vi ABSTRACT
Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.
Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.
There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?
This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’and Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.
The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of questioning used by students of micro teaching course. The highest frequency was remember level with 79 questions and the lowest was create level with 1 question.
vii ABSTRAK
Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.
Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.
Penelitian ini menemukan sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79 pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.
i
A STUDY ON QUESTIONING IN PBI MICRO TEACHING COURSE
AT SANATA DHARMA UNIVERISTY
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Gregorius Julian Cahyadi
Student Number: 121214117
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
vi ABSTRACT
Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching
Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education
Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.
Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.
There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?
This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’ and Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.
The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of questioning used by students of micro teaching course. The highest frequency was
remember level with 79 questions and the lowest was create level with 1 question.
vii ABSTRAK
Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching
Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,
Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.
Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.
Penelitian ini menemukan sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah
Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79
pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like thank The Almighty God for blessing my life. He
gives me strength, chance, good people, patience, and health in order to assist me
to finish my thesis.
My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Emanuel Sunarto, M.Hum., for his
guidance, motivation, time, and patience. He kindly helped me by giving support
and encouragement during thesis consultation. He had shown his quality as an
advisor by routinely monitored, giving useful feedback and solutions.
I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved parents, Yulianus
Gumpol and Cornelia Dewi Pramana, for their love, prayer, motivation, and
patience. I also would like to thank my brothers and sisters, Bang Alfon, Mas Edo,
Bagas, Nadia, Dea, Yeyes, and Agapitus for their support. They convinced me that
I could finish my thesis well no matter what happened.
I thank to Julyan Adhitama, who helped me to proofread my thesis.
Furthermore, I express my gratitude to the members of class D (Penguins), for
being best friends during my study in PBI. They taught me a lot of meaningful
things. My gratitude goes to members of Train8 (Thomas, Ajeng, Fira, Ave, and
Regin) who helped me to lead them by giving motivation and suggestion so that I
could my role and finish SPD class. I would not forget anyone who had given me
assistance that I cannot mention one by one.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v
ABSTRACT ... vi
ABSTRAK ... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Research Background ... 1
B. Research Problems ... 4
C. Problem Limitation ... 4
D. Research Objectives ... 5
E. Research Benefits ... 5
F. Definition of Terms ... 6
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 8
A. Theoretical Description ... 8
1. Types of Questions ... 8
a. Procedural Questions ... 9
b. Convergent Questions ... 9
c. Divergent Questions ... 10
2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities ... 10
x
b. Understand ... 13
c. Apply ... 14
d. Analyze ... 16
e. Evaluate ... 17
f. Create ... 17
B. Theoretical Framework ... 18
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20
A. Research Method ... 20
B. Research Setting ... 21
C. Research Participants ... 21
D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering techniques ... 21
1. Research Instruments ... 21
a) Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016 .. 21
b) Observation Table ... 22
2. Data Gathering Techniques ... 23
E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 24
1. Data Reduction ... 24
2. Data Display ... 25
3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification ... 25
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 27
A. Types of Question Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 27
1. Procedural Questions ... 28
2. Convergent Questions ... 29
3. Divergent Questions ... 30
B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 31
1. Remember ... 32
2. Understand ... 34
3. Apply ... 36
xi
5. Evaluate ... 38
6. Create ... 39
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 40
A. Conclusions ... 40
B. Recommendations ... 41
1. For Students of PBI Micro Teaching Course ... 42
2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course ... 42
3. For Future Researchers ... 42
REFERENCES ... 43
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions ... 22
Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ... 23
Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions ... 24
Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questioning ... 25
Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course ... 27
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: List of Participants’ Questions in Micro Teaching Course ...45
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is an introductory part. It presents the research background,
research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and
definition of terms.
A.Research Background
Teaching is a process of how to make students particularly experience a
learning activity and motivate them to be good and useful people. In addition,
teaching also gives big responsibilities to teachers in leading and guiding students.
Therefore, teachers are determined to have certain good qualifications either in
knowledge, attitude, or even a teaching technique. By having such qualifications, it
is able to increase the quality of teaching learning process and give good impact to
students’ development.
One of the qualifications should be mastered as a teacher is questioning. It
is commonly used in a class activity. Gall (as cited in Richards and Lockhart, 1996)
says “in some classrooms over half class time is taken up with question and answer
exchanges.” Based on the statement, it shows that questioning plays a critical role
during the teaching-learning activity and it indicates that is an interaction between
a teacher and students. Additionally, a question also organizes the content of
learning and has deep implications in the way that students assimilate the
information that is presented and discussed in class (McComas and Rossier, n.d.).
diet of classroom interaction through which a variety of pedagogical and social
actions are carried out.”
