TEACHERS’ QUESTIONING DURING BUILDING KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD IN GENRE-BASED LEARNING.

(1)

Rifan Rahmawan, 2014

TEACHERS’ QUESTIONING DURING BUILDING KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD IN GENRE-BASED LEARNING Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TEACHERS’ QUESTIONING DURING BUILDING KNOWLEDGE

OF THE FIELD IN GENRE-BASED LEARNING

(A CASE STUDY IN A STATE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BANDUNG)

RIFAN RAHMAWAN

1201669

POST GRADUATE STUDY OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT

(2)

2014

APPROVAL SHEET

TEACHERS’ QUESNIONING DURING BUILDING KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD

IN GENRE-BASED LEARNING

(A Case study in a State Senior High School in Bandung)

By

RIFAN RAHMAWAN

NIM: 1201669

Approved for the examination by:

First Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M. Pd

(3)

(4)

TEACHERS’ QUESTIONING DURING BUILDING KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD IN GENRE-BASED LEARNING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu ABSTRAK

Pertanyaan guru telah lama dianggap sebagai alat mengajar, termasuk dipengajaran terkini, pengajaran berbasis teks. Building knowledge of the field yang bertujuan membangun pengetahuan siswa merupakan salah satu tahapan dalam pendekatan berbasis teks. Pertanyaan guru dianjurkan digunakan dalam membangun pengetahuan siswa selama BKOF. Sayangnya salam beberapa hal guru kesulitan memberikan pertanyaan yang efektif.

Oleh karena itu, studi kasus ini membahas pertanyaan guru selama BKOF. Studi ini bertujuan menelaah jenis-jenis pertanyaan berdasarkan taksonomi yang diperbaharui dari Anderson (2001), modifikasi pertanyaan dari teori Wu (1993) dan pengetahuan guru mengenai pertanyaan selama BKOF yang dikaitkan dengan pandangan-pandangan yang relevan.

Studi ini menggunakan kualitatif deskriftif sebagai rancangan penelitiannya, khususnya studi kasus sebagai metode penelitiannya. Studi ini dilakukan di sebuah sekolah menengah atas negeri di Bandung melibatkan tiga guru sebagai partisipan. Observasi dan wawancara dilakukan untuk mengumpulkan data. Data yang terkumpul dianalisa dan dipaparkan secara kualitatif berdasarkan teori yang berkaitan.

Hasil studi menunjukan bahwa guru menggunakan beragam pertanyaan, yang meliputi pertanyaan remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating dan creating. Pertanyaan tingkat rendah, remembering dan understanding, merupakan pertanyaan yang paling sering digunakan. Berdasarkan hasil investigasi, pertanyaan dapat memfasilitasi pembelajaran siswa selama BKOF,. pertanyaan memdorong siswa berfikir lebih baik, memahami teks, berpartisipasi dalam interaksi kelas, dan meningkatkan waktu berbicara. Beberapa masalah juga terjadi selama kegiatan bertanya. Pertanyaan tidak selalu relevan dan efisien dalam mendorong partisipasi siswa.

(5)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

ABSTRACT

Teachers’ questions have long been considered as a teaching tool, including in

today’s popular teaching, text-based one. Building knowledge of the field that

aims to construct students’ knowledge is one of the stages in the approach.

Teachers’ questions are suggested to be used in constructing students’ knowledge during BKOF. However, in some cases teachers find it difficult to pose questions effectively.

Therefore, this case study dealt with the teachers’ questioning during BKOF. It aimed to find out types of questions based on Anderson’s (2001) modified taxonomy, question modifications adapted from Wu’s (1993) theories and teachers’ belief and knowledge in questioning during BKOF connected to some relevant points of view.

This study applied a descriptive qualitative research design, especially a case study as the research method. This study took place in a state senior high school in Bandung involving three teachers as the participants. Observation and interviews were conducted to obtain expected data. The collected data were analyzed and presented qualitatively based on the related theories.

