Skripsi Novi Prit.pdf

AN ANALYSIS ON THE COGNITIVE LEVEL OF TEACHERS’ QUESTIONS OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 10 KENDARI (A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY IN EFL CLASSROOM)

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Kependidikan at English Department

NOVITA RAHAYU A1D2 13 042

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY HALU OLEO UNIVERSITY KENDARI 2018

i

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahi rabbil ‘aalamin. Firstly, the writer would like to express grateful to Allah subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, the Most Merciful and the Most Beneficent who has bestowed his blessing and mercy on me, so I can accomplish this thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank also to all people who have helped me during the process of the writing research and completing my study. I address my sincere and deepest gratitude to Drs. Alimin, M.Hum as my first supervisor, and La Ode Nggawu, S.Pd., M.Si as my co-supervisor, who have sincerely spent their time to guide and to advise me during accomplishing this result. I realize that this thesis cannot be successfully completed without their kindly help and guidance. Thirdly, I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my beloved parents; M. Tamrin and Munaya for their endless patience, love, praying, encouragement, and support both financially and mentally that make me possible to finish my study. My thanks were also addressed to my beloved sister Saskia Dwiyanti, and my brothers Abdurrahman Hidayatullah, Ghaly Nizar Firdaus, and Alkhalifi Zikri for their support and love. My gratitude and appreciation to the following people: 1. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zamrun F., S.Si.,M.Si.,M.Sc. as the Rector of Halu Oleo University.

iv

2. Dr. Jamiludin, M.Hum.,as the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Halu Oleo University 3. Dra. Lelly Suhartini, M.Hum.,as the Head of English Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Halu Oleo University. 4. Siam, S.Pd., M.Ed. TESOL.,as the Secretary of English Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Halu Oleo University. 5. All of lectures at English Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Halu Oleo University. 6. All of the staff in English Language Department for giving me useful knowledge during my under-graduate study. 7. All of the staff in English Language Department who always helping me prepared all the administration during my study. 8. Widodo, S.Pd., M.Pd. as the Head Master of SMPN 10 Kendari who had given me an opportunity to conduct my study in SMPN 10 Kendari with much guidance. 9. All of the teachers at Eighth grade in SMPN 10 Kendari helping me and participated in this study. 10. All students on English Department, especially for the 2013 students, my friends, Ryan, Indra, Janna, Lely, Taqim, Yuni, Azan, Novianti, Alle, Rita, Darma, Inda, and all students whom I cannot mention one by one in this paper. I will never forget all of you.

v

11. All of my friends at LDK-BKLDM UHO and MHTI, El-hun, Falma, K Titin, K Yaya, Ida, K Norma, Harlifa, Marni, K Desi, K Lina, Malo, Irma DJ, Kasih, Fatma. Thanks for all helping and support. Finally, I realize this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, critique and suggestion are welcome to achieved the completness of this result.

Kendari,

November 2017

Novita Rahayu

vi

ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS ON THE COGNITIVE LEVEL OF TEACHERS’ QUESTIONS OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 10 KENDARI (A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY IN EFL CLASSROOM) NOVITA RAHAYU A1D2 13 042 This research was accomplished to investigate (1) the cognitive level of teachers’ questions at eighth grade in SMPN 10 Kendari, (2) the distribution of teachers’ questions on lower and higher cognitive level, (3) teachers’ opinions about the questioning and the used of cognitive level on questions. The researcher used the qualitative data which is descriptive study. The data source were collected from the teaching process by two English teachers who teach at Eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. The researchers conducted six observation to collect the data. The key instruments used in this researcher was classroom observation and interview. The researcher collected the data a qualitative observational method by using an observational guide and audio recording were conducted. The questions were collected, listed, and analyzed according to Bloom's Taxonomy: low order thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension, and application, and high order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The researcher focused only the asked questions of the teachers. The findings showed that; firstly, among 106 questions there are 15.1% is knowledge level (C1), 59.4% is comprehension (C2), 4.7% is application (C3), 12.3% is analysis (C4), however synthesis level (C5) were not observed, and 8.5% is evaluation (C6). The results indicate that the knowledge and comprehension questions were frequently asked by the teacher respectively while it leaves little opportunity for synthesis and evaluation level. Secondly, the results showed the teacher asked more lowercognitive questions is 79.2% than higher one is 20.8%. Thirdly, teachers thought that questions is important activity to be done during the teaching process and the used of cognitive level of questions should be classified based on students grade class. This study can be useful for teachers to be aware of various cognitive levels of questions and apply in the classroom in order to help students to optimize their learning. Key words: questioning, cognitive level of question, Bloom’s taxonomy.

vii

LIST OF CONTENTS COVER ................................................................................................................... i APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................ ii LEGALIZATION SHEET .................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................x LIST OF CHARTS .............................................................................................. xi LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Study. ................................................................................1 1.2 Research Question. ....................................................................................6 1.3 Objective of Study. ....................................................................................6 1.4 Significance of Study .................................................................................6 1.5 Scope of the Study .....................................................................................7 1.6 Definition of Terms....................................................................................7 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Teachers’ Questioning in Teaching. ..........................................................9 2.2 The Components of Questioning. ............................................................10 2.3 The Role and Function of Questioning in Teaching. ...............................13 2.4 Importance of Questioning in English Classes ........................................15 2.5 Effective Questions and Strategies in Questioning ........................................... 18 2.6 Bloom’s Taxonomy for the Cognitive Domain .......................................20 2.7 Cognitive Level of Question ....................................................................22 2.8 The Use of Cognitive Level in Teacher’s Questions ...............................24 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1

Design of Study. ..................................................................................26

3.2

Subject of Study. .................................................................................27

viii

3.3

Instrument of Study. ............................................................................27

3.4

Technique of Data Collection .................................................................. 29

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ................................................................30 CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Findings. ................................................................................................34 4.1.1 Finding of the Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy ..................................................................35 4.1.2 Finding of Distribution of Lower and Higher Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question ....................................................................37 4.1.3 Teachers’ Opinions towards the Questioning and the Use of Cognitive Level on Question ..........................................................38 4.2 Discussion..............................................................................................42 4.2.1 Discussion of the Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Questions Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy ...................................................................43 4.2.2 Discussion of the Distribution of Lower and Higher Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question .........................................................53 4.2.3 Discussion of the Teachers’ Opinions about Questioning and the Use of Cognitive Level on Question ..............................................55 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3.1

Conclusion. ..........................................................................................58

3.2

Recommendation. ................................................................................59

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................61 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................65 DOCUMENTATIONS.........................................................................................87

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 : Classification of the Teachers’ Questions..........................................36 Table 1

: Cue Questions Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Critical Thinking ..............................................................................................66

Table 2

: Sample Questions Stems Based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy ......68

Table 3

: Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 1st ...............................................................................71

Table 4

: Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 2nd................................................................................73

Table 5

: Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 3rd ................................................................................74

Table 6 : Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 4th ................................................................................77 Table 7

: Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 5th ................................................................................78

Table 8

: Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 6th ................................................................................80

Table 9 : Interview with Teacher A .....................................................................83 Table 10 : Interview with Teacher B......................................................................85

x

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1

: Diagram of Teachers’ Questions ......................................................37

Chart 4.2

: Distribution of Lower and Higher Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Questions ..........................................................................................38

xi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1

: A Guide for the Levels of Questions Based on the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy....................................................66

Appendix 2

: The Observation Protocol of Teachers’ Questions ......................71

Appendix 3

: Guiding of Teachers’ Interview Questions ..................................82

Appendix 4

: Transcript of Teachers’ Interviews ..............................................83

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation 4.1

: Classification of the Teachers’ Questions............................36

Abbreviation 1.

: Matrix for recording Types of Questions.............................81

xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of study As the education had already entered personal digitization information age, where many changes in classroom teaching and in the students’ activities. Classroom activity especially in teaching has become more scientific, interesting and vivid. It demands teacher to use the best teaching technique and strategies to make a good teaching. There are many teaching techniques that the teacher can apply in the class to involve the students in learning. One of the teaching techniques that we really need to pay attention is the practice of questioning as it helps teachers to gain students’ responses and stimulate their thinking skill. English as one of subject in Indonesian classes, which requires plenty of practice, need cooperation between the teacher and students in class to jointly fulfill the verbal communication and the teaching learning procedure. In teaching activity, teacher talks in a classroom for different reasons: explaining, controlling, modeling, problem solving asking questions and giving feedback. Teachers’ questioning has traditionally been viewed as an important component of teacher talk and the core of effective teaching in classroom context. Learning process does not only put the teacher as the only main source, but also can make the students involved in that process. The involvement of the students is an important thing in every teaching learning process as there will be an excellent interaction among the teachers and the students. In creating an

1

interactive classroom, teachers need to provide supports, which can be in the form of questions, to students by interacting and involving them in order to train their linguistics ability also to ensure that the students master the concepts. Question is very beneficial to help students learn necessary information or material as Weimer (2011) states that questioning can provide feedback. When teacher ask questions, the students will think and are demanded to respond. When students try to respond, teachers can see how far the students understand the lesson and teacher can correct or help the students to correct their mistakes or something they have not really understood. So that, questioning can help teacher to

oversee

students’

understanding

and

increasing students’

cognitive

developments in classroom interaction. As other benefit, students can use teacher questions’ as their language input consequently form a basis in a classroom interaction (Ho, cited in Barjeshteh and Moghadam, 2014). That is why Ellis (2008) states two reasons why teachers ask questions in their classrooms. First, questions require responses; therefore, they serve as a means of obliging learners to contribute to the interaction. Learners’ responses also provide the teacher with feedback which can be used to adjust content and expression in subsequent teacher-talk. Second, questions serve as a device for controlling the progress of the interaction through which a lesson is enacted. It has been found that questions can also be used to motivate students, to revise, control, test or assess, explore, explain, encourage students to focus on a particular topic, elicit information, and check understanding and to control behavior.