There is saying “question is knowledge.” It means that the human curiosity
that comes from question will lead to knowledge. It seems simple but containing
useful things particularly for students’ development. Kerry (2002) in his book says
that “questioning transfers the emphasis in learning from the teacher to the student.
The teacher enquires, probes, challenges; the student is required to think speculate,
and contribute.” (p. 75). Thus, questioning is transfer knowledge from what
teachers have to students by processing it. Teacher needs to deliver critical
questions to encourage students thinking critically to find the answer. For instance,
high order questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and provide their own
opinion will help them to develop the way of thinking. However, questions are
given should notice what course is being taught because every subject has their own
needs. For instance, vocabulary class may determine students’ memorization more
than speaking class.
The use of effective questions can lead students to become more curious
and active (Fusco, 2012). By possessing questioning skills, teachers immediately
notice a positive difference in their students. A smoother flow of interactions and
more dynamic relationships in the classroom even become conscious fewer
discipline problems (Pagliaro, 2011). Furthermore, a questioning activity shows
that there is a dynamic interaction between a teacher to students and students to
students. By having a well interaction, a teacher is able to check students’
when given questions. Considering how important questioning and its questions is,
experts believe that it is a tool that teachers have for helping students to build
understanding (Wiseman and Hunt, 2008). The researcher is in line with the
experts’ argument that asking questions gives positive impact to students’
development and make a teacher easier to adapt with the class situation. In order
to have qualified teachers in the future, the English Language Education Study
Program (ELESP) provides students with a course to facilitate what teacher
candidates’ need. The course is famously called Micro Teaching. The ELESP is a
department that is affiliated with the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education.
This course is given in accordance with the provision of the ELESP that is being a
study program that prepares and produces students to become English teachers who
are professional, intellectual, humanistic, dignified, and acquiring the characteristic
as educators.
The researcher observes that the students of Micro Teaching course who do
teaching simulation often ask some questions either in the pre-activity, main
activity, or closing activity. It is natural that questioning is one of the most familiar
forms of teacher talk in classrooms (Chafi and Elkhouzai, 2014). In addition, the
researcher also sees that the students of Micro Teaching might not realize when
asking questions. As teacher candidates, Micro Teaching students need to raise their
awareness of importance of asking questions’ purposes. The students should know
what they are looking for from proposing their questions. Considering the situation
questionings. Therefore, this research is expected to enrich knowledge particularly
for teacher candidates in having a good questioning skill.
B. Research Problems
Based on the research background above, there are two research problems
formulated in this study.
1. What types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in PBI
Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?
2. What levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI
Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?
C. Problem Limitation
The study focuses on the analysis of questions by students when they have
teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching course. Specifically, the focus is
questions in a verbal way produced during the simulation. The researcher employs
the theory of types of questions suggested by Richards and Lockhart (1996) to
analyze the first research problem which is types of questions. For the second
research problem, the researcher uses the theory of Anderson, et al. (2001) in
D. Research Objectives
Based on the research problems, the objectives of this study are as follows.
1. To find out the types of questions asked by students’ teaching practice in Micro
Teaching class D batch 2013
2. To analyze the levels of questioning used by students’ teaching practice in
Micro Teaching class D batch 2013
E. Research Benefits
By conducting this study, it is expected to give benefits especially in English
Language Teaching.
1. Micro Teaching Students
This study is able to enrich students’ knowledge on levels and types of
questions. It also helps students to reflect their questioning skills so that in the future
they are able to improve their performances and know how to ask questions
properly.
2. Micro Teaching Lecturers
Lecturers are expected to guide and take responsibility on students’ teaching
skills. Therefore, this study provides information needed for lecturers in giving
suggestion and feedback to students during the teaching practice especially levels
3. The ELESP Sanata Dharma University
The finding of this study is expected to raise awareness of English
Department on the issue of questioning especially in Micro Teaching course. In
addition, it helps the ELESP to make a good teaching material about questioning.
4. Future Researchers
Future researchers are expected to conduct more aspects of questionings
used in Micro Teaching course. In addition, future researchers may investigate
levels and types of questions based on subjects or courses taught in Micro Teaching
course, school, and campus particularly the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.
F. Definition of Terms
To avoid misunderstanding and to give better understanding of some terms,
the researcher provides their definitions.
1. Questioning
Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone
questions (“Questioning”). Questioning is fundamental to good teaching and
learning (Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.1). In addition, it is one of
the skills and techniques in teaching. By questioning, it helps students to review,
check on comprehension, stimulate critical thinking and control classroom activities
(Blosser, 1991).
2. Micro Teaching
Singh and Sharma (2004) state that “microteaching is a training course,
to a small number of pupils in a short duration of time.” In this case, Micro Teaching
is a course offered in the sixth semester of the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.