The result indicated that mostly the teachers posed various questions, including remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating questions. Low level questions, remembering and understanding questions, were the most frequently asked questions by them. Based on the result of the investigation, the questions could facilitate students’ learning during BKOF. The questions helped the students have better thinking process, have comprehension of texts, participate in classroom interactions, and increase their talk time. Some problems also occurred during questioning. The questions were not always relevant and efficient in engaging students’ participation.

(6)

(7)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CONTENTS

STATEMENTS ………. i

PREFACE ………. ii

ACKNOLEGEMENT ……….. iii

ABSTRACT ………. v

CONTENT ……… vi

LIST OF APPENDICES ………. ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ………. 1

1.2 Purposes of the Study ………. 4

1.3 Scope of the Study ……….. 4

1.4 Research Questions ………. 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ……… 5

1.6 Definitions of Terms ……….. 5

1.7 Organization of the Thesis ………. 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Teacher’s Questions 2.1.1 Natures of Teachers’ Questions ……….. 7

2.1.2 Teachers’ Questioning in Current Instructions ……….. 9

2.1.3 Types of Teachers’ Questions ……… 10

2.1.4 Strategies in Posing Questions ……….. 20

2.1.5 Potential Challenges in Questioning ………. 23

2.2 Questioning in Cognitive Domain 2.2.1 Critical Thinking ……….. 25

(8)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 2.3 Questioning in Genre-Based Approach

2.3.1 Principles of Genre-based Approach ……… 27

2.3.2 Knowledge Construction as a Foundation in GBA and the Role of Questions in the Stage ………... 29

2.4 Previous Research ………... 33

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ……… 35

3.2 Research Method ……….. 36

3.3 Site and Participants ………. 37

3.3.1 Site ………. 37

3.3.2 Participants ………... 38

3.4 Data collection Technique ……… 38

3.4.1 Instrumentation ………... 39

3.4.1.1 Observation ……… 39

3.4.1.2 Interview ……… 40

3.4.2 Data Collecting Procedures ………. 41

3.5 Data Analysis Techniques ……… 43

3.5.1 Observation ………. 43

3.5.2 Interview ………. 45

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Types of Teachers’ Questions ……….. 46

4.1.1 Remembering Questions ……… 48

4.1.2 Understanding Questions ……… 54

4.1.3 Applying Questions ……… 59

(9)

4.1.5 Evaluating Questions ……….. 69

4.1.6 Creating Questions ………. 73

4.2 Teachers’ Belief and Knowledge in Questioning during BKOF ……. 81

4.2.1 Teachers’ Belief and Knowledge related to Principles of Questioning ……….. 81

4.2.2 Teachers’ Belief and Knowledge related to Roles of Questioning ………... 85

4.2.3 Teachers’ Belief and Knowledge related to Challenges in Questioning ……….. 89

4.3 Conclusion ………. 91

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Conclusions ………. 93

5.2 Recommendations .……..………. 95

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………. 97

(10)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Transcripts of the observation

APPENDIX B

(11)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the design of this study. It covers research

method, site and participants, data collection techniques, and data analysis

techniques.

3.1 Research Design

Research design, according to Sugiyono (2008, p. 2), deals with

scientific ways of getting data with certain aims and benefits. Sukmadinata (2005,

p. 52), specifically, explains that research method is the description of the

implementation of research based on philosophical and ideological views.

This study tried to investigate teachers’ questions during BKOF in the implementation of genre-based approach and their role in students’ learning. In accordance with this study’s interest, this study employed a qualitative design which is well known as naturalistic (Holliday, 2005, p. 19; Sugiyono, 2008, p. 7).

It belongs to interpretive paradigm since it is done in a natural setting which deals

with particular phenomena (Dezin & Lincoln, in Cresswell 1998; Gubrium &

Holstein, in Holliday, 2005; Snape and Spencer, 2003).

Qualitative design focuses on behavior, attitudes, arts, experiences, and

other social phenomena (Dawson, 2002, p. 14). The typical thing of the research is

that the collected data will be explained and interpreted deeply by consulting to

relevant theories (Liamputtong, 2009, p. 11). The collected data are described in

accordance with theories and actual events. Further, It is subjective that is not

measured or counted by numbers.