2

Questioning is very crucial in the teaching and learning process since it is believed can be the way to solve the gap of mind between teacher and students, and to measure the students’ comprehension towards the learning material. Nunan and Lamb (1996) claim that the objectives of teachers’ questions are to elicit information, to check understanding, and also to control behavior. Most of the classroom teachers questioning is used as responses from students during the whole class teaching. Therefore, questions can be used for different aims in education. They can be asked for the purpose of directing the students to the target, providing them to think at high level and effectively by directing them to questioning, determining the efficiency of education, increasing students’ attendance, improving students’ listening skills and increasing tolerance and respect. It can be benefited from questioning for the purpose of providing effective classroom management and decreasing classroom problems. It is clear that teachers need to know the questioning strategy in the classroom and the hierarchy of the lower to the higher order of cognition. In other that, many researchers showed that teachers faced difficulty in asking questions in an EFL classroom. The problem is teachers cannot vary the cognitive level of classroom question that can stimulate students to actively construct knowledge. Most of questions that teachers ask to the students sometimes are not suitable with the students’ cognitive level. The analyses of classroom

questions

utilized

by

teachers

indicate

that

memory

and

comprehension, two low-level mental operation, most commonly are emphasized in classroom discourse, often to the exclusion of higher order operations. Most

3

questions in textbooks and other instructional materials are at the lower cognitive levels. However, teachers are frequently unaware of how heavily they rely on questioning. In one study, elementary teachers who thought they were asking 12 to 20 questions each half hour actually asked 45 to 150 questions (e.g., Khan and Inamullah, 2011; Shen, 2012). Teacher needs to know the strategy in asking question. To facilitate students L2 development, the findings conclude that teachers should not ask only knowledge questions. They should ask questions require elaboration and elicit longer and more syntactically complex response. Actually it is not a new topic talking about the important of classroom interaction. There are some previous studies on analysis of the cognitive level of questions conducted by some researcher such as Barjeshteh and Moghadam (2014), and Ariani (2014). The result of all the studies showed that the most question level used by teachers was lower order of cognition. The most common used method for analyzing classroom discourse was categorizing teacher questions on some cognitive level. The result of the studies above indicated that teachers need to improve their questioning strategy. Most of English teachers used lower level question such as “What is the theme of this story?”,or “Do you know Malin Kundang?”, while actually the higher level of question like “Can you assess the value or importance of this story?” this question can help students to have more creative thinking. This phenomenon also happened on my own experiences as an EFL learner in school where my English teacher more frequently used lower level of

4

question. Therefore, examining teachers question is important since the use of higher level of question can help students to improve their comprehension on the learning material. As the researcher found at eighth grade in SMP Negeri10 Kendari the used of cognitive level on teachers question were quite less. This phenomenon motivated the researcher to conduct a descriptive study to observe the cognitive level of teachers’ question at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. I chose the school because during my teaching practicum in this school, I had observed the English teachers’ teaching and I saw that the teachers did not really optimize the practice of questioning especially the use of cognitive level based on Bloom’s taxonomy. For this reason, I conducted a research on an analysis on the cognitive level of teachers’ questions at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. By understanding the cognitive levels of questions used by the teachers, this study can be beneficial for teachers as reference to make them aware of various cognitive levels of question and apply it in teaching-learning process in order to give positive impact on students learning. The purpose of this study is to describe what types of cognitive level of questions used by the teachers in the learning and teaching process. The researcher also investigated the distribution of the teachers’ questions on higher and lower cognitive level. In order that, to investigate the teachers’ opinions about the questioning and the cognitive level of question in the learning process.

5

1.2 Research Question The study was aimed to answer the questions: 1. What are the cognitive levels of teacher questions used by the English teachers at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari? 2. How are the distribution of the lower and higher cognitive level of teachers’ questions at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari? 3. What are teachers’ opinions about the questioning and the used of cognitive level of question? 1.3 Objective of Study The researcher concluded that the purposes of this research were observed types of cognitive level of teachers’ questions during the lesson. The researcher also investigated the distribution of the cognitive level of teachers’ questions into lower and higher level. The researcher believed that teachers’ questions have implication to students learning process especially in English class, so the researcher also investigated the teachers’ opinion about the questioning and cognitive level of questions. 1.4 Significance of the Study Relating to the description above, the significance of this research can be described as follows: a) Theoretically, the benefit of this research was proved that classroom interaction has very important support in the classroom. Teachers question had important role in students learning process especially to construct their comprehension about the material and promote their language skill. 6

b) Practically, the results of this study are expected to be useful to give the teachers the description about different cognitive levels of questions that can help the students to improve their critical thinking about the material. 1.5 Scope of Study The main focus of this study to observe the cognitive levels of teachers’ questions in the learning and teaching process, the distribution of lower and higher cognitive level of teachers’ questions. In order that, the researcher also investigated the teachers’ opinions towards the questioning and the used of cognitive level of questions. To this end, Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) is selected as the framework of analysis, since it was believed that this taxonomy would be better aid to interpret and analyze the types of questions that was asked in the classroom. The researcher only investigated the learning process by two English teachers at eighth grade of SMP Negeri 10 Kendari in the academic year 2016/2017. 1.6 Definition of Term To avoid misunderstanding the terms used in this study the researcher attempts to define some terms as follows: 1. Question Actually question is the moment where information that has accepted by the brain and mixes with other ideas and begins to synthesize new ideas. Brown (cited in Matra, 1975, p. 103) has given a general definition of question. He states that a question would be any statement which tests or creates knowledge in the learner. According to the Hornby dictionary, question is a sentence of

7

interrogative words, request information, and answer which there is discussion, something that will be decided. In this study question is a sentence or phrase used by the teacher to check if the students understand what they have been taught, and to enhance students’ involvement and to promote students’ creative thinking in classroom interaction. 2. Cognitive level of questions Brown (1975, p. 103) defines lower order question are questions which are used to create correct single answers and higher order questions are questions which used to create new knowledge in the learner. In my study I will use Brown’s types of questions. Categories of teacher questions are as follows: •

Lower cognitive level of questions

1. Recall/Knowledge: Does the pupil recall what he has seen or read? 2. Comprehension: Does the pupil understand what he recalls? 3. Application: Can the pupil apply rules and techniques to solve problems that have a single correct answer? •

Higher cognitive level of questions:

1.

Analysis: Can the pupil identify motives and causes, and make inferences and give examples to support his statement?

2. Synthesis: Can the pupil make predictions, solve problems or produce interesting position of ideas and images? 3. Evaluation: Can the pupil judge the quality of ideas, or problem solutions, or works of art? Can he give rationally based opinions on issues or controversies? (Brown, 1975).