This course provides teaching practice simulation with allocated time for students
to practice and to master teaching skills before experiencing Program Pengalaman
Lapangan (PPL) in junior or senior high schools.
3. Levels of Questioning
Levels of questioning is levels of asking questions in context of classroom
situation. The levels relate to the cognitive ability in the revised theory of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, namely: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. In
Indonesia curriculum, those levels are well known as C1 (cognitive 1), C2, C3 until
C6 which are used by teachers to plan their questions. Remember, understand, and
analyze are categorized as the low levels. Meanwhile, analyze, evaluate, and create
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A.Theoretical Description
In this section, the researcher provides relevant theories and reviews similar
research studies. Thus, the researcher employs the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to
examine the levels of questioning and uses the theory of types of questions.
1. Types of Questions
There are several types of question suggested by experts. In this study, the
researcher employs theory suggested by Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart
(1996). Based on the theory, there are three types of questions, namely procedural,
convergent, and divergent. According to Qashoa (2013), the use of such
classifications is able to engage students’ participation and make them to take part
in classroom interaction. He also argues that the types are better used in
heterogeneous class since it makes students feel more successful and challenged
(p.54). However, the researcher elaborates the theories with some others in order to
support the study.
Sukur (2016), in her research about a teacher’s question in micro teaching
class, finds that the most type of question used by students in their teaching practice
simulation is a convergent question. In her cases, it is found when the teacher leads
the students to the topic of learning and function as introductory questions. The
activity and sometimes used for asking willingness. Meanwhile, the lowest type is
divergent questions.
a. Procedural Questions
Procedural questions have a relation with classroom procedures, routines,
and classroom management (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.186). It means that
this question has a function as opposed to the content of learning. As an illustration,
the following questions such as how are you? or have you done, class? contain
different meanings and they have their own purpose as complement of questions
relate to mastering content of a lesson. The first question is used in pre-activity. The
intention of the question is to ask about students’ condition and make them be ready
to follow activity. In the second question, the teacher asks for students’
confirmation in doing exercises or discussions. Based on the example above shows
that procedural questions have a different function from questions designed to help
students master the content of a lesson (Richards and Lockhart, 1996).
b. Convergent Questions
The second type is a convergent question. In short, Gallagher and Aschner
(as cited in Wilen, 1987) define convergent as a question that tends to demand a
students’ responses along a single direction which requires a single correct or best
answer. Wilen (1987) specifically adds that the form of convergent questions is
close-ended but more demanding than factual question (p.71). The explanation
provided by Richards and Lockhart (1996) say that convergent questions can be
known from several conditions. The first is focusing on a central theme. Next, it
Then, it does not need high order thinking. Furthermore, convergent questions focus
on the recall of previously presented information. The additional function of
convergent questions is to introduce the topic before the teacher begins lesson and
explains the content of learning.
c. Divergent Questions
The last is a divergent question. Wilen (1987) states that this question is less
predictable than the convergent question. The teacher may not expect and know the
response or answer given by students. Richards and Lockhart (1996) add that
divergent questions do not seek short answers and responses and they require
high-level thinking. Students should be able to provide their own information and to view
a topic from new perspectives. The examples of divergent questions are how have
computers had an economic impact on society? and how would business today
function without computers? The teacher can provide divergent questions after
asking convergent questions (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187)
2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities
Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions
(“Questioning”). In addition, people propose questioning in order to find out
answers and more information. In the context of classroom situation, questioning is
an activity which involves interaction between a teacher to students and students to
students. The questioning activity may happen when a teacher checks students’
understanding, tests students’ knowledge, or because of students’ curiosity. It
Levels of questioning vary from an expert to another. This study employs
levels of questioning based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Krathwohl (2001)
says that the taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying
statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction.
It means that the taxonomy provides an important framework focusing on higher
order thinking. By providing it, this taxonomy can assist teachers in designing
performance task, crafting questions, and giving feedback to students’ work.
Anderson et al. (2001) in their taxonomy divide the six categories of the
cognitive process dimension (p.31). They are remember, understand, apply,
analyze, evaluate, and create. Those levels are often used in the objective of
learning as well-known as C1 until C6 in Indonesia curriculum
a. Remember
Anderson, et al. (2001) say that remember is a process to retrieve relevant
knowledge from long-term memory. They add the scope of this level.
Remember knowledge is essential for meaningful learning and problem solving as that knowledge is used in more complex tasks. For example, knowledge of the correct spelling of common English words appropriate to a given grade level is necessary if the student is to master writing an essay (p.66).
Based on the explanation above, remember knowledge can be a meaningful
learning if the assignments or tasks integrated with comprehensive knowledge and
not isolated from their context. In addition, Price and Nelson (2010) call this level
as the lowest level of cognitive domains (p.22). In fact, the process that is needed
by students in answering remember questions is recalling knowledge and
In this level, there are two processes of cognitive: recognizing and recalling.