The ultimate reason of choosing qualitative research as the research

design was that its appropriateness to the interest of this study. It did not intend to

(12)

particular variable, symptom, and condition qualitatively. In this case, teachers’ questioning in genre-based learning was the focus of the study. Teachers’ behavior in posing questions was analyzed in qualitative ways. Accordingly, to be able to investigate the teachers’ questioning deeply and in detail, qualitative design might be best for this study.

3.2 Research Method

There are several methods in qualitative research, including

ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study (Creswell, 1998;

Creswell 2012; Dawson, 2002). In this study, case study was chosen as the

research method. It focuses on one (or just a few) instances of a particular

phenomenon with a view to providing an in-depth account of events,

relationships, experiences or processes occurring in that particular instance

(Denscombe, 2007, p. 35).

Hence, case study, based on the definition, could be used in this study since it tried to deal with a particular phenomenon, that was teachers’ questioning in a particular instance, that was classroom setting applying genre-based learning

to obtain an in-depth account of the event to illuminate the researcher’s understanding under the study.

The method was chosen for some supporting reasons. As proposed by

Adelman et al. (1980, in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2005, p. 184), it provides

possible advantages, as follow: firstly, the collected data is strong in reality since

the method is down-to-earth and attention-holding. Secondly, it recognizes the

complexity of truths offering some support to alternative interpretations. Thirdly,

it may form an archive of descriptive material sufficiently rich for subsequent researchers. Fourthly, it is considered as ‘a step to action’ where its finding can be directly interpreted and immediately used. And the last one is that it may

(13)

Overall, Based on the description, it might be appropriate and reasonable to apply qualitative case study to investigate teachers’ questioning in genre-based learning holistically to get in-depth understanding of the particular phenomenon focusing on teachers’ question types and strategies in the particular setting that was BKOF in genre-based learning in a classroom.

3.3 Site and Participants 3.3.1 Site

This study took place in one of the senior high schools in Bandung.

The reason of choosing the school as the research setting was the accessibility to

the school, allowing the researcher to conduct the study there. However, there was

main consideration of choosing the school as the research study. It was that the

school had been using genre-based approach as the instructional activities. This

meant that the approach used at the school went well with the setting of this study,

which was the teaching applying genre-based approach. The compatibility was

very crucial for this study in order that the required data could be appropriately

obtained. Accordingly, it was expected that the teachers and students had been

familiar with the approach so that the study could ran well.

More specifically, there were four classes employed as the setting. The

classes were derived from those taught by the teachers. When the data were taken,

the students of the classes were on the tenth and eleventh grade. There was no

specific classification of the students, meaning that the classes consisted of

students who had mixed ability. The first class consisted of 26 students, the

second class consisted of 28 students, the third class had 30 students and the last

class had 28 students. They were already familiar with text-based learning applied

at the school in which during the stage of building knowledge of the field, the

instructional communication occurred in the questioning activity. The students in

(14)

attended English classes three times a week in which each meeting lasted about 90

learning, allowing them to study comfortably. Related to the implementation of teachers’ questioning and genre-based approach, the setting had been adequate to

study pursuing master degree. She was already familiar with genre-based

approach since she had been applying the method for years at the school and had

ever taken part in some GBA-related programs and conferences.

The second one was a younger female teacher. Yet, she was an

excellent teacher since she had experiences of teaching English in a formal school

for some years and graduated from a local university in Bandung, majoring in

English education program. And the third teacher was the youngest one. Even

though she had no many experiences of teaching, she was a good teacher. She was

also familiar with genre-based teaching and questioning techniques.

(15)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.4 Data Collection Technique

The data collection technique, in qualitative research, could be in the

form of questionnaire, observation, interview, or document analysis (Creswell,

2012, p. 212). In this study, the preliminary study was employed. Therefore, it

enabled this study to include some techniques in collecting required data. Deeper

data collection technique is presented as follows.

3.4.1 Instrumentation

There were two kinds of instruments used in this study, including

observation and interview. This collaboration attempted to combine more than one

method of data collection in order to maximize the reliability and authenticity of

this study. The observation was conducted to capture the questioning activities

during BKOF. Whereas, the interview was conducted to get teachers’ points of view dealing with the implementation of classroom questioning techniques. The

specific description of the used instruments was presented as follows.