8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter covers the theories, which used to analyze the finding of research and act as a foundation for the developing research of the cognitive level of teacher questions. The subsections in this chapter are; (1) Teacher Questioning in Teaching, (2) The Components of Questioning, (3) The Role and Function of Question in Teaching, (4) Importance of Questioning in English Classes, (5) Effective Questions and Strategies in Questioning, (6) Bloom’s Taxonomy for the Cognitive Domain, (7) Cognitive Level of Question, and (8) The Use of Cognitive Level in Teacher’s Question. 2.1 Teacher Questioning in Teaching Questioning is one of basic teaching skill that teacher should have. Socrates believed that knowledge and awareness are an intrinsic part of each learner. Thus, in exercising the craft of good teaching an educator must reach into the learner's hidden levels of knowing and awareness in order to help the learner reach new levels of thinking. It can be said that questioning is the heart of teaching learning process. Through the art of questioning the teacher can exploit the hidden potentialities of students, however this mainly depends upon the types of questions teachers ask. As Zapeda (2009) states that in the interaction between teacher and students, teachers spend much time talking with students in activity such as lecturing, giving directions, and asking and answering questions. To evaluate students understanding and application of knowledge, teachers commonly involve

9

students in question and answer session. Since questions can prompt responses ranging from simple recall of information to abstract processes of applying, synthesizing, and evaluating information. Cotton (2013) defines a question as any sentence that has an interrogative form or function. In classroom settings, teacher questions are defined as instructional cues or stimuli that convey to students the content elements to be learned and directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it. According to the quotations above, in my opinion, question can be defined as a interrogative sentence that used by the teacher to involve their students in the classroom interaction and to evaluate the students understanding about the learning material. While questioning is the heart of teaching learning process that one of the most regularly employed by the teacher in classroom interaction. Many experts have believed that the questioning can be used for academic evaluation as well as the development of various skills and build students’ critical thinking. There are lots of studies about the use of questioning in helping students learning target language and improving students’ achievement in teaching and learning process, questions serve as means of organizing knowledge, or correlating the results of educative experience. 2.2 The Components of Questioning According to Brown (1975, p. 104), there are at least four out of eight components in questioning techniques which should be mastered by teachers: a. Clarity and Coherence

10

When asking questions, teachers should give questions clearly, easily to be understood by the students, not confusing, and coherently expressed. Teachers should not give questions with conflicting alternatives or ‘double barreled questions’ in order to avoid confusing the students. If the students do not respond the questions, the questions should be repeated and rephrased. In the early stages of teaching, clear and coherent questions should be planned and written in the lesson plans and scrutinized carefully, especially in using high level cognitive questions. b. Pausing and Pacing Pausing after asking and also varied pacing at which teachers ask a question is important. Beginner teachers frequently ask more questions than they receive answers (Brown, 1975, p. 105). The speed of delivery of a question is determined by the kind of questions asked. Low level cognitive questions can be asked quickly, but more complex questions, in this case are high level cognitive questions, should be preceded by a short pause, should be asked slowly and clearly, and also should be followed by a long pause.

c. Directing and Distributing Teachers should direct some questions at individual students and distribute questions among the whole group of students around the class. While asking questions, teachers can use them as controlling tools since teachers should monitor the class to see who is attending and who is not

11

attending. If a question cannot be answered by the first person asked, after a pause, teacher can redirect it to another pupil. Directing questions towards students in a non-threatening way will help to draw them in a discussion. If they give response and their responses should as far as possible be praised and subsequently used again in the discussion. If they cannot respond, teachers should redirect the question to another pupil after giving them an encouraging nod and remark. d. Prompting and Probing Prompting and probing can be given to any weak answers uttered by the students. Prompting consists of giving hints to help the students formulating their answers. A series of prompts followed by encouragement can help students to gain confidence in giving replies. Probing questions can direct the pupil to think more deeply about his initial answer and to express himself more clearly. In so doing they develop a pupil’s critical awareness and his communication skill. Prompting and probing can be given to help students especially for higher order cognitive questions because these types of questions need more hints to help students formulating their answers in giving replies. Prompting and probing can also help teachers deliver the questions and choose which types of question which appropriate so that they do not overwhelm the students.

12

These components of questioning are important to be accomplished and used by the teachers, so that they can create effective and interactive classroom through the exchanging of questions-answers during the teaching learning process in a language learning classes. However, I only analyze the cognitive level of teachers’ questions. 2.3 The Role and Function of Question in Teaching Wragg (2001) states that, every day teachers ask dozens, even hundreds of questions, thousands in a single year, over a million during a professional lifetime. Questioning has been and is a dominant method of instruction in the classroom. Some say questioning is, in fact, the most important teaching technique in use today. The greatest attribute of questioning is that it stimulates thinking in the classroom. Questions in the class serve as different functions. According to Kanchak and Eggen (1989) the functions can be basically grouped into three categories: diagnostic, instructional and motivational, but a single question can usually serve more than one function. As a diagnostic tool, classroom questions allow the teacher to glimpse into the minds of students to find out not only what they know or don’t know but also how they think about a topic. The instructional function means that questions can be used as a technique to facilitate learners to learn the new knowledge in the learning process. As to motivational function, skillful use of questions can effectively involve students in the classroom discourse, encouraging and challenging them to think.

13

Teachers’ questioning also used to stimulate thinking, check on students intelligibility, enhance students’ curiosity, give motivation to students, maintain classroom control, provide repetition, emphasize key points, extend thinking skill, gain feedback on teaching and learning, provide revision strategies, create links between ideas and provide challenge (Callaha and Clark cited in Guihun, 2006). In terms of its functions, Richards & Lockhart (1994) pointed out that teachers ask questions for several reasons in teaching and learning: -

They stimulate and maintain students’ interest.

-

They encourage students to think and focus on the content of the lesson. They enable a teacher to clarify what a student has said.

-

They enable a teacher to elicit a particular structure or vocabulary items.

-

They enable teachers to check students’ understanding.

-

They encourage student participation in a lesson. Besides its various functions, the author wants to draw attention to the

point that questions can also contribute a lot to the classroom interaction structure. As a two-way interaction, questioning process has its potential to stimulate students’ interaction, thinking and learning. The use of questions can thus change the way of teacher monologue and involve students in the active classroom interaction, which is much helpful to the development of their language competence (Kindsvatter et all cited in Ma, 2008). Chaudron (1988) also describes the role of teachers' questions as an important means of gaining learners' attention, promoting verbal responses, and evaluating progress, but states that questions alone may not always promote a great amount of interaction (Godfrey, 2001).

14

Long and Sato (1993) and Brock (1986) have investigated the role of questions in second language learning in the classroom environment. They have worked on the role of teacher's question types (especially display and referential questions) and their facilitating the learning. They believe that classroom questions of whatever sort are designed to get the learners to produce language. Brock contends that referential questions increase the amount of learner output; therefore, an increased use of referential questions by teachers may create discourse which can produce a flow of information from students to the teacher, and may create a more near-normal speech. However, researchers find that there are still many problems on teachers’ questioning. First, teachers are not fully aware of the effects of teachers’ questioning on classroom interaction especially for high school teachers. Second, teachers do not optimize the use of questioning strategy in their classroom interaction. As a result, the teachers’ questioning is only a superficial form of classroom activity, lacking in the practical value. It can’t really stimulate students’ initiatives, nor can it develop their interactive competence. 2.4 Importance of Questioning in English Classes To some extent, all of our knowledge comes from questions. In the learning process, teachers’ questions can be a bridge to the teacher and student to build interaction. Questioning has been considered as one of the most essential and important techniques during instructional processes since Socrates times. Questioning takes up most of teacher talk and it has been improved to have a great influence on classroom interaction. Questioning has always been the most

15

ubiquitous phenomenon observed in classroom, as well as one of the most frequently-adopted devices favored by most of the teachers. In English classes, questioning has become common technique used in language teaching. Several studies have shown the important of teachers’ questioning in the class as Zolfaghari et al. (2011) confirmed that questioning is the basis of the teaching activities that can help students to recall and deepen the comprehension, increase the imagination, solve the problem, to lose the feeling of curiosity in thinking and the last is by ask questions it enhances the creativity of the students. The researcher also found that students’ questioning is not only enhancing creativity, imagination as explain before, but also it affected students’ achievement. Two classroom studies found a positive relationship between teaching strategies in aim to encourage students questioning and students’ achievement in upper elementary science classes. Questioning is usually used as one kind of mutual exchange teaching skills between the teacher and students. It has been used widely in teaching till now. Teachers want to get students’ responses and the first step is to answer questions. Through consistent dialog and communication again, the teacher can get the answers they want and evaluate the students. Teacher questioning is not only plays role as a communicative tool, but also can be used to increase students’ linguistic ability. There are many reasons why teacher use question in their classroom activity. Teachers use question for helping students build understanding and to encourage students to think about and act upon the material that have structured.