Anderson et al. (2001) says that recognizing involves retrieving relevant knowledge
from long-term memory in order to compare it with presented information. They
explain that in recognizing, the students recall for a piece of information that is
identical to the presented information. Then, they determine whether the
information matches with previously learned knowledge or not. Recognizing is used
when students are able to connect their memories with what they have experienced
or known before. As an illustration, Reeves (2011) gives a clear example of
recognizing. The question “which of these numbers is one thousand?” requires
student to recognize the correct answer in one possibility (p. 201).
Actually, recalling has the same procedure as well as recognizing. Anderson
et al. (2001) specifically define its cognitive process as follows.
Recalling involves retrieving relevant from-long term memory when given
a prompt to do so and it is usually in form of question. In recalling, students search long-term memory for a piece information and brings that piece of information to working memory where it can be processed. For instance, in literature, an objective could be to recall the poets who wrote various poems. A corresponding test question is “Who wrote The Charge of the Light
Brigade?” (p.69).
From the explanation above, it can be said that there is a time limit for
students finding the poets who wrote the poems based on previously learned
knowledge. After obtaining the information needed, students have to quickly
answer it. An alternative for this cognitive process is retrieving. The following
question “what is this number?” or “what are the characteristics of mammals?”
may be quiet challenging for students since they need to recollect when there is no
b. Understand
Students are said understand when they are able to construct meaning from
instructional languages, including oral written, and graphic communications.
Besides, students understand when they build connections between the new
knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). In
this category, there are six cognitive processes like interpreting, exemplifying,
classifying, summarizing, inferring, and comparing.
Interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one
representational form to another. It may involve converting words to words,
pictures to words, words to pictures, numbers to words, words to numbers, and the
like. Translating, paraphrasing, representing, and clarifying are alternative terms
for interpreting (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). Exemplifying according to Anderson,
et al. (2001) occurs when a student gives a specific example or an instance of a
general concept or principle and it involves identifying the defining features of the
general concept or principle. For instance, a teacher gives four kind of texts (only
one of which is a descriptive text) and asks students to name the text that is
descriptive.
The third cognitive process is classifying. It begins with a specific instance
and requires the students to find a general concept or principle. Classifying involves
detecting relevant features that “fit” both the specific instance and the concept
(Anderson et al, 2001. p.72). The situation of this process is like a teacher displays
a video of conversation and then indicates the greeting. Next level is summarizing.
statement that represents presented information a general theme. Alternative terms
of summarizing are generalizing and abstracting.
The fifth is inferring. It occurs when a student is able to abstract a concept
or principle that accounts for a set example by encoding the relevant features of
each instance. Mayer (2002) says that inferring involves drawing a logical
conclusion from presented information. For instance, when learning Spanish as a
second language, the objective may be “Students will be able to infer grammatical
principles from examples.” Then, to assess the objective, students are given article
noun pairs “la casa, el muchacho, la senorita, el pero.” What they need to do is
formulating a principle when to use the article la and el (p.229)
Comparing usually involves making comparisons among instances within
the context of the entire set (Anderson et al. 2001). Furthermore, they say that
detecting things such as similarities and differences between two or more objects
are the part of comparing the cognitive process. The alternative terms for this
cognitive process are contrasted, mapping, or matching.
According to Anderson et al. (2001), explaining cognitive process happens
when a student is able to construct and use a cause-and-effect model of a system.
Reeves (2011) adds when people understand, they are able to express information
or concepts in their own words or explain a meaning of something to a new situation
and idea (p.202).
c. Apply
In applying, it contains procedures to perform exercises or solve problems
knowledge. In addition, it requires students to know (remember) and then
understand either knowledge or information (Reeves, 2011). When students are
given apply questions, they need to implement certain concepts or knowledge in
finding answers and solutions.
There are two cognitive processes in the applying level. They are executing
and implementing. Mayer (2002) says that executing requires students to apply a
procedure to a familiar task. In this type, students need to make a choice about what
steps are used and they are determined to modify it if the chosen procedure goes
wrong. To illustrate the situation, here is the example given by Mayer.
A sample objective in elementary level mathematics is learn to divide one whole number by another, both with multiple digits. Then, in order to assess the objective teacher gives worksheet to students containing 15 whole number division exercises and ask them to find the quotients (p.229).
The second cognitive process of apply is implementing. According to Mayer
(2002), implementing occurs when a student applies one or more procedures to an
unfamiliar task. Anderson et al. (2001) argues that since students need selection,
they must possess an understanding of the type of problem encountered as well as
the range of available procedures. It means that students need to know and
understand the problem then solve the problem using the selected procedures.