3.4.1.1 Observation

Observation aims to take inferences from the respondents’ point of view, find out what is going on and get information at the research site that

cannot be obtained from interview or survey (Alwasilah, 2011, p. 110; Cresswell,

2012, p.213). In this study, the purpose of conducting observation was to

investigate types and strategies of the teachers’ questioning aspects included during the stage of BKOF. To realize the purpose, the direct observation was

chosen. Specifically, the non-participant observation was conducted during the

investigation in this study. In this kind of observation, the researcher did not get

involved directly in the activities in the classroom. The teachers would run

naturally without any intervention from the researcher. To obtain natural

(16)

study were not explicitly told to both the teachers and the students. This aimed to

avoid unnatural interaction during the observation.

Since the observation closely observed interactions related to

questioning activities, it focused on how teachers posed questions to their

students which occurred during the phase of BKOF. The observation itself consisted of two main aspects. Firstly, it investigated the categories of teachers’ questions. Secondly, it focused on the strategies the teachers applied during the

questioning activity. The aspects were observed in the context of BKOF.

To support the observation activity, observation sheets, a video

recorder and field notes were employed. They helped the researcher get detailed

description of the context during the questioning activities. They would be used

when analyzing and interpreting the data. The observation sheets and filed notes

provided a particular format and model of investigating teachers’ question types and strategies. The points were constructed and developed from theories of types

representative since the researcher can paraphrase and explore particular

questions (Alwasilah, 2011:110). Further, he added that interview should be

planned carefully, when the interview will be conducted, how it will be

administered, how long it will last, and what types of questions will be

employed. Based on the description, the interview could be an appropriate data

collection technique in this study. By applying the interview, the researcher could

(17)

The researcher, in this study, interviewed the three teachers. It was

conducted after the classroom observation. Semi-structured questioned interview

was employed to interview the participants. However, the specific questions were

prepared beforehand follow up questions were also incorporated depending on the participants’ responses in the interview. During the interview, the researcher might elaborate and add more questions to obtain representative information.

The interview aimed to investigate the use of the teachers’ questions more comprehensively. It also aimed to find out the teachers’ belief and knowledge in questioning techniques during BKOF. Specifically, there were

several aspects in the interview including related main indicators. The first aspect

was about principles of questioning during BKOF. It dealt with theoretical bases

used by the teachers in posing questions. It was derived from several related

ideas of the principles, including Kinsela’s (1991) Omar’s (2009), Tekene’s (2006) and others. The second aspect dealt with roles of teachers’ questions. It investigated benefits of questioning teacher got. And the last part dealt problems

teachers encountered during posing questions. It was also related to some

relevant ideas.

3.4.2 Data Collecting Procedures

To obtain reliable and valid data, several procedures were conducted

during collecting the data both of the observation and interview.

In collecting data of the observation, there were seven observations

involving the four classes. The observation had to match the schedules of the

classes. The researcher needed to ask the teachers when they had the stage of

BKOF since the observation would not cover all sessions of the lessons.

Consequently, the observation was only conducted in certain meetings. The

(18)

Observation Times Teachers Class Topic Observation 1 Tuesday, 8 April,

2014 (07.15)

Teacher 1 XI (1) Environment

Observation 2 Tuesday, 8 April,

2014 (09.15)

Teacher 1 XI (2) Environment

Observation 3 Thursday, 10 April

2014 (10.30)

Teacher 2 XI Holiday

Observation 4 Friday, 11 April

2014 (9.30)

Teacher 3 X Wild Animal

Observation 5 Thursday, 24 April

2014 (09.30)

Teacher 2 XI City Attraction

2014 (07.15)

Teacher 3 X Traditional

Culture

2014 (09.30)

Teacher 3 X (2) Traditional

(19)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Table 3.1 schedule of the observations

typical classroom interaction so that hopefully representative data of how the

teachers behave in the classroom can be obtained (Frankel and Wallen, 1990, p.

368).