16

Teacher also use question to ask individual pupils, to the whole class, to small groups to arouse curiosity, focus attention, develop an active approach, stimulate pupils, structure the task, diagnose difficulties, communicate expectation, help children reflect, develop thinking skills, help group reflection, provoke discussion and show interest in pupils’ ideas. In most English classes, the interaction comes between teachers asking questions and students answering them. Therefore, teacher questioning is a significant area for us to study. Ur (1991, cited in Nurbaya, 2015, p. 12) claimed that questions are asked to get students to use with the language material actively through speak and since this is the motive, an effective questioning technique is the one that push the students to give motivated and full responses. She also argues that a question is effective if it is clear enough for the students to immediately understand what it means and what kind of answer is required; if it is interesting and challenging; if it is available so that most of the learners try to answer it, not only those who are more confident and advanced; and finally if it can be extended to invite varied answers. In this case, the researcher plans on the use of questioning in learning English. The goal is to check if the students understand what they have been taught, and to enhance students’ involvement and to promote students’ creative thinking in classroom interaction. However, in English classes, the importance of classroom interaction is obvious. Among the various kinds of interactions, teacher questioning and student answering is the most important one. Since questioning becomes one kind of teaching active procedure. It is one teaching behavior way

17

through teachers and students’ interaction, checking learning, promoting thought, consolidating knowledge, using knowledge, achieving teaching goals. 2.5 Effective Questions and Strategies in Questioning Questions are only as good as the answers that they elicit so it is important to consider not only the types of question that teachers ask but also the tactics involved in asking those questions. One obvious purpose of effective questioning is to minimize teachers' and pupils' errors by focusing on a particular fact, issue, skill, belief. Good questioning requires time for pupils to think and respond, and the more learners are actively engaged in learning, the less scope there is to switch off. Effective questioning is a key tool in assessment for learning strategies and should be planned such that a range of responses are anticipated. Good questions lead the learner on a journey in which there is a balance between content (who, what, when) and process (how, why). Effective questioning is a key aspect of the teaching and learning process, as the kinds of questions we ask determine the level of thinking we develop. Lessons that incorporate questions are more effective in raising attainment than lessons which do not. Clarke (2001) points out the strategies for effective questioning : •

Ask learners in twos or threes what they would like to know about the topic or subject first to stimulate interest and assess how much the pupils already know about it.

18

•

Ask pupils to discuss their answers first; this enables shy pupils to contribute more and for many pupils it is much more comfortable to say ‘we thought’ than ‘I think’.

•

Ask a thought provoking question at the start of the lesson to crystallize a key concept and engage learners – this might be asked again at the end of the lesson or topic.

•

Ask the rest of the class to evaluate a response – what does everyone else think? This helps to enrich the answer and may allow the initial responder to reconsider their answer in light of other ideas.

•

Allow thinking time and then allow people to change their minds or have another go. Do you still think …? This helps to keep pupils thinking and puzzling about what they really think or believe, especially where new information is revealed – What would happen if ….?

•

Ensure a balance between closed and open questions as well as content and process related questions. A simple first question if well prepared can lead into a journey of true discovery

•

Develop a stock of good follow up questions which might be quite simple but ,as far as possible, be clear where the question is leading. Be prepared to be flexible and inclusive about the route – What else? How come? What if? How do think/feel/ know? Are examples that can extend simplistic responses.

•

Show appreciation for any answer and give appropriate praise for high quality responses.

19

•

Wrong answers should not be left uncorrected, but followed up with additional related questions, or allow “wait time” to provide students with an opportunity to rethink answers.

•

Rephrase questions to simplify them or ask them in another way. The technique above explains to us some steps of teachers’ questioning

strategies. The teacher and students have to work together in aim to achieve objective or making decision for learning. The using of lesson plan also help teachers to ask appropriate question in getting the object of the study. Teachers can use questioning strategy in classroom activities and also respond to students’ questions in aim to encourage in discussion activity, thereby improving students’ help-seeking strategies. As with previous research on college students (Karabenick, 2004; Khan and Innamullah 2011; Ariani, 2014), their study examined how students’ perceptions of their teacher support and give response to students ‘questioning and influence students’ motivation to learn and their use of academic help-seeking strategies. 2.6 Bloom’s Taxonomy for the Cognitive Domain There are different question forms in teaching-learning process. Grouping questions differs according to different authors. Barnes (1976, cited in Ellis, 2008, p. 797), for instance, distinguished four types of questions: (1) factual questions (e.g. What?), (2) reasoning questions (e.g. How?, Why?), (3) open questions, which require no reasoning, (4) social questions, that are questions that affect

20

learner behavior through controlling or appealing. Barnes also made a distinction between closed questions (i.e. questions that are structured with just one acceptable answer in mind) and open questions (i.e. questions that permit a number of different acceptable answers). To aid the use of questioning strategies there are question classification systems. The most popular system for classifying questions is Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl's (1956) taxonomy, known as Bloom's Taxonomy. This taxonomy has proven to be a valuable tool in designing, conducting, and evaluating classroom instruction. As one of the earliest taxonomies, Bloom (1956, cited in Brown, 2007, p. 172) categorizes questions into the following groups: 1. Knowledge: the recalling of formerly-learned material (e.g. What is the special name of this triangle?) 2. Comprehension: the ability to understand the meaning (e.g. Explain how you got that answer). 3. Application: the ability to use learned material such as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws and theories in new and concrete situations (e.g. Give me an example of a situation that you may have this experience.) 4. Analysis: the ability to breakdown material into its elements so that its organizational structure may be understood .This may involve the classification of parts, exploration of the association between them, and identification of organizational principles (e.g. Why did that work in this case?)

21

5. Synthesis: the ability to collect different parts and put them together to create a new whole. Synthesis encourages learners to form something new and rely on innovative and creative thinking. (e.g. What would happen if you called him?) 6.

Evaluation: the ability to assess the value of materials, the explanation to problems or the details about particular cultures (What do you think?).

2.7 Cognitive Level of Question Bloom‟s Taxonomy (1956) consists of a six-level classification scale: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. To examine issues concerning questioning it is best to divide Bloom's Taxonomy into lower-order and higher-order questioning (Marzano, 1993). Bloom’s taxonomy is divided into two types of questions: lower order and higher order questions. Lower order questions require students to comprise of knowledge, comprehension and application while higher order questions include analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Yang, 2010). In order that, Cotton (2013) also groups types of question into two: lower and higher cognitive questions. He has given the definition of lower and higher cognitive questions. Lower cognitive questions are those which ask the student merely to recall verbatim or in his/her own words material previously read or taught by the teacher. Higher cognitive questions are defined as those which ask the student to mentally manipulate bits of information previously learned to create an answer or to support an answer with logically reasoned evidence.

22

As addition, Brown (1975, p. 103) defines lower order question are questions which are used to create correct single answers and higher order questions are questions which used to create new knowledge in the learner. In my study I will use Bloom’s taxonomy questioning categorizes and to determine the cognitive level into lower-higher questions by using Brown’s types of questions level. Categories of teacher questions are as follows: •

Lower cognitive level of questions

1. Recall/Knowledge: Does the pupil recall what he has seen or read? 2. Comprehension: Does the pupil understand what he recalls? 3. Application: Can the pupil apply rules and techniques to solve problems that have a single correct answer? •

Higher cognitive level of questions:

1.

Analysis: Can the pupil identify motives and causes, and make inferences and give examples to support his statement?

2. Synthesis: Can the pupil make predictions, solve problems or produce interesting position of ideas and images? 3. Evaluation: Can the pupil judge the quality of ideas, or problem solutions, or works of art? Can he give rationally based opinions on issues or controversies? (Brown, 1975). The classification of teachers’ cognitive level of questions can help teacher to evaluate their teaching strategy in learning process. Besides that teacher can optimize the using of various questioning cognitive level to improve students critical thinking and promote students linguistics ability.

23

2.8 The Use of Cognitive Level in Teacher’s Questions In order to teach well it is widely believed that one must be able to question well. Asking good questions fosters interaction between the teacher and his/her students. To help students achieve their optimum learning, teachers should apply questioning strategies in their classroom. One of questioning strategy which can be applied is related to various cognitive levels of questions to build students’ English language skills. Rosenshine (1971) found that large amounts of student-teacher interaction promote student achievement. Thus, one can surmise that good questions foster student understanding. However, it is important to know that not all questions achieve this. Teachers spend most of their time asking low-level cognitive questions (Wilen, 1991). These questions concentrate on factual information that can be memorized {ex. What year did the Civil War begin? Or who wrote "Great Expectations"?). It is widely believed that this type of questions can limit students by not helping them to acquire a deep, elaborate understanding of the subject matter (Brualdi, 1998). High-level-cognitive questions can be defined as questions that require students to use higher order thinking or reasoning skills. By using these skills, students do not remember only factual knowledge. Instead, they use their knowledge to solve, to analyze, and to evaluate. It is believed that this type of questions reveal the most about whether or not a student has truly grasped a concept. This is because a student needs to have a deep understanding of the topic in order to answer his type of question.

24

Previously, there are similar researches about questioning level. One of them is conducted by Barjeshteh and Moghadam, (2014). The study attempts to shed light on the types of teacher questions, questioning strategies and students' responses to teacher question in a private English language institute at upper intermediate level in Iran. The results indicate that the knowledge and comprehension questions were frequently asked by the teacher respectively while it leaves little opportunity for application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions. Other researcher, Alzu'bi (2014) had similar finding on his research on adaptation Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive domain in English questions where the result of the study revealed that the total percentage of the first three levels(comprehension, knowledge, and analysis) is (69.6) but the total percentage of the last three levels (application, synthesis, and evaluation) is (30.4) so it indicated that the English questions included in general secondary examinations emphasize low order thinking level. Besides that, research by Khan and Innamullah (2011) on their analysis on the levels of questions teachers using bloom’s taxonomy showed that so much time was spent with teachers questioning the students. Most of the questions were low- level cognitive questions. Higher- order questions were also observed however, the ratio of these questions was very low. Teachers’ awareness of the use of various questioning cognitive levels might the teacher to evaluate students’ understanding and comprehension towards the learning process.