Implementing has correlation with understand and create levels. Here is the sample
objectives and corresponding assessments.
d. Analyze
Anderson et al. (2001) says that analyze involves breaking a material into
its constituent parts and determining how the parts are related to each other and to
an overall structure. Most of courses insist students to have a good analyze ability.
Therefore, this category is often used in teaching-learning activity and students are
hoped to be able to differentiate facts and opinions then make conclusions for
supportive information. In 2002, Mayer adds the objective of analyze learning is to
determine relevant or important pieces of a message (differentiating), the ways in
which pieces of a message are configured (organizing), and the underlying purpose
of the message (attributing).
Differentiating involves distinguishing the parts of a whole structure in
terms of their relevance or importance (Anderson et al. 2001). It means that
differentiating requires students to determine relevance or essential things with the
overall structure. Mayer (2002) adds that this cognitive process occurs when
students discriminate relevant from irrelevant parts or important from unimportant
parts of presented materials. For instance, in differentiating apples and oranges, the
relevant thing in the context of fruit is internal seeds, not colors or even shapes.
Discriminating, selecting, distinguishing, and focusing are alternative terms for
differentiating.
Mayer (2002) states that organizing involves determining how elements fit
or function within a structure. In this cognitive process, students need to identify
and recognize elements to form solid structure within which elements that fit. The
biases, values, or intention underlying communications (Anderson et al. 2001.
p.82). They add that attributing involves a process of deconstruction, in which
students determine the intentions of the author of the presented material.
e. Evaluate
Evaluate is defined as making judgments based on criteria and standards
(Mayer, 2002). There are a few criteria used in evaluating such as quality,
effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency and the use of those criteria are
determined by students or other factors. Anderson et al. (2001) state that not all
judgments are evaluative. Therefore, evaluating focuses on the criteria related to
effectiveness of a result then it is compared with planning and procedures which
are being used. The cognitive processes of this category are checking and critiquing.
In 2002, Mayer states that checking happens when students detect
inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product, determines whether those
things has internal consistency as it is being implemented (p.230). Anderson et al.
(2001) find that when checking is combined with planning and implementing, it
involves determining how well the plan is working. This cognitive process is
usually called as testing, detecting, monitoring, and coordinating. The second is
critiquing. Mayer (2002) argues that it requires students to find inconsistencies
among products, detect internal consistency, and even make judgment. When
making critique, students have to use external criteria and judge it.
f. Create
According to Anderson et al. (2001), create involves putting elements
product by organizing several elements into a different pattern or structure.
Similarly, Mayer (2002) says that students are determined to produce an original
product. Creating is connected with previously learned knowledge. There are three
cognitive processes in this category: generating, planning, and producing. The
process of generating represents the problem and arriving at alternatives or
hypotheses that meet certain criteria (Anderson, et al, 2001, p.68). Besides
convergent thinking, Mayer (2002) adds that generating also involves divergent
thinking and forms the core of what can be called creative thinking. It means that
create provides opportunities for students to assemble parts of knowledge into a
whole using creative thinking and problem solving.
The second is planning. It involves devising a solution method that meets a
problem’s criteria, that is developing a plan for solving the problem (Anderson et
al. 2001). In 2002, Mayer adds that in planning, students may establish a sub goal,
for instance breaking a task into subtasks to be performed when solving the
problem. The last is producing. Here, it carries out a plan for solving a given
problem that meets certain specification. It is not only producing but inventing a
product. He says that students are given a functional description of a goal and must
create a product that satisfies the description. The situation of this cognitive process
is like a teacher asks students to create or make a recount text based on their
experiences.
B. Theoretical Framework
Questioning becomes one of familiar forms in a teaching-learning activity
requires teachers to have a good questioning skill in order to support the
teaching-learning activity and develop students’ critical thinking. Before becoming teachers
in regularly school, teacher candidates need to be trained particularly their
questioning skill in Micro Teaching course as it plays an important role either for
them or students.
Addressing the first research problem about types of questions, the
researcher employs the theory of Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). The
use of the theory is intended to identify what types of questions asked by the
students of Micro Teaching course. Based on the theory, there are three levels of
questions, namely, procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent
questions.
Addressing the second research problem about levels of questioning, the
researcher employs the theory of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by Anderson et
al. (2001). The theory talks about six levels of cognitive abilities, namely remember,
understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. This theory is used to assist the
researcher to identify what levels of questioning used by students in PBI Micro
20
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the discussion about the method employed in this
research. The detailed discussion includes the research method, research setting,
research participants, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis
technique.
A. Research Method
In conducting this study, the researcher implemented qualitative research.