The result of the observation was transformed into transcription. It

would show more detailed instructional exchanges between the teachers and the

students, allowing the researcher to analyze and interpret the questioning activity

more efficiently.

The next procedure dealt with the interview. It was given to the three

teachers. Each teacher got one section of the interview after the observations were completed. A recorder was used to save the teachers’ utterances. Field notes were also employed to optimize the interview results. The result of the interview was

transformed into transcription and the important points were synthesized to get the teachers’ ideas.

To obtain the validity of the instrument, it should be checked to obtain

its feasibility and effectiveness. Hence, the validity of this study was ensured

through two lenses of paradigm, including positivism and constructivism

(Craswell & Miller, 2000). Based on the positivism paradigm, the validity was

conducted through member checking. In the study, the researcher asked for the participants’ checking in two stances, including transcribing and interpreting the video recorded data. In the stance of transcribing video recorded data, the

researcher asked the participants to check the transcription to make sure its

(20)

asked to check whether the questions in the transcription were questions or not.

By doing this checking, the researcher might have the same perception as the

participants of determining the term of questions in the transcription. Based on the

constructivism paradigm, the study was validated by providing triangulation of the

data. The research problems were coped with some data from some supporting

instruments. This study also tried to present thick description on the process and

the setting of the study based on the result of the investigation.

3.5 Data Analysis Techniques

In analyzing and interpreting the result of the collected data, there were

several techniques which should have been followed. The following are the

description of each analysis technique.

3.5.1 Observation

Related to the data from the observation, description of each

observation was made based on the field notes. The description was used to

provide more detail context when classifying types and strategies of the teachers’ questions. Further, it was used to relate to the research questions and interpret the

interaction.

After making the description, the next step was transcribing the data

from video-recording. To transcribe the data, some codes were applied to indicate

specific features of the transcription. The codes used are shown as follows:

T = teacher

S = one student

Ss = some / many students … = pausing

* = no response

(21)

After having the transcription, the next step was classifying the interaction into a particular category. The category was based on the teachers’ questions types adapted from the work of Benjamin Bloom (1956) modified by

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). It persuasively argues for a six-stage structure of

educational objectives, consisting of remembering (Q1), understanding (Q2),

applying (Q3), analyzing (Q4), evaluating (Q5), and creating (Q6). The

classification, in addition to find out the question types, was used to determine the students’ cognitive level. Asking higher order questions reflects the development of their critical thinking ability (Feng, 2013; Hamiloglu, Kamile., Temiz, Gurkan,

2012; Ma, 2008, Rogers, 1972; Tekene, 2006). The first two types of questions

(Q1 and Q2) were included in low cognitive level, while the second four types of

questions were high cognitive level (Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6). The high cognitive level was supposed as the implication of students’ critical thinking (Reichenbach, 2001, p. 20).

Next step was categorizing strategies of questioning used by the teachers. The categorization was identified when the teachers’ questions were not understood by the students and they could not respond appropriately or not give

any responses yet. For this purpose, the researcher analyzed the transcription of

the observation to find out the teacher questions that were not responded

(appropriately) by the students. In categorizing the questioning strategies, the

work of Wu (1993) was employed. These questioning strategies include five

patterns, including repetition, rephrasing, simplification, decomposition, and

probing strategies.

After having the categorization, it came to making interpretation of the

collected data. During the interpretation, related and relevant theories were

employed to support the findings.

(22)

In analyzing the result of the interview, the data were the teachers’ responses dealing with their points of view of their own performance in the

classroom including questioning techniques during BKOF. Therefore, the

interview was hopefully able to get deeper clarification from the teachers about

questioning. The transcripts of the interview would be read and analyzed

carefully. The important information from the transcripts would be taken as

sources of data.

Finally, the data collected from the observation and interview were

analyzed using related theories of questioning from Benjamin Bloom (1956)

modified by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), Wu (1993) and other relevant

(23)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is the last chapter of this study. It deals with conclusions derived

from the findings and discussion of the study. Some recommendations are

provided at the end of this chapter.