25

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presented the methodology of study which includes (1) Design of the study, (2) Subject of the study, (3) Instruments of study, (4) Technique of data collection, and (5) Technique of data analysis. 3.1 Design of Study In this study, the researcher used qualitative research which was descriptive study. According to Moleong (2004), qualitative research is a research which the data in the forms of written or oral word are analyzed descriptively. It does not present the data and the result in the form of statistics but it presents in the form of description. The aim of qualitative methods is to describe the result of this research. It means that the approach is used to make some explanation and classification on some data that we got. For the purpose of this study, the researcher conducted a descriptive study due to their better control and manageability to provide the researcher with an appropriate tool to analytically probe into the teacher’s question phenomenon. Therefore, the current paper was a descriptive study which intended to investigate classroom interactions in terms of questions being asked by the teacher, and there was no major statistical operation used in the study. The result of this study cannot be used to represent teachers from other class in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari.

26

This study was conducted to observe the teachers’ questions, relating to the theory of Bloom’s taxonomy. By this research, it can be known how the use of lower and higher cognitive level of questions used by teachers. The researcher investigated the cognitive level of teachers’ questions at eighth grade of SMP Negeri 10 Kendari in the academic year 2016/2017. 3.2 Subject of Study The subject of the study was the classroom interaction in classes at second grade of SMP Negeri 10 Kendari , since the purpose of this study was analysis of teacher questions. The subjects who involved in the interaction are two English teachers who teach at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. The two English teachers who participated in this study have related education background and graduated from English education program. The teacher A holding Bachelor’s degree in English education program. The teacher B holding Master’s degree in English education program. 3.3 Instrument of Study This study used the following instruments to help the researcher revealed and also found the cognitive level of teachers’ questions in the classroom interaction. 3.3.1

Observation In this study, observation was used as the instrument to collect the data.

The researcher observed the teaching process by Teacher A and Teacher B at eighth grade in SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. The observation was conducted in three meetings of each teacher classes. The total of observation was six meetings. The focus of this observation was the teachers’ questions during the learning process.

27

As the purpose of the present study was to find out and describe the typical teacher's questions when they teach in classroom setting, the types of questions based on Bloom's taxonomy (1956) was used to collect the data. Bloom’s taxonomy comprises of six types of questions, which are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (see a ppendix 1, p. 66). As addition, to conduct the observation the researcher used observation protocol, and tape recorded. Every session of classroom interactions between the teacher and the participant was recorded. Since the frequency of questioning occurrence was not the major concern of this study, as the concern was on questions delivered by the teachers. The teacher questions were noted down through the observations using the observation protocol (see appendix 2, p. 71). 3.3.2 Teachers’ interview An interview with predetermine questions were employed in the study. The questions were taken from a questionnaire developed by Ozcan (cited in Farahian and Rezaeeb, 2012) and adapted to suit the presents study. The purpose of interview is to investigate teachers’ opinions about the questions types and their effect on students’ participation and language learning (see appendix 3, p.82). As for interview which could avoid the subjectivity of only using classroom observation as the one instrument, the interview questions items were used to explore the teachers’ overviews on the use of cognitive level on questions. The interview consists of six questions that the first three items were mainly related to teachers’ questioning behavior in general (Question 1-3) and, the last two focused on the use of cognitive level on teacher questions (Question 4-5).

28

3.4 Technique of Data Collection 3.4.1

Observation Classroom observation can provide the opportunity to record information

as it occurs in a setting and it is fruitful and workable to reveal the classroom teaching and learning strategies (Creswell, 2005). Therefore, in the study, classroom observation was employed as the main instrument to collect the data concerning teacher’s questioning behavior. To carry out this study, firstly the researcher asked permission to conduct this study to the head master of SMP Negeri 10 Kendari. For the purpose of this study the researcher informed and discussed with the English teachers of English class to do an observation of their teaching and learning process in the classroom. The Researcher asked permission to teacher to record the learning process during the observation. To help the researcher collected the data from observation, audiotape recorded and observation protocol of teachers’ questioning in the class was conducted to get clear data. All the procedures followed: 1. Arranging observation schedules based on the teachers’ time and the English class schedule. 2. Observing and recording the learning process three times in three different classes. Each observation took around 40-50 minute long. 3.

Noting down the teacher questions based on the observation protocol. During the process of noting in this research, the researcher made a transcript based on teachers’ questions to ease the researcher identify and analyze the cognitive level of questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

29

During the observation and recording period, students were not aware that their interactions with the teacher as well as with each other were being recorded. The teacher of the class did his best not to alter or modify his instruction for the purpose of the study so that classroom interactions could be as natural as possible. Therefore, it be expected that the study have almost no impact on classroom interaction, one part of which is teacher questioning. 3.4.2

Teachers’ interview The procedure of collecting the teachers’ interview, the researcher asked

permission to the teacher to do interview. Then, the researcher and the teachers arranged time to do an interview. The researcher recorded and noted the interview. All the information were transcribed and translated into English for data analysis. 3.5 Technique of Data Analysis 3.5.1

Observation Data analysis can be defined as the process of bringing the order, structure,

and interpretation to the mass of collected data. In this research, researcher analyzed the data qualitatively. Qualitative data analysis is a way of analysis without statistic. It is used to describe the cognitive level of teachers’ questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Researcher get the qualitative information from data observation protocol and data recording. Bloom’s taxonomy was first proposed in 1956 at the University of Chicago by Bloom and his colleagues. Arends (cited in Shen and Yodkhumlue, 2012) claimed that Bloom’s taxonomy has been widely used as an aid in planning

30

instructional goals as well as for other aspects of teaching; for instance, it can be used to assist in test construction and also to choose a questioning strategy. The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills, which includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Will, & Krathwohl, 1956). It contains six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which are often used to categorize teachers’ questions. The first three levels, knowledge comprehension, and application, are regarded as lower-cognitive levels, while the last three levels are classified as higher-cognitive levels (Bloom et al., 1956; Wilen, 1991; McNeil, 2010). Questions belonging to lower-cognitive levels are likely to require students to simply recall the prescribed data from memory, concentrating on factual information whereas ones belonging to higher-cognitive levels require students to be engaged in higher-order thinking, for instance problem solving, analyzing, creating or evaluating information (Gall, 1970; Bernadowski,2006 cited in Shen & Yodkhumlue, 2012). Bloom also defined the key words and related questions of each level in the cognitive domain, which were utilized as the principal factors in determining the classification of teacher’s questions in the present study. The researcher chose it as the framework because the cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy is deemed as the best known and most widely used paradigm in education to categorize and analyze the types of questions (Bemadowski, 2006). In order to sort out the questions asked by the teachers, Yang’s (2010)

31

procedure was adopted in that, not only those questions beginning with interrogatives, but the utterances ended with rising intonation are also regarded to be questions. The steps of the activity relate to this data analysis were as followed: 1. In the first step, the data from audio-recorded is examined and transcript one by one. 2. Completed the data of observation protocol with the data from audiorecorded. 3. Classified the teachers’ questions from the observation protocol and audiorecorded. Their frequency was examined into six level of cognition based on Bloom’s taxonomy, which are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (see appendix 2, p.71). 4. After confirming the cognitive level, the data were calculated and converted into percentage to make the data more readable. In this step, the researcher calculated the teachers’ questions

in order to know the

frequency of questions based on cognitive level of Blooms’ Taxonomy. In calculating the frequency of each questions, the researcher employed following formula: 𝑁1

P = ∑ 𝑁 X 100% in which, P : percentage of teacher’s questions N1 : total of the teachers’ questions in each cognitive domain ΣN : total of the whole teachers’ questions in all cognitive domain 32

5. After calculated, the data were divided into two categories which are higher and lower order and displayed on a chart. 6. In the final step, the resercher discussed the findings by describing each teachers’ questions. 3.5.2

Teachers’ Interview To analyze the data from interview, the researcher interpreted the data

from teachers’ interview. Every sentence of teachers’ answer to the interview was identified and described the conclusion of different answer from the teachers.

33

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the research. This study was conducted to investigate three research problems. Those are (1) The cognitive level of teachers’ questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, (2) The distribution of teachers’ question into lower and higher cognitive level, (3) Teachers’ opinion about questions and the use of cognitive level based on Blooms’ Taxonomy on questions. 4.1. Findings The findings are divided into three results. The first one is the result of the recording types of teachers’ questions used during the observation, the second shows the distribution of lower and higher cognitive level of teachers’ questions during the observation based on Blooms’ taxonomy. The data was reported to the number and percentages for each questions based on Blooms’ Taxonomy. The last part is the result of the transcription teachers’ interview recording related to the teacher opinion towards the questions and the use of cognitive level on question. As the researcher explained in the previous chapter, this research investigated the use of cognitive level based on Blooms’ Taxonomy on teacher questions and the teachers’ opinion towards it. For the data of teachers’ interview the transcription was showed in description and interpreted. The interview consists of five questions.

34

4.1.1

Finding of the Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy As stated in the previous chapter that in calculating the frequency of each

teachers’ questions, the researcher employ the following formula: 𝑁1

P = ∑ 𝑁 X 100% in which, P : percentage of teacher’s questions N1 : total of the teachers’ questions in each cognitive domain ΣN : total of the whole teachers’ questions in all cognitive domain. The preliminary procedures follow in the data analysis are to compute frequencies and percentages to describe the overall characteristics of the data. Following this, the data collected through classroom observation are showed in tables, coded and changed to percentage value. The researcher obtained these results by thoroughly studying and learning all the contents of the recording questions that appeared during the observations. Then the researcher categorizes the questions according to level in Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain. The samples of questions asked by the teacher are provided in appendix 2, p. 71. Based on six observations in five different classes, there were 106 questions which were asked by the two teachers during the observations. Below was the data of the questions analysis based on six cognitive levels based on Bloom’s Taxonomy:

35

Table. 4.1 Classification of the Teachers’ questions Level

Classroom observation

LOCQ

HOCQ

Kno

Comp

App

Ana

Syn

Eva

Observation 1st

0

15

0

0

0

5

Observation 2nd

5

2

0

0

0

0

Observation 3rd

6

16

4

2

0

1

Observation 4th

0

11

1

7

0

0

Observation 5th

5

6

0

0

0

0

Observation 6th

0

13

0

4

0

3

Total

16

63

5

13

0

9

15.1

59.4

4.7

12.3

0

8.5

% of Questions Grand Total

106

Abbreviation 4.1. Classification of the Teachers’ questions Kno

: Knowledge (C1)

Ana

: Analysis (C4)

Comp : Comprehension (C2)

Syn

: Synthesis (C5)

App

Eva

: Evaluation (C6)

: Application (C3)

LOCQ : Lower Order Cognitive Question HOCQ : Higher Order Cognitive Question

As indicated in table 4.1, that the most frequently questions employed were at the lower cognitive level which was “comprehension (C1)” apperared as much as (59.4%). While the mostly frequently questions at the highest cognitive level which is “analysis (C4)” appeared only (12.3%). For more clear interpretation, the chart below presented the illustration of questions distribution of each cognitive level.

36

Chart 4.1.Diagram of Teachers’ Questions

Percentages of Teachers' Questions Synthesis 0%

Application 4.7%

Evaluation 8.5%

Analysis 12.3%

Knowledge 15.1%

Comprehension 59.4%

Chart 4.1, presented the questions asked by the teachers are mostly in comprehension level which is categorized as lower order of cognition. The second most frequently used is knowledge level. The evaluation level which was the highest level is rarely used, and synthesis level was not used. Among 106 questions there were 15.1% was knowledge level (C1), 59.4% was comprehension (C2), 4.7% was application (C3), 12.3% was analysis (C4), however synthesis level (C5) was not observed, and just 8.5% was evaluation (C6). 4.1.2

Finding of Distribution of Lower and Higher Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question In order to answer the research question number two, the researcher

classified the questions from the lowest to the highest cognitive order. Figure below showed the exactly different number of the use between lower and higher level of cognition:

37

Chart 4.2. Distribution of lower and higher cognitive level of questions

Cognitive Level Used Lower Cognitive Level

Higher Cognitive Level

20.8%

79.2%

Chart 4.2 demonstrated the use of lower and higher level of questions which was clearly unequal. Based on the data, it could be seen that there was 79.2% questions asked by the teachers which is in the lower level of cognition. The rest 20.8 % was in the higher level of cognition. 4.1.3

Teachers’ Opinions towards the Questioning and the Use of Cognitive Level on Question The interview is done to gain information about the teachers’ opinion

towards the use of cognitive level on questions. The interview consists of six questions that the first three items were mainly related to teachers’ questioning behavior in general (Question 1-3) and, the last two focused on the use of cognitive level on teacher questions (Question 4-5). The results of the interview are shown in appendix 4, p.83. As for interview which could avoid the subjectivity of only using classroom observation as the one instrument, the interview questions items were used to explore the teachers’ overviews on the use of cognitive level on questions. From the records of interview, the interviewees 38

indicated the types of questions asked by the teacher which are summarized as follows: The first question asked about how much class time that the teachers spend on question-and-answer in the classroom. The teachers noted that questioning was routinely done in the classroom as the opening of the lesson. The result reported that questions as a important activity that the teacher should do during the class. This statement was supported by these teachers who stated: “Rutinnya, sebenarnya dalam proses itu selalu kita awali dengan kuis atau pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan tema atau materi-materi yang kita bawakan. Pertanyaan yang biasa diutarakan adalah intruksi. Intruksi itu peertanyaan-pertanyaan yang mengarahkan mereka untuk dilakukan apakah yang akan mereka kerjakan itu mereka mengerti atau tidak. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan seperti itu. Jadi kita berikan dulu semacam intruksi. Kemudian setelah itu mungkin kita berikan juga pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ada hubungannya dengan tema, atau katakanlah pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ada hubungannya dengan proses belajar mereka, begitu yang sering kita lakukan. (Routinely, actually in the process we always begin with quizzes or questions that relates to the topic or learning material. The frequently questions is instruction form. Instruction is questions that lead them to do whether they understand what they do or not. Questions like that. So, we give them such instruction previously. Then, maybe we give them questions related to the topic, or questions related to their learning process, so this is we do frequently) Teacher A, 18th of February. “Pertanyaan cukup sering dilakukan dalam mengajar khususnya itu pada reading lebih banyak. Kayak yang sementara ini kan lebih banyak. (Questioning is done frequently in teaching especially in reading section is more a lot. Like what happened right now is more a lot.) Teacher B, 22 nd of February. The second questions asked about teachers’ purposes when asking questions to students. The teachers stated that most of questions used to encourage students’ understanding about the learning and to make clear the material if the students do not understand. From the interview recording, the teacher noted that :

39

“Pertama untuk mempertajam materi atau isi materi yang telah diberikan, diprintkan agar dipelajari oleh siswa apakah masih ada keraguan, masih ada kekurangan atau masih ada problem yang mungkin jadi masalah atau tidak. Tujuannya seperti itu. Ketika ada masalah pada mereka, kita harus berikan solusi bersama. Guru memberikan solusi dan kemudian mungkin dari siswa juga mampu memberikan itu, kta terima masukkannya. Jadi, bukan hanya dari guru saja sebagai otonomi, tetapi kita hargai siswa-siswa lain untuk mengeluarkan idenya sehingga mereka dan juga yang lain melihat ternyata yang seperti itu juga harus kita ikuti. (Firstly, to shape the material and the content that has been given, printed it to be studied by the students, whether extant hesitance, lacking and problems or not. Its aim is such that. When there is a problem, we should give them solution. Teachers give them solution and maybe students also can give solution, we accept it. Therefore, it is not only from teachers as autonomous, but we appreciate others students who lean out their ideas, so that the others can see, we should follow it)” Teacher A, 18th of February. “Untuk melihat sejauh mana siswa mengerti tentang proses pelajaran yang sedang berlangsung apakah prosesnya sudah lewat, materinya sudah lewat atau yang sementara berlangsung sanggat perlu. (To see how far students' understanding to the learning process which still happens whether the process has passed, its material has passed, or still happen is very necessary)” Teacher B, 22nd of February. The third question asked about the effect of questions on the students’ language development. The teachers noted that questions enhance learning since questions result in vocabulary formation. To support this argument these teachers answered that: “Jelas berpengaruh untuk kemajuannya. Karena pertama melatih anak untuk dia bisa memahami tujuan pertanyaan. Jadi ketika mungkin ada pertanyaan pasti dia ‘jadi kalau pak guru tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris seperti ini, berarti maksudnya seperti ini juga’. Jadi, pasti akan mempengaruhi perkembangan Bahasa Inggris siswa. (Absolutely, it affects to their progress. Firstly, it can coach students to understand the aim of a question. Therefore, when there is a question, students can guess ‘so, when teacher asks in English like this, it’s meaning like this’. So that, it will affect students’ English development)” Teacher A, 18th of February. “Ya, akan mempengaruhi karena disitu saya tuntut harus memakai Bahasa Inggris secara full. Tetapi kalau memang dia tau Bahasa Inggrisnya maka dia akan ucapkan Bahasa Inggrisnya kemudian dia sambung lagi ke Bahasa Indonesia. (Yes, it will affect because here I demand them to use English