Creswell (2014) states that qualitative research is an approach for exploring and
understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to social or human
problem. In addition, qualitative research focuses on reports of experience or on
data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically (Hancock, Ockleford, and
Windridge, 2009, p.6). The purpose of qualitative research is to give total picture
of the study in a detailed description so that readers have better understanding on
the phenomenon (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh, 2010). The researcher
employed qualitative research to understand and describe a phenomenon on
students of micro teaching questioning in their teaching practice.
This study specifically belonged to content analysis. “Content analysis is
defined as a tool to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts
or sets of texts” (Writing@CSU, 2004). Similarly, Rose, Spinks, and Canhoto
(2015) mention that content analysis can be applied to all kinds of written text such
The data were collected from the video recording of students’ performance in Micro
Teaching course. The content that was analyzed is questioning part and its
questions. It was transcribed into the written form to assist the researcher in
identifying levels of questioning and types of questions.
B. Research Setting
This research was conducted in PBI Micro Teaching class D Batch 2013 at
Sanata Dharma University. There were 14 participants and each participant was
given one section and 25 minutes allocated time to have teaching practice.
C. Research Participants
The participants who were involved in this research were 14 students of
Micro Teaching class D batch 2013. They were in sixth semester of English
Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques.
1. Research Instruments
In order to gather the data and answer the research problems, the researcher
used two instruments, namely video recording and observation table.
a. Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016
According to Smith (as cited in Bowman, 1994), the use of mechanical
recording devices usually gives greater flexibility than observation done by hand.
By using video, the researcher might have observation and research anywhere and
anytime. In 2012, Jewitt says that a video can be used in a number of ways for
research including participatory video, videography, the use of existing video data,
of videos. The videos were recorded during the teaching practice section based on
time allocation. The duration of teaching practice simulation for each participant
was maximum 25 minutes. Every participant taught different topic for levels of
junior and senior high schools and it was adapted based on curriculum 2006 and
2013. The researcher did the observation and note typing from the video of teaching
simulation to collect the data. Then, the collected data which were in form of
utterances or questions were analyzed using several techniques.
b. Observation Table
In order to support collected the data, the researcher used an instrument as
tool named observation table. This observation table was functioned to classify the
collected data. In gathering data for the research problems, the researcher used
observation table as follows.
Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions
Participant Number of
Case
Form of
Questions Time Context
Types of Questions
PC CV DV
P1
Notes:
PC: Procedural Questions CV: Convergent Questions DV: Divergent Questions
The table above shows the three types of questions. The column from participant
until context has the same function as shown in Table 3.1. Meanwhile, for the right
side of the table, it indicates types of questions used by students of Micro Teaching.
Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning
Remember
Participant Number of Case Questions Time Context
P1
The table above shows how the data are classified into each category of level. The
top row of the table represents the levels of questioning. Every level is placed in a
separated table. The left side of the table marks every participant. The columns of
form of questions and time are used to record what participants asked and when it
happened in minutes and seconds. There is a column of number of case. Its function
is to give a call number for every question so that readers are easy to find examples
of levels of questioning. The context column is used to explain the situation and
purpose when the participants proposed questioning.
2. Data Gathering Techniques
The main source of this study is video recordings of students’ teaching
practice in Micro Teaching course. The videos were collected from Micro Teaching
Laboratory by contacting its staff. The researcher randomly chose the videos and
did not know the participants personally. Then, the researcher watched the videos
and transcribed them into written questionings. The videos were played by using
VLC media player. In playing the videos, the researcher used the observation table
to obtain the data as shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. The tables mainly consisted
of columns of levels of questioning and types of questions as the matters of this
In addition, the researcher also took notes if there were any levels and types besides
the observation table.
E. Data Analysis Techniques
This section presents how the data were analyzed. In this study, the
researcher used qualitative data analysis as suggested by Miles and Huberman
(1994) to analyze the data. There are three steps in analyzing, namely, data
reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification.
1. Data Reduction
Miles and Huberman (1994) state that data reduction refers to the process of
selecting, focusing, simplifying, and transforming the data based on field notes or
transcriptions (p.10). In this step, the researcher selected the relevant data and listed
question forms from the videos. Then, the collected data were classified based on
their levels and types. After collecting and classifying the data, the researcher
recorded them using a table. For the first problem, the form of the table is as
following.
Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions
No Types of Questions Number of Questions Percentage
1 Procedural questions
2 Convergent questions
3 Divergent questions
Table 3.3 aimed to help the researcher analyzing the data of levels of
questioning. The table recorded the number of every type in form of number and
percentage.
For the second research problem, the researcher used Table 3.4 to record
and analyzed the data. The table had the same function as Table 3.3. Specifically,
it was used to record the number of every types of question.
Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questionings
No Levels of Questioning Number Percentage
1 Remember
2 Understand
3 Apply
4 Analyze
5 Evaluate
6 Create
2. Data Display
The second step was data display. A display is an organized, compressed
assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action (Miles and
Huberman, 1994, p.11). At this stage, the researcher provided how the result of data
was displayed. The researcher used a form of text to display the data. Specifically,
the text was used for explanation was narrative text.
3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification
In this section, the researcher drew conclusion based on the result of study.
did verification through the existing field, using further data collection, and
reviewing among colleagues. However, the conclusion was verified during research
27
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents the results and discussion of the data
to answer the research questions as stated in chapter I. There are (1) what types of
questions Micro Teaching students occur when performing teaching simulation and
(2) what levels of questioning are asked by students of Micro Teaching in their
teaching practice simulation.
A. Types of Questions found in Micro Teaching Course
In this part, the researcher presents the data of the second research problem.
There are 262 questions asked by the participants. Based on the findings, the
researcher finds that there are three types of questions during the teaching practice
simulation. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent
questions. The details of the findings are showed in the table as follows.
Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course
The table above indicates that all types of questions occur during students’
performance. Besides, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ capacity in asking
questions. The total number of questions relate to the types of questions are 262.
No Types of Question Number Percentage
1 Procedural Questions 123 47 %
2 Convergent Questions 118 45 %
1. Procedural Questions
Richard and Lockhart (1996) state that procedural questions only relate to
classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management. It means that this type
does not have any relation with the content of learning (p.186).
Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows
that procedural is the number one type of question used in the teaching practice
simulation. Most of the participants state this question to open the class at the
beginning. Here are some examples of procedural.
[145] How are you today? [297] How was your holiday?
For case [145], most of the participants state the question to open the class
and only few say [297] because the schedule when having teaching practice is
different. Case [145] is classified as a classroom procedure and routine so that it is
a part of procedural question. The participant uses the question to check students’
condition and make sure if they are ready to join the class. Case [297] is also stated
to open the class. It is like a chit-chat or informal conversation in order to attract
students’ attention.
Procedural questions can be used when the participant asks for students’
willingness such as the following cases.
[163] Can anyone help me? [208] Mario, can you read?
[213] Anyone who want to lead the prayer?
Several participants conduct those questions to ask for students’ help doing
are grouped as classroom procedures and routines and have no relation with the
topic of the day.
Another function of procedural questions is asking for students’
confirmation. It is delivered after the participant has finished explaining the main
topic, giving instructions or commands, and checking assignments. Here are the
following examples.
[209] Is it understood or not? [235] Have you finished, guys? [257] Anyone get this sheet?
2. Convergent Questions
This type seeks for similar students’ responses and focuses on a central
theme (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p. 186). Besides, convergent questions require
short answers and statements so that they do not need high level of thinking. Based
on the Table 4.2, 45% type of question belongs to convergent.
Before starting the lesson, some participants propose questions to lead the
students to the topic. They ask various convergent questions such as the following
cases.
[146] What do you do before the class?
[218] Did you know how to make your breakfast or your indomie maybe?
Question [146] is used as an introductory part of the topic being taught. The
participant states the question related to the lesson and it is daily activities. This
question requires student to recall a specific moment of their habit before joining
the class. Therefore, case [146] is categorized as a convergent question. Case [218]
has the same function as [146] but with the different situation. In case [218], the
students’ favorite food. Then, the participant chooses one of students to explain the
steps of making his breakfast, in this case is indomie. The researcher sees the both
case [146] and [218] may engage students’ participation in the teaching-learning
activity.
The data findings show that convergent questions are also stated in the end
of the class. Most of the participants restate questions that are delivered in the
beginning of the lesson. The function of these questions is to review materials that
have been learned. Here are the following questions.
[292] What have we learned today? [405] What is the generic structure?
In case [292], the participant states the question to make a conclusion of the
lesson. Then, students respond by giving an answer about the topic of the day. For
instance, if in the beginning the participant says the class would learn a report text,
students give the same words. The same case happens to [405]. In the beginning,
the participant provides information about the generic structure of a text. Then, in
the end, the participant proposes the same question to review and recall students’
knowledge on the materials. Therefore, the functions of questions [292] and [405]
are to review the lesson and make a conclusion by recalling previously learned
knowledge.
3. Divergent Questions
Divergent questions require students to provide their own information and
need a higher level of thinking. This type does not seek a short response and recall
previously learned knowledge (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187). Table 4.2
others. This finding has the same result as Gallagher and Aschner’s (as cited in
Wilen, 1987) which find that divergent questions are seldom used by classroom
teachers (p.15).