1.1Conclusions

This study investigated teachers’ questioning during the stage of

building knowledge of the field in text-based teaching. There were three focuses

in this study. They covered types of teachers’ questions, strategies of questioning and teachers’ belief and knowledge in questioning during BKOF. The discussion of question types was based on theories from Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)

adapting original taxonomy of Bloom. The strategies of questioning adopted Wu’s

(1993) work. And finally, some related theories were used in the discussion of the

teachers’ belief and knowledge in questioning.

There are some main points taken based on the result of the

investigation. Related to the stage of building knowledge of the field (BKOF) as

the setting of this study, the use of questions straight carries out one of the

recommended activities during this stage. Asking questions may help students to

construct their knowledge of the given texts. Thus, teachers’ questions can be a

fruitful teaching tool in the classroom.

Related to the types of questions, the findings indicated that the three

teachers applied variety of questions during BKOF. The questions ranged from

the lowest to the highest level of the cognitive domain. The questions included

remembering (194), understanding (59), applying (40), analyzing (43), evaluating

(47) and creating (35). The questions were mostly found in activities that included

(24)

such as pictures, slide shows and paper. The questions, specifically, occurred

before, during and after the activities. Each oral question was taken and posed

from either source books or the teachers’ own ideas.

The use of varieties of questions by the teachers was assumed to be

able to facilitate the students’ learning. Based on the findings, the teachers’

questions mostly could invite students’ responses even though the teachers needed

to modify the questions to be more acceptable and understandable by the students.

The students’ responses effectively made themselves more involved and active in

the classroom. The questions could push them to show off though not in perfect

performance. The questions, at least, could extend their talk time.

When the students voluntarily gave more responses, classroom

interaction seemed more alive. The interaction was not only dominated by the possibility to develop their thinking ability. Those advantages might be required

in constructing students’ knowledge related to texts as the general purpose of the

stage of BKOF.

Unfortunately, based on the result of the investigation, the teachers

tended to pose low level questions. The data shows that remembering questions

dominated the teachers’ questions. The teachers did not expose variety of questions that invited the students’ ideas and interpretation. Higher question levels are believed to give more benefits for them to develop their cognition domain.

The findings also indicate that the teacher, although they have good

(25)

asked to their students. The posed questions were mostly spontaneous without a

definite objective. Well-prepared questions, in fact, might help teachers to

construct learning that go well with learning objectives.

The findings related to questioning strategies indicate that the teachers

very often modified their questions. The teachers tended to repeat, simplify,

rephrase and probe their questions when they could not be understood well by the

students. The question modifications also came up when the students did not give

any responses or gave responses but not in expected ones. Yet, the strategies did

not always end in better interactions. Sometimes the question modification still

could not invite expected responses. However, all in all, the questioning strategies

that questions had an important role in facilitating students’ activities during this

stage. Related to the roles and principles of questioning, the three teachers stated

that questioning should be able to intrigue students to contribute in classroom

interactions, have longer talk time and develop their thinking ability.

Unfortunately, during the questioning activities, some problems still occurred.

The problems mostly dealt with poor understanding of terms of questioning

theoretically.

1.2Recommendations

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that questioning

during BKOF was required as a facilitator of students’ learning; therefore, some

suggestions are provided as follows.

For teachers, the use of questioning should be in line with suggested

(26)

questions. This might facilitate students to develop their thinking ability. They

also need to use strategies of questioning. The strategies are believed to invite

more responses from students.

For researchers who put the same interest in conducting research

related to teachers’ questions, this study may be a reference providing useful

information and can help them to do research. Furthermore, it is better for

researchers to allocate more time find more related and alternative theories in

conducting their research. It is also suggested to try to relate questioning with

(27)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu BIBLIOGRAPY

Alcon, E, G. (1993). High Cognitive Questions in Nns Group Classroom

Discussion: Do They Facilitate Comprehension and Production of the

Foreign Language? RELC Journal, 24(1), 73-85

Alexander, P, A. Jetton, T, L. Kulikowoch, J, M. Woehler, C, A. (1994). Journal

of Reading Behavior 1994, Vol. 26, No. 1. SAGE.