40

fully. But, if he can utter into English, so he will do then he interlock in Indonesian again)” Teacher B, 22nd of February. The fourth question was related to the use of difference cognitive level of questions on students’ grade classes. The teachers stated that in the application of cognitive level based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers should classified students’ grade class in order to give them appropriate questions based on their cognitive level development. The teachers stated that: “Perlu karena setiap jenjang itu berbeda tingkat penggunaan kosakata. Penggunaan kosakata dikelas tujuh masih low, kalau di kleas 8 sudah middle. Dan kalau di kelas 9 sudah high. Sehinggga totalitas sebetulnya penguasaan kosakata dalam anjuran kurikulum, kelas 9 sudah mampu menguasai 1500 kosakata. Tetap kalau di kelas 7 low, bawah. Jadi disini kita harus middle di kelas 2. Jadi harus dibedakan tingkat kognitif mereka. Sehingga didalam pembelajaran sebetulnya juga dianjurkan dari yang mudah, sedang dan tinggi. Sama juga dengan orang kursus ada level elementary, intermediate, and advanced. Itu tahapannya, jadi kita dari sekolah harus klasifikasi. Jangan dulu kasih bahasa-bahasa ilmiah, kata-kata yang susah yang tidak dimengerti mereka sehingga arah mereka lebih bagus dan tertuntun. Dalam arti jangan kita kasih tahu kata, tetapi tunjuk, minta mereka mencari di kamus. Mengapa kita harus tuntun mereka buka kamus agar lesson itu dapat lebih lama tersimpan. (It’s necessary because every grade is different in the use of vocabulary. The use of vocabulary in seventh grade is low, in eighth grade is middle. And in ninth grade is high. So that, actually it’s totality for vocabulary mastery in ninth grade based on curriculum must mastery 1500 vocabularies. But in seventh grade is low. So, here we use middle level for second grade. Therefore, we should classify their cognitive levels. Then, in learning process actually is advised to start from the easy one, intermediate and high. Similar to the course which there is elementary level, intermediate, and advanced. That is the steps. So, we are the school should classify it. Do not give scientific languages, difficult words and could not be understood by them so that their aim will be better and be guided. It means that we do not inform them the words, but point out it, ask them to search it in dictionary. Why we have to lead them to open the dictionary because it can be saved long time)” Teacher A, 18th of February. “Ada, mungkin kalau yang kelas 7 hanya quote saja, mungkin kalau kelas 8 sudah bisa identifikasi, mungkin kalau kelas 9 sudah bisa membuat summary. Tentunya lebih sulit lagi. (Available, maybe in seventh grade just quote, in eighth grade they can able to identify, and in ninth grade is summary. Obviously, it will more difficult)” Teacher B, 22nd of February.

41

The last question was about the appropriate cognitive level for Senior High School grade. As already mentioned, the teacher stated that the number of question related to level vocabulary mastery. Most of teachers’ questions during the class tended to the lower cognitive level which is C1 (knowledge), C2 (comprehension), C3 (application). Meanwhile, for the questions on the higher cognitive level was rarely used. To support these result, the teachers responded that: “Tingkat kognitif yang misalnya mention (sebutkan) jadi itu yang banyak pada level C1. Jadi, C1, C2, yang selalu muncul. Kalau C3 masih terlalu jarang. Apalagi C4, C5, dan C6 itu semua sudah level tinggi. (The cognitive level used such as mention. The frequent question used is level of C1. So that, C1, C2 level always appeared. C3 level is rarely. Evenless C4, C5, and C6 its all are high level)” Teacher A, 18th of February. “C1-C5. C5 pun jarang, yang mungkin dikhususkan untuk essai pada kelas 3 itu pun nanti semester terakhir yaitu menganalisa. Hanya saja kelas 8 saya ajarkan menganalisis setiap teks mana yang umpama descriptif atau yang naratif itu mana. Apa karakteristiknya, saya memang sudah ancang-ancang mereka sudah tau. (C1- C5. But C5 used rarely, that maybe specialized to essay in ninth grade especially in last semester which is analyze. But just for eighth grade, I teach them to analyze each text, which one is descriptive and narrative text. What its characteristics, I have guess that they have known)” Teacher B, 22nd o February.

4.2 Discussion The main focuses of this study were observed the cognitive level of teachers’ questions in the class related to the learning material at eighth grade in SMPN 10 Kendari. Moreover, this study also describes the distribution of teachers’ questions from lower to higher cognitive level investigated as well. In addition, this study also describes the teachers’ opinions towards the use of cognitive level based on Bloom’s Taxonomy on the questions. Findings in the

42

present study showed that there was different frequency of teachers questions based on Bloom’s taxonomy (see table 4.1, p. 36). Based on the results of study, it is known that most of questions which were mostly used by the teachers is questions on comprehension level where is classified as lower cognitive level. In the contrary, for the questions with higher cognitive level is rarely used by the teachers in the class. Regarding this issue, Ariani (2014) in her study reported that teachers used various cognitive levels of questions, but they mostly used comprehension level questions which are in the lower cognitive level. In particular context, the students should build comprehension about the learning text, and then answer the questions using their own words. Further, “so much time was spent with teachers questioning the students, most of the questions were low- level cognitive questions. Higher- order questions were also observed however, the ratio of these questions was very low” (Khan and Inamullah, 2011, p. 149). The discussion of the research result will be proposed according to the questions respectively.

4.2.1

Discussion of the Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Questions Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy The first question of this study focused on analyzing the cognitive levels

of teachers’ questions during the observation. The results of this study are shown in Table 4.1, p. 36 where there are six cognitive level of Bloom’s Taxonomy which is knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. An overall conclusion that can be drawn from the results of this

43

analysis was that from 106 questions during six observations had a dominant emphasis on lower level questions. In determining the data analysis of the questions delivered by the teachers, the questions were classified from the lowest to the highest cognitive order (see chart 4.2, p. 38). In the cognitive domain, “knowledge” represents the lowest level of questions. To answer the questions, students are only required to remember their previous knowledge or material that had been learned. Common question asked by the teachers in this study is “Do you still remember….?” which indicate a recalling material. This kind of question was classified in this level because it only recalls the students’ previous learned material. A further example of questions in knowledge level was in the 3rd observation which was talked about the use of simple past tense: “Masih ingat rumus dari simple past tense?”. (Do you still remember the pattern of simple past tense?) 3rd observation, 14th of February. To answer this question, the students only had to look back and listed the formula of simple past tense. Interestingly, some questions can be classified into more than one level. For example: “Dalam kalimat perfect, I, we, you, they menggunakan?”. (In the perfect tense, I, we, you, they are using?) 2nd observation, 11th of February. “Masih ingat kalau kata kerja yang ada ‘ing-nya’ biasanya?”. (Do you still remember, verb that using ‘–ing’, what does it mean?). “Seperti writing, reading, tetapi maksudnya apa ini biasanya?”. (Such as, reading, writing, but usually, what does it mean?) 3rd observation, 14th of February.

44

Both of the second and third observation, the teachers and students were discussing kinds of tenses included the characteristics and verb that used in each tenses. While in the 2nd observation they discussed about perfect tense which was what auxiliary verbs are suitable. In the third observation they talked about other kinds of tenses which was about present continuous tense. In this case, they had discussed the simple perfect and continuous tense in the previous meeting. The sample questions above could be classified as analysis level. However, since the purposed of the teacher was only for recalling the students about the use of simple perfect and continuous tense, which had been discussed before, this question was classified into knowledge level. In my experiences it was also proven that teacher often ask this kind of question to remind the students about the use of different kinds of tense. E.g. Present tense is used to tell a habitual or fact, simple past tense to tell something that happened in the past. Another example of knowledge level can be seen from 3rd observation, 14th February 2017: “Tata Bahasa yang digunakan dalam narrative text yaitu?”. (What is the structure that used in narrative text?) 3rd observation, 14th of February. In this case, the lesson about narrative text had been taught in previous meeting. Thus, this question is classified into knowledge level as the students were asked to recall the material they had learned in the previous meeting. Related to the purpose of questions, Cotton (2013) listed variety of purposes of questioning, but there seem to be different purposes in using the knowledge level of questions. As stated before, knowledge level required students