The finding is also supported by Sukur (2016) which states that divergent
questions are rarely employed in Micro teaching course. However, the researcher
finds some divergent questions in the following examples.
[150] From the video, what question that you can ask?
[183] What do you think about the moment that always update in the news?
Case [150] is categorized as a divergent question since the question is asked
by students is less predictable. The participant states the question to explore
students’ ideas about the video and determine them to create a product (question).
In this situation, there are no wrong answers because all responses are acceptable.
In case [183], the participant gives an open-ended question. It means that student
can present any answer and the participant may not expect the responses given.
However, case [150] and [183] do not seek single answer and short response but
look for a variety of possible answers that can make longer discussion about news.
B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course
In this section, the researcher presents the findings of the first research
problem. Based on the data, the researcher finds that all six levels of questioning
are employed by students of Micro Teaching. The details of the findings are showed
Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course
Levels of Questioning Number Percentage
Create 1 0.6%
Evaluate 7 4.9%
Analyze 12 8.3%
Apply 11 7.7%
Understand 34 23.6%
Remember 79 54.9%
The table indicates that all levels of questioning occur during the students’
performance. In addition, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ teaching capacity
in asking questions. The total number of levels of questioning employed by the
students are 144. Remember is the most frequently applied in Micro Teaching class
and create has the least number compared with the others. The detailed description
and explanation of the data findings are discussed in the following sections.
1. Remember
Remember involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory
(Mayer, 2002, p.228). Students will identify and match questions with presented
information when they are given things that are related to previously learned
knowledge (Anderson et al. 2001). Based on the findings, most participants deliver
the remember question in opening and closing the class. Here are some examples
of the cases.
Case [39] is asked when the participant opened the class and the question is
categorized as an introductory part. The participant previously asked students’
experiences on receiving and making invitation card. Several students have the
situation and the participant instructs them to mention phrases or words used in the
card based on their experiences.
For case [65], it is expressed after the participant asked a specific moment
about greeting and farewell. Several students experienced such situation and they
are asked to give some examples on how to say something in greeting and farewell.
Remember questions can also be differentiated from the context or situation.
To give an illustration, here are the examples.
[24]: Which one is transition words?
[51]: What is language features of recount text? [78]: What is the generic structure?
Basically, those questions do not belong to level of remember. However, if
readers see from time and situation where those are delivered, they are. The
situation for the first sentence is when the teacher has just explained about transition
words. In the explanation, the teacher gives some examples of transition words.
Then, students are given a text and asked to mention the transition words. It means
that the students retrieved relevant knowledge from a long-term memory, in this
case was the transition words, then compare and match it with the presented
information.
For case [51] and [78], the teacher places them at the end of the class.
situation, the teacher restates it in order to review the topic and recall the
knowledge.
The researcher sees that remember level becomes the highest frequency
because Micro Teaching students have the tendency to restate questions. For
instance, a teacher asks the purpose and the generic structure of a text in the
beginning of the class. Then, he/she proposes the same questions in the end of class
activity to make lesson review. In addition, Micro Teaching students often ask
questions relate to experiences in the past so that students need to retrieve their
memory.
2. Understand
When students are able to build connection between the new knowledge and
theirs, they are said understand (Anderson, et al. 2001). This level has six cognitive
processes. In this case, the researcher finds 5 types of understand occurring in the
teaching practice. They are interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, comparing, and
explaining.
[87]: What have you learned from video?
Case [87] belongs to interpreting. Mayer (2002) states that interpreting
occurs when a student is able to convert information from one form representation
to another such as words to words, pictures to words, and the like (p.228). The
researcher sees that the participant uses a video in order to stimulate the students’
thinking. It is a kind of warming up before going to the main activity. By asking the
question, the students might state opinions using their own words.
Case [103] is expressed after the participant has explained the concepts or
principles of the topic. In order to check the students’ understanding, the participant
asks the question and hoped the students can give some examples. Thus, this case
belongs to exemplifying.
[112]: Which one is the title?
In case [112], the participant and students are analyzing a text. The
participant has explained the generic structure of a text and gives an example. The
researcher sees that the aim of this question is to make the students are able to
determine and categorize something, in this case is the title. Therefore, case [112]
is classified as exemplifying.
[111]: Do you know what the difference between report text and descriptive text is?
Case [111] above is classified as comparing cognitive process since the
question intends to contrast differences between two texts. Several things can be
compared from those texts such as meaning, purpose, language features, generic
structure, and the like. The question is delivered in the beginning of the activity
when the participant talks the main topic.
[94]: So, do you know how to make application letter?
Case [94] is expressed as an introductory part. The participant asks the
chosen student to explain steps or process of making application letter. This
question is given to students who have ever applied for jobs (by condition) because
they know, understand, and have experience. Then, the chosen student is asked to