Al-Muaini, H. A.(2006). The effect of referential questions on learners’ oral

contributions. Classroom Research in English Language Teaching in

Oman, 1-7.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2011). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar merangcang dan

Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,

teaching , and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational

outcomes: Complete edition, New York: Longman.

Benham, B., Pouriran, Y. (2008). Classroom Discourse: Analyzing

Teacher/Learner Interactions in Iranian EFL Task-Based Classrooms. Porta

Linguarum No. 12, 117-132.

Boyd, M., Rubin, D. (2006). How Contingent Questioning Promotes Extended

Student Talk: A Function of Display Questions. Journal of Literacy

Research, 38(2), 141-169.

Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to ask the right questions. NSTA Press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive approach to

Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Chang, Fang-yu. (2009). How teacher questioning behaviours assist and affect

language teaching and learning in EFL classrooms in Taiwan. Diss.

(28)

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education.

New York: Routledge.

Cotton, K. (2003). Classroom Questioning: School Improvement Research Series.

Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing

among Five Traditions. California: SAGE publication, Inc

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research 4th ed. USA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods. Oxford: How to books Ltd.

Dunlap, C. Zuniga and Weisman, E. Marino. (2007). Helping English Language

Learners succeed. U.S.A: Shell Education Publishing.

Duron, R., Limback, B., Waugh, W. (2006).Critical Thinking Framework for Any

Discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher

Education. 17(2), 160-166.

Edward, B., Davis, B. (1997). Learning from Classroom Questions and Answers: Teachers’ Uncertainties about Children’s Language. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(4), 471-505.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1997). Critical thinking: Crucial distinctions for

questioning. Journal of Developmental Education 21(2), 34.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approaches to Teaching Academic

Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Unpublished

Emilia, E. (2012). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:

Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Farahian, M., Rezaee, M. (2012). A Case Study of an EFL Teacher's Type of

Questions: An Investigation into Classroom Interaction. Procedia - Social

(29)

Feez, S & Joyce, H. (1998). Text- based Syllabus Design. Sydney: Ligare Pry ltd.

Feng, Z. (2013). Using Teacher Questions to Enhance EFL Students’ Critical

Thinking Ability. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(2).

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education: second edition. United States of America: McGraw-hill, Inc.

Gabrielatos, C. (1997). A Question of Fuction: Teacher Questions in the EFL

Classroom. Paper given at 18th Annual TESOL Greece Convention,

National Bank of Greece Training Centre, Glyfada, Greece, 12-13 April

1997.

Gallagher, J. J., Ascher, M. J. (1963). A preliminary report on analyses of

classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9(1), 183-194.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching

Learning Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmooth,

NH: Hainemann.

Hamiloglu, K., Temiz, G. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Questions on Student

Learning in EFL. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the

World, 2(2), 1-8.

Hamnond, J. A., et. Al. (1992). English for Social Purposes: A Handbook for

Teachers of Adult Literacy. Sydney: National Center for English Language

(30)

Kalantari, R. (2009). The Techniques of Classroom Interaction. Research Institute

for Education. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 3(4),

425-434.

Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Salinan Lampiran Peraturan

Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia no. 65 & 69 tahun

2013 tentang Proses Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Available at:

kurikulum2013kemendikbud.blogspot.com

King, A. (1990). Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in the Classroom

Through Reciprocal Questioning. Am Educ Res J, 27(4), 664-687.

Lei, X. (2009). Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom. CCSE.

English Language Teaching, 2 (1), 75-79.

Lewis, K. G. (2007). Developing questioning skills. Center for Teaching

Effectiveness, The University of Texas at Austin.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131−137.

Li, L. (2011). Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through

interaction in language classrooms. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3),

146-158.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods 3rd Edition. Victoria:

Oxford University Press.

Ma, X. (2008). The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. CCSE. International Education Studies, 1(4), 92-100.

McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English

language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396-404.

Meng, J., Zhao, Tao., Chattouphonexay, A. (2012). Teacher Questions in a

Content-based Classroom for EFL Young Learners. Theory and Practice in

(31)

Morrow, L, M. (1984). Reading Stories to Young Children: Effects of Story

Structure and Traditional Questioning Strategies on Comprehension.

Journal of Literacy Research Behavior, 16(4), 273-288.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. London: Prentice Hall

International.

Omar, O. 2009. Teachers’ Questioning Techniques and Their Potential in

Heightening Pupils’ Inquiry. International Conference on Primary

Education. 27-28. 11. 2009 Hongkong.

Orlich, D., Robert. J. H., Richard. C.C., Donald, D. K., Kauchak, R. A.,

Pendegrass., Andrew C. K., Constant C. K. (1985) Teaching Strategies: A

guide to Better Instruction. Toronto: D. C. Heath.

Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical Thinking. How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly

Changing World. Santa Rose: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Qashoa, S, H. (2013). Effects of Teacher Question Types and Syntactic Structures

on EFL Classroom Interaction. The International Journal of Social

Sciences, 7(1), 52-62.

Reichenbach, B. R. (2001). Introduction to Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill

Higher Education.

Richards, J. C. and Lochart, C. (2007). Reflective Teaching in Second Language

Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robertson, C. and Acklam, R. (2000). Action Plan for Teacher. A Guide to

Teaching English. United Kingdom: BBC World Service.

Rogers, V, M. (1972). Modifying Questioning Strategies of Teachers. Journal of

Teacher Education, 23(1), 58-62.

Sadker, D & Sadker, M. (1984). Questioning Skill. In cooper, J.M. (1990). A

Handbook and Classroom Teaching Skill. USA: D. C. Heath and Company. Shen, P., Yodkhumlue, B. (2012).Teacher’s Questioning and Students’ Critical

(32)

Postgraduate Research Colloquium: Interdisciplinary Approach for

Enhancing Quality of Life IPRC Proceedings, 44-53.

Shomoosi, N. (2004). The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL

Classroom Interaction: A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Matrix

Vol. 4, No. 2, 96-104.

Snape, D & Spencer, L. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: Practical

Handbook. London: SAGE Publication.

Sugiono. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D. (fifth ed.).

cv. Alfabeta: Jakarta.

Suherdi, D. (2008). Mikroskop Pedagogik Alat Analysis Proses Beajar-Mengajar.

Bandung: UPI Press.

Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis. A Systemiotic Approach.

Reviced Edition. Bandung: UPI Press.

Suter, C. (2001). Exploring Teachers’ Questions and Feedback. Birmingham:

University of Birmingham.

Taboada, A., Guthrie, J, T. (2006). Contributions of Student Questioning and

Prior Knowledge to Construction of Knowledge from Reading Information

Text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35.

Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese University EL Classrooms: What Lies

beyond It? RELC Journal, 2007 38: 87.

Tekene, L, M. (2006). Enhancing Teachers’ Questioning Skills to Improve Children’s Learning and Thinking in Pacific Island Early Childhood Centres. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 3(1), 12-23.

Thomas, M. (1987). Classroom Interaction. Oxford University Press.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Introducing classroom interaction. London: Penguin

Books.

Vogler, K, E. (2005). Improve Your Verbal Questioning. The Clearing House,

(33)

Vogler, K, E. (2008). Asking Good Questions. ASCD. Educational Leadership.

Summer 2008, vol. 65.

Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Pres.

Wallace, C. (2001a). ‘Critical literacy in the second language classroom: Power

and control.’ In Comber, B., and Simpson, A. (Eds) 2001).

Negotiatingcritical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah: Lawrence

ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers.

Webster’s Ninth New Collgiate Dictionary. (1987). Marriam-Webster:

Massachusetts.

Wolf, S, A., Mieras, E, L., Carey, A, A. (1996). What's after ''What's That?'':

Preservice Teachers Learning to Ask Literary Questions. Journal of Literacy

Research, 28(4), 459-497.

Wong, R. (2010) Classifying Teacher Questions in EFL Classrooms: Question

Types and Their Proper Use. TESOL in Context, 20(1), 37-57.

Wu, K, Y. (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC

Journal, 24(2), 49-68.

Yang, C. C. R. (2010). Teacher Questions in Second Language Classrooms: An

Investigation of Three Case Studies. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1).

Yo-An, L. (2006). Respecifying Display Questions: Interactional Resources for