching and learning. Chapter Three elaborates the
mothodology of the research. It covers research design, research site, research
participant, data collection and data analysis.
Chapter Four presents the data presentation and discussion of the research
and Chapter Five draws the conclusion, some implications and limitations. It also
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
This chapter describes the methodology of the study. It covers the research
design, the research site, the research participants, and the data collection
techniques. Data analysis is also presented.
3.1Research Design
This study employed a qualitative research design, embracing the
characteristics of case study. A case study was chosen for several reasons. First,
this design is usually used as an attempt to gain an in-depth understanding of the
situation and its meaning for those involved (Merriam, 1998). In this case the
situation of teaching English in Madrasah Aliyah. Second, a case study is an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (here is the
teacher questioning) within its real-life context, the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and multiples sources of
evidence are used to enhance to construct validity of the study.
Qualitative study also attempts to identify unanticipated phenomena and
influences, and generates new grounded theories about the latter. In other words,
qualitative research provides rich narrative descriptions. It attempts to understand
the process by which events and actions take place. Qualitative methods look for
3.2Research Site
The research was conducted at Madrasah Aliyah Kendari. The reasons for
choosing this school as a place of research were that of its practicality and
accessibility (Kvale: 1996) and the researcher was familiar with the condition of
the school since he had ever taught there for three years before. In addition, it was
relatively easy to conduct the research because the researcher did not find any
difficulties in getting permission from school on gaining the data needed.
3.3Research participants
The participants of the present study were two English teachers and 152
students of Madrasah Aliyah Kendari. The two teachers were chosen to be
research participants based on accessibility (Kvale, 1996). They were
recommended to participate in the study by the headmaster of the selected school.
They were willing to participate in this research and to have their class observed.
Both teachers graduated from strata 1 of English Department from a local
university. They had been teaching English at that school for eight to fourteen
years. Both teachers taught in grade ten and eleven. In the present study they
were coded as Teacher A and Teacher B. Both teachers are female.
Characteristically, teacher A used more English in her classroom activities.
In conducting teaching-learning process she frequently focused on the text book.
For this, her class was textbook-centered. Teacher B, on the other hand, used more
Bahasa Indonesia than English in her classroom teaching. Similarly with Teacher
A, her classroom activities were textbook-centered as the material utilized were
The 152 students who participated in the present study were divided into
four classes; grade eleven of Natural Science I and grade eleven of Natural
Science II, grade eleven of Social Science I, and grade ten of X1. In this study,
grade eleven of Natural Science I and grade eleven of Science II were taught by
Teacher B, while grade eleven of Social Science I, and grade ten of X1 were
taught by Teacher B. At the time of conducting this study those students were at
the second semester of each grade. Generally, all the students participated in the
present study never followed English course outside their schooling time. They
got English lesson just whenever they went to school.
3.4Data Collection Techniques
There were two main techniques used to collect data. They were classroom
observation and questionnaire. The following elaboration will present how those
techniques applied to get the intended data.
3.4.1 Classroom Observation
Classroom observation is the main technique of collecting data for this
study. It is intended to gain the data about the types of questions as well as the
strategy used by teachers and also to gain the data about the students’ responses in
the classroom on teachers’ questions. Three observation sessions were conducted
for each teacher for a month. In this case, researcher acted as a non participant
observer. The researcher used an audiotape to record what actually happened in
the classroom concerning the teacher’s questions and the students’ responses and
The first session of observation was carried out in grade eleven of Natural
Science I with the activity of listening skill. At the time of observation, the teacher
read the material for three times, while listening students were asked to fill in the
chart of the missing information stated in the text read by the teacher. All
segments of the dialogue in the classroom were recorded and transcribed.
The second session of observation was conducted in grade eleven of
Natural Science II with the material of “expressions of plan” taken from reading
text. Here the students were asked to perform dialogue containing the material in
pair in front of class. Data on teacher questioning were taken before and after the
pairing-dialogue performed.
The third observation was in eleven of Natural Science II with the activity
of reading comprehension. Here the activity was set into group discussion. The
discussion was focused to answer the questions relating to the material of reading
text. At the end of discussion, each group was asked to report the answers of
questions to class. Data on teacher questioning were gained from the report
session of the discussion.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth observations were conducted in Teacher B’s
class. In the fourth observation, which was conducted in grade eleven of Social
Science I, the activity was reading comprehension. Before doing that activity,
however, the students were asked to perform a dialogue which was given at the
previous meeting. The dialogue was done to introduce the material of the reading
comprehension activity. The material of reading comprehension was narrative text
nine groups of five or four students each. The fifth observation was in eleven of
Social Science I. At the time of observation, students were taught speaking skill
using storytelling technique. The last observation, the sixth, was done in grade ten
of X1. The class was reading comprehension with the material of “pollution”.
Here the teacher asked students to work individually to answer the questions
based on the reading text given.
After the three sessions of each teacher activities in teaching and learning
process were recorded, researcher then transcribed the recorded data, made
categorization, and analyzed all the collected data.
3.4.2 Questionnaire
Questionnaire used in this research consisted of seven items containing
close and open-ended questions (see appendix 2). This questionnaire was written
in Bahasa Indonsesia in order to make the respondents understand. Therefore, the
data which reflected the respondents’ understanding on questioning could be
gained. Questionnaire was distributed after all of the three sessions of lesson
finished.
Of the seven items, four items (1, 2, 3, and 6) were open-ended questions.
These items were used to gain the information which reflects the teachers’
understandings on the importance of questioning in classroom teaching. Item 4
was a close question. It was used to gain the data on the frequency of using certain
types of questions. Items 5 and 7 were open-ended and close question
used by the teachers whenever their questions were not understood by the
students.
3.5Data Analysis
The process of data analysis comprises arranging, organizing,
categorizing, and interpreting. The data analysis was conducted over the study.
The analysis and interpretations were based on the data from questionnaire and
observations.
Data from questionnaire was analyzed based on the responses given by the
two teachers. This analysis was used to answer the first research question namely
the question about what the teachers’ understandings on the issue of questioning.
Data from classroom observations were analyzed based on the
transcription of each observation session and the field note of each. In each
transcription there were three codes utilized. The three codes were T for teacher, S
for student, SS for class. In addition, the teacher questions were identified by the
existence of question mark (?)
In categorizing the types of questions used by the teachers, the researcher
adopted the classification of questions proposed by Long and Sato (1983) cited in
Ellis (1994). They were display questions and referential questions categories.
This analysis was used to answer the second research questions concerning the
type of questions used by teachers in teaching -learning process in the classroom.
To answer the third research question about questioning strategy used by
the teachers when the questions are not understood by students, researcher also
questioning strategies proposed by Wu (1993) namely rephrasing, simplification,
repetition, or decomposition strategy.
To answer the forth research question relating to the students’ responses,
researcher analyzed the responses provided by the students whenever question
addressed to them. On the purpose of categorizing those responses, researcher
adopted the classification of students’ responses proposed by Wu (1993) into two
categories: (1) restricted and (2) elaborated. A restricted response consists of a
word or a simple answer. In contrast, an elaborated response contains two or more
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section the researcher will elaborate the concluding remarks of this
thesis. This chapter will include the summary of the research findings, the
limitation of the present study, the implications of the findings into English
language learning, and the recommendation for further research.
1.1Research Findings
This study is focused on investigating four research questions. They are 1)
What are teachers’ understandings about questioning?, 2) What types of questions
are employed by the teachers in the classroom?, 3) What questioning strategies do
the teachers use in eliciting students’ responses when the questions are not
understood?, and 4) What kinds of responses are elicited by the students to
respond to the teachers’ questions?. The answer of each research question will be
presented here respectively.
Based on research question one, the researcher found that the two teachers
admitted that questioning was very important in classroom instruction. By
questioning, they could test their students’ understanding on the material of lesson
being taught. They also stated that questioning could be used to enhance students’
participation. For this reason, they understood that questioning can also play
diagnostic, instructional, and motivational function.
Although they admitted that questioning was very important, they could
assumed that both types of questions were used to test students’ understanding on
the material of lesson.
Concerning the research question two, the researcher found that those two
teachers used more display questions than referential questions. They used display
questions to recall students’ cognitive memory. They used them at the beginning
of classroom activities to dig students’ prior knowledge, at the middle of activities
to control students’ participation, and at the end of activities to test to what extent
the materials being taught were understood by the students. The referential
questions were used to conduct brainstorming activity at the beginning of
classroom activities and to build interpersonal relationship between the teachers
and the students.
Regarding the research question three, from this study was found that
those two teachers applied three questioning strategies to elicit students’ verbal
responses. Those strategies were repetition, rephrasing, and decomposition
techniques. In using those three strategies the teachers were found to use
translation techniques to make the questions more understandable for students to
answer.
The salient use of display questions affected the responses generated by
the students. From the study, it was revealed that the types of students’ responses
generated from the teacher questions were closely related to the types of questions
addressed by the teacher. As the types of questions used were display questions
with short intended answers, the students responded in one word, phrase, and
elicited by the two questions only when the teachers used text-based questions
which were taken from the text being discussed.
1.2Conclusions
There are four conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, in
terms of teachers’ understandings about questioning, the teachers do not
understand about the questioning comprehensively. Theoretically, their
understandings are only in the case of the importance of questioning in teaching.
Practically, however, they could not apply their understanding in real teaching. In
this context, the two teachers cannot maximize the use of classroom questioning
in facilitating their students to acquire more input (Krashen, 1982) and
opportunity to practice using the language being learnt (Swain, 2007). Second,
the use of certain type of questions in classroom teaching, especially referential
questions, does not automatically elicit students’ elaborative responses as what
has been suggested by Brock (1986). This might be caused by the quality of the
referential questions used by the teachers. The two teachers as found during the
observation, used referential questions to elicit students’ answer concerning the
non-related materials at the beginning of the teaching and learning activities.
Third, in terms of questioning strategies, the teachers have been successful to
assist the students’ to elicit responses. The last, the students’ responses are
eventually affected by the types of questions addressed by the teachers. If the
teachers give display questions, the students will give short answers. Conversely,
the elaborative response will be provided by the students if they are given
1.3Some Implications
Teachers’ understandings on the use of questioning in classroom teaching
implies to the choice of types of questions and questioning strategies used during
the classroom activities. As they understand that questions are frequently used to
test students’ mastering on the lesson material, the teachers tend to use display
questions and only certain questioning strategies applied. Since the display
questions are closed questions and repetition strategy saliently used, the responses
generated from them are short responses consists of one or two words only.
Although referential questions were open questions and have potential
effect on triggering elaborative responses, they cannot automatically elicit
students’ elaborative responses. The students’ responses generated from those
types of questions are restricted consisting of yes or no response only. In
summary, the types of students’ responses are interrelated and cannot be separated
from teachers’ understandings, the types of questions used, and questioning
strategy applied during the classroom activities.
In the context of EFL learning in classroom, the findings of this study can
be taken into consideration in several implications. Firstly, the teachers of English
should give maximal opportunities to students to speak as what revealed from this
study the classroom communication was dominated by the teachers. Here the
teachers not only talked more than the students, but they also controlled what to
discuss and when to speak. To provide students with more opportunities to use
their English in classroom, the use of questioning might be the helpful way of
Secondly, the use of display and referential questions in a proper way
could facilitate the students to provide more elaborative verbal reposes. Because
“students are motivated to explore new ideas when they are constantly challenged
and forced to exert their thinking forward by the types of questions posed by their
teachers” ( Jan and Talif, 2005). For this regard, the teachers should select the
display or referential questions which require more challenging thought to apply.
The text-based questions could be another choice. Therefore, the more elaborative
and complex language production of the students can be triggered maxmally. “If
the teachers are concerned with the quantity and quality of students’ output, it is
not enough to focus on the types of questions only. Questioning strategies must be
considered as well” (Wu, 1993).
Thirdly, questioning strategies which eventually, could promote
negotiation of meaning and facilitate interaction could be beneficial to encourage
students’ oral involvement in classroom. On the purpose of this, the teachers
might therefore find out the practical way to utilize the questioning strategies in
EFL classroom activities. In so doing, teachers must be trained to make them
understand and realize on the importance of the strategies in facilitating oral
communication in English language learning classroom.
1.4Limitations
This study involved very limited participants with only two English
teachers selected and six observations carried out. As a result, the findings of this
study cannot be used to generalize on the necessary contribution of teacher
questionnaire used to reveal teachers understanding on the questioning need to be
added with more items by which teachers’ understanding could be gained more
comprehensively.
Although the participants of this study were limited and conducted in short
time of investigation, and studied very limited aspects of teacher classroom
questioning, the findings of this study, at least, have supported the previous
research which have been conducted on the same concern, such as by Wu (1993)
Ma (2006), Hussin (2006), David (2007), and Chun-miao (2007).
To get more comprehensive understanding on the teachers questioning,
especially in EFL classroom teaching practices, more participants involved and
longer time of investigation were recommended.
1.5Recommendations
For further investigation, with more participants and longer time,
quantitative research design might be taken into consideration. By quantitative
research design the emphasis of study can be specialized on the effect of those
teacher questions on the students’ achievement in learning foreign language. This
is recommended as the design can be used to make generalization on how
questioning used in English language learning properly. Additionally, the further
investigation can also be focused on the use of questioning strategies to explore to
what extent of each strategy can provide more comprehensible input for the
students to acquire. Furthuremore, the investigation can be carried out to reveal
how questioning strategies can facilitate interaction through negotiation of
classroom lesson. By involving more participants and long term of study with
more aspects of questioning, it is expected that the study can provide more
comprehensive views into the effectiveness of questioning in EFL classroom
learning. Finally, investigating what makes students cannot give responses is
recommended. This is important because when students being addressed a
question; many factors affect their ability to answer their teachers’ questions.
Such aspects as shyness, learning style, learning strategy, and other environmental
factors also determine the students’ self confidence in answering teachers’
References
Abarca, M.F. 2004. Interaction In The English Classroom; An Exploratory Study. Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 4, (1), p.1-24.
Allwright, D. 1986. Interaction and Negotiation in Classroom: Their Role in Learner Development. Available in
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile50allrigh.pdf.
Allwright, D. & Bailey,K. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom. An Introduction to Classroom Research for language Teacher. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alwasilah, A.C. 2008. Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya
Alexander, E.J. 1988. Teaching Reading: Third Edition United State of America: Foresman and Company
Bernadowski, C.C. 2006. The effects of middle school social studies teachers’ questioning patterns on learners’ outcomes. Available in
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-10202006-230659/unrestricted/CapalongoBernadowskiCarianne2006.pdf
Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mc Kay Co.,Inc.
Brock, C. A. 1986. The Effect of Referencial Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly. Vol.20 No.1 Maret 1986
Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language Pedagogy. Second edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall-Inc
Chavez, M. 2006. Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and
teachers' self-perceive... International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, (1), 49-102.
Chun-Miao XIE. 2007. A Study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching Journal. Vol 4, No.4. April 2007.
content-and-2006. (editors). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Mouton de Gruyter: New York
Darn, S. (2008) Asking Questions. Retrieved on March 28 2009 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/asking-questions
David, F. 2007. Teacher’s Questioning Behaviour and ESL Classroom Interaction Patter. Humanity & Social Science Journal 2.(2):127-131.2007
Elliot, S. N. 2000. Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching. Effective Learning. Third Edition. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Emilia, E. 2000. Research Method in Education (Hasil Pemikiran). Bandung: FPBS UPI.
Emilia, E. 2008. Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: CV.Alfabeta
Farmer, L. S.J. 2007. What is the Question. IFLA Journal. 33;44
Fitriani (2009). Pentingnya Guru Menguasai Keterampilan Mengajar. Jambi Express, Minggu, 24 Mei 2009. Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from http://jambiekspres.co.id/new/index.php/guruku/2506-pentingnya-guru-mengusai-keterampilan-mengajar.
Gall, M. D. 1970. The Use of Questions in Teaching. Review of Educational research Journal. 40;707-721.
Gall, M. D.et al. 1978. Effect of Questioning Technique and Recitation on Students Learning. American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 15, No. 2, (Spring, 1978), pp. 175-199
Godfrey, K. A. (2001) Teacher Questioning Techniques, Students’ Responses and Critical Thinking. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.
Groisser, P. L. 1964. How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning. Teachers practical Press. Inc.
Hussin, H .2006. Dimensions of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom Practice in Malaysia. TESL-EJ. Volume 10, Number 2
Hootstein, ED & D. Alexandria. 2002. The Art of Questioning. Available on: http://proquest.umi.com
Jariah Mohd Jan. 1993. Basic Skill and Question Types in Reading and Interpreting Literature. Journal of Southeast Asia Review of English (SARE)
Jarolimek, John & Clifford D.F. 1976. Teaching and Learning in the Elementary School. USA: Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc.
Joan, K.H.2006. Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: London
Johnson, K..2001. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching.
England: Pearson Education limited.
Johnson, R. 1997. Questioning techniques to use in teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance; Oct 1997; 68, 8; Academic Research Library
Johnson, B. E. 2002. Contextual Teaching and Learning. California: Corwin Press. Inc.
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Great Britain: Pergamon Institute of English.
Kim, C. E. & Kellough,D. R. 1978. Resource Guide for Secondary School teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing co.,Inc.
Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research interviewing. London: SAGE Publication, Ltd.
Lang, H. R. & David N. E. 2006. Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effectives Teaching. USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Lewis, G. K. Developing Questioning Skills. Available on: http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cte/sourcebook/questioning.pdf
Linch, T. 1991. Qestioning Roles in the Classroom. ELT Journal 45:201-210.
McComas, W. F. & Abraham L.. Asking More Effective Questions. Available on: www.usc.edu./programs/cet/private/pdfs/Asking_Better_Questions.pdf.
Merriam, S.B. 1998. Qualitative Research And Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Mohd Jan & Talif. 2005. Questioning Strategies and the Construction of Context in Classroom Talk. The English Teacher Vol. XXXIV, 76-89
Morgan, A. M. 2008. The importance of questioning & questions for considerations in programming for intercultural language learning .(Report). Babel. 43.1 (Nov 2008): 13(6). InfoTrac Humanities & Education Collection. Gale. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. 19 June
2009 Available on
<http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>.
M. Tsui. 2005. ESL Teachers’ Questions and Corpus Evidence. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005, pp. 335-356
Nunan, D. 1987.Communicative Language Teaching: Making It Work. ELT Journal 41:2 136-145.
__________1989. Understanding Language Classroom. New York: Prentice Hall.
________ _1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D & lamb. 1996. The Self-Directed Teacher, managing the learning process. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Nuttal, Christine. 1996. Teaching Reading Skill in a Foreign language. New edition. Great Britain: Reed Educational and professional Publishing Ltd.
Nunn, R. 1999. The Purposes of Language Teachers’ Questions. Available in http://iii.cc.kochi-u.ac.jp/~nunn/IRAL1.pdf
Ornstein, A. C. 1987. Qustioning: The Essence of Good Teaching- Part I. NASSP Buletin. 1987;71;72
______________. 1988. Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching- Part II. NASSP Buletin. 1988; 72;72
Orr, Janet K. 1999. Growing up with English. Washington: office of language programme.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. 2007. Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (1), 36- 37.
Pica, T. et al. 1987. The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL QURTERLY, 21, (4).
Richards, Jack, et al. 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex England: Longman Group Ltd.
Richards,J.C. & Lockhart. 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riegle, R. P. 1976. Classifying Classroom Questions." Journal of Teacher Education. 1976; 27 ;156
Rowe. W. D. 1986. Does Research Support The Use of “Purpose Questions” on Reading Comprehension Tests? Journal of Educational Measurement Volume 23, No. 1 Spring, 1986. pp. 43-55
Rowe, M.B. 1986. Wait time: Slowing Down may Be a Way of Speeding Up. Journal of Teacher Education, January-February.
Sabeni, M. (2008). Keterampilan Bertanya dasar dan Lanjutan. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://beni64.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/keterampilan-bertanya-dasar-dan-lanjut/
Shomoossi, N. 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction : A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Matrix Vol. 4, No.2 September 2004
Siposova, M. 2007. The Effects of referential Questions in the EFL Classroom. Communications, 4, p. 33- 37.
Sugita, Y. 2006. The Impacts of Teacher’s Comment Types on students’ Revision. ELT Journal, Vol. 60. pp. 34-41.
Stiggins, R. 2006. Assessment for Learning: A Key to Motivation and Achivement. Edge, 2, (2), 1-20.
Suherdi, D. 2007. Menakar Kualitas Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Press.
Suherdi, D 2008. Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Press.
Snell, 1999. Improving Teacher-Student Interaction in the EFL Classroom: An Action Research Report. The Internet TESL Journal, V, (4).
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 2000 Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 2000; 4; 251
Swain, M. 2007. The Output Hypothesis: Its history and Its Future. A seminar handout. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From
http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf.
Thomas, M. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S. 1996. Teacher Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal 50/4: 279287
Vogler, K. E. 2005. Improve Your Verbal Questioning. Available on: http://proquest.umi.com
Van Der meij, H. 1993. A Case Study of Questioning in Reading. www.literacymatters.org/content/read/write/question.htm
van Lier, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner : Ethnography and Second Language Classsroom. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publisher (Ltd)
Wei Liu. 2005. Design of Text-based Questions from the Study of Typology of Questions. Sino-US English Teaching. May 2005, Volume 2, No.5 (Serial No.17), pp. 16-24
Wilen, W. 1987. Improving Teachers’ Questions and Questioning: Research Inform Practice. in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.
Winataputra, U. S. 2008. Keterampilan Dasar Mengajar. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://solselku.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/keterampilan-dasar-mengajar/
Woods, D. 1991. Aspect of Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
Wragg, E.C. 1984. Classroom Teaching Skills. New York: Nichols Publishing Company
Wragg, E.C. & Brown, G. 2001. Questioning in the Secondary School. London: Routledge Falmer.
Wu, Kam-Yin. 1993. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC Journal. Vol. 24 No. 2 Desember 1993.
Yamazaki, F. 1998. An Interaction Analysis: A Teacher’s Questions, Feedback, and Students’ Production Through Classroom Observation.