45

to recall previous material, it can be concluded that the possible purpose of using this level based on Cotton (2013) listed is to review and summarize previous lesson. Another purpose is probably to encourage students’ participation in a lesson (Richard, 1996) as can be seen from this question: “Ada yang pintar menyanyi lagu Bahasa Inggris disini?”. (Here, who can sing English song?) 5th observation, 21st of February. The topic of the lesson in the 5th observation was about sing English song and Talking about your friends in 8th grade. By the question above, the students were engaged to give response. According to the findings from Ocak and Yurt (2009) study, with open-ended questions in the introductions as well as thought provoking questions at the beginning of the subsections in each unit, the existing knowledge of students can be discovered and then their schemas related with that topic can be stimulated. Therefore, knowledge-level questions may be included in the pre-reading section of questions for stimulating the existing knowledge of students. In the comprehension level students are required to understand a context by explaining or summarizing, stating ideas and retell a context using their own words. E.g. “Do you understand?”. (5th observation, 21st of February) The question above is classified as comprehension level because to answer this question, students need to comprehend what they have learned. Teacher used this yes/no question to get feedback from student and make sure whether they have understood what they have been taught. This kind of question is used when

46

the teacher explained something. It seemed that when the teacher asked such questions he expected receive affirmative answers from all students. In comprehension level, teacher also can ask question to measure the students’ comprehension to the learning topic, eg: “The poor man, siapa yang tahu?”. (Who knows the poor man?). “Siapa yang bisa ceritakan itu?”. (Who can tell it?) 5th observation, 21st of February). “Kalimat mana untuk memulai percakapan?”. (Which sentences that used to begin conversation?) 4th observation, 17th of February. Both of these questions above, in that particular context, students should understand the text, and then answer the question based on what they have learned or read. In 4th observation, the class is discussed about conversation on telephoning, then teacher asked questions to check students comprehension of expression that is used when do telephoning. Here, the questions can be used to stimulate and maintain students’ interest. Another sample question can be seen as in this example: “I write a letter, kalau ini masuknya di simple,,?”. (I write a letter, this is inputted in simple..?). “I have written a letter, kalau yang ini?”. (I have written a letter, how about this?) 3rd observation, 14th of February. The question is classified into comprehension level because the students are required to distinguish the use of tenses in present, past, and perfect tense, which had been talked before. As for the possible reason of questions at this level

47

is probably to encourage students to think and focus on the content of the lesson (Richard and Lockhart, 1996). E.g. “What is the doctor says about Andi? “What did the doctor do to cure Andi?” “When did the writer go to Rahman’s house?” (6th observation, 22nd of February). In the 6th observation, teacher and eighth-grade students were talking about letter which is recount text. The students would be directed to comprehend and focus on the content of the passage given by the teacher. Another possibility of using this level is to elicit particular vocabulary as can be seen from this example: “Shout, bentuk keduanya apa?”. (Shout, what is the second form of it?). “Apa bentuk kedua dari ‘repair’?”. (What is the second form of ‘repair’?) 3rd Observation, 14 of February. “Apa itu ‘chance’?”.(What is ‘chance’?) 5th observation, 21st of February). Questions in 3rd and 5th observation, the students were asked to elicit vocabulary to translate and understand the meaning of the sentence in the passage. They enable a teacher to elicit a particular structure or vocabulary items. Meanwhile, another possible reason for using the comprehension question as in the example below: “If you have a problem about your condition, you must go to..?”(1st observation, 11th of February).

48

Application has higher intellectual level than comprehension level. Here students are asked to apply the lesson into a new situation or real world. E.g. “Saya akan menulis”, dalam Bahasa Inggris bagaimana?” (‘Saya akan menulis’, how to write it in English?). 3rd observation, 14th of February. In the third observation, teacher and students were discussed about kinds of tenses which are present continuous tense and present future tense. Here, the teacher asked questions that make the students could apply their knowledge and understanding about Tenses. This is one of application question because it used the learned material in new and concrete situation. Another example was quite interesting since it can be both knowledge and application level as the example in 3rd observation below: “Who can make the sentence about this difficult word number six?” “Bagaimana kalau masukkan dalam simple past tense?” . (How to change it into simple past tense?). 3rd observation, 14th of February. In the 3rd observation, teacher and students discussed about the difficult words in monologue based on the handbook. After that, teacher asked students to make a sentence from those words. Questions above considered as application level because previously teacher had talked about tenses. Then students were required to apply the theory of tenses form in a new situation, not only recalling previous lesson. Therefore, it can be seen that the occurrence of questions in this level are quite a lot. This maybe because the learning material skill was speaking and

49

writing that needs much practice and application of what students’ had learned. The students should apply the theory of the lesson into a new context of lesson. In this level students are required to analyze and identify reasons, causes, or motives and reach conclusions or generalization. E.g. “Find the difficult words in the text!” (3rd observation, 14th of February) “What do you think about the boy in the picture is?” “What happened with the boy?” “What does he do?” (4th observation, 17th of February) Both of observation above, teacher used questions to make students analyzed and identified the instruction by the teachers. They encourage students to think and focus on the content of the lesson. They enable a teacher to clarify what a student has said. In the 3rd observation, students should analyze the difficult words based on the text monologue. “What happened to the writer after he read the book?” “Why the writer go to Rahman’s house?” “Why did the writer go to there?” Why did the writer not go to school the next morning? (6th observation, 22nd of February) Here, teacher repeated the questions to make clear about what he asked to the students. Learning outcomes here represented a higher intellectual level than comprehension and application because they required an understanding of both the content and the structural form of the material.

50

In the examples, the question focused on critical thinking skills and allowed for in-depth student discussions. This question may lead to more studentgenerated questions and conversations thus engaging the learner at a deeper level. With these higher-level questions, a teacher is truly engaging English language learners. The purpose of teachers using this level can be for developing students’ critical thinking skills and inquiring attitudes since the students should analyze with their own reason. The synthesis questions are used to force students to give ideas, create something new, and encourage them to have creative thinking. They also can develop previous ideas with their new thought. During the observations, the researcher did not find the questions relate to synthesis level. The purpose of using this level was probably to develop interest and motivate students to become actively involved in lessons (Cotton, 2013). It might be rarely used because teachers did not want to bring too much new ideas in the class discussion which would trigger too many difference ideas from the students. In the evaluation level, students are required to judge the value of material and give solution of a problem. This level has the highest cognitive order since the students have to give judgment after understanding context of the material after using the previous lower cognitive level of questions. E.g. “Apa tujuan mempelajari tenses for you?”. (What is the purpose of learning tenses for you?) 3rd observation, 14th of February. The question above appeared when the class had discussed about tenses during two meetings. Then, teacher asked this question to get students judgment

51

about what they had learned. To answer this question, students are required to judge what is the purpose of learn tenses or them. The reasons of using this level may be to stimulate students’ critical thinking because students are required to judge with the reason based on the previous material. “So, what is your conclusion of the conversation?” “There are two summaries, ada dua hal yang bisa kita simpulkan disitu, the first….?”. (There are two summaries that could we conclude here, the first?) 1st observation, 11th of February. The evaluation questions also could be used to provide opportunities for students to make judgments based on appropriate criteria. Here, students are required to judge, critique, interpret process, materials, and conclude the learning process that they had done. The presentations of teachers’ questions during the observations showed that teacher had tried to use all level of questions although there is no synthesis question appeared. There are several questions that frequently used by the teachers during the observations which is the comprehension (C1) questions. The next one is knowledge level as much as 15.1 % was observed during observation. The both was categorized as lower level of questions. The next level where rarely used by the teacher was the higher level that consisted of analysis level (12.3%) and evaluation level (8.5%). Based on the observation, can be known that there are some levels of questions that were not used optimal by the teacher. Related to the data of teachers’ interviews, it can be known why it happened. Teachers said that for the junior high school level especially at eighth grade, the most frequently

52

questions that asked by the teachers was the lower level which was knowledge (C1), comprehension (C2), and application (C3). For questions at the higher cognitive levels which were analysis (C4), synthesis (C5), and evaluation (C6) it all appropriate used to students in higher grade.

4.2.2

Discussion of the Distribution of Lower and Higher Cognitive Level of Teachers’ Question The researcher analyzed the distribution of teachers’ questions from lower

cognitive level and higher cognitive level to see its difference frequency. In this study, the researcher used Bloom’s taxonomy questioning categorizes to determine the cognitive level into lower and higher level. Bloom’s taxonomy is divided into two types of questions: lower and higher order question. Lower order questions require students to comprise of knowledge, comprehension, and application, while higher order questions include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Yang, 2010). The result of the study showed that lower order questions are mostly asked by the teachers than higher order. The result showed that the use of lower and higher level of questions which was clearly unequal. Based on the data, it could be seen that there was 79.2% questions asked by the teachers which was in the lower level of cognition. The rest 20.8 % was in the lower level of cognition. This finding is not surprising since it confirms the results of almost all the other studies that are discussed in the review of related literature in this present study. The higher cognitive level received the lowest percentage and frequency. This finding

53

also appeared frequently in almost all the studies discussed in the review of related literature. The results of the study are in support of early studies estimated that 70 to 80 percent of all questions require the simple knowledge of facts, while only 20 to 30 percent require the higher- level thought processes of clarifying, expanding, generalizing, and making inferences (Barjeshteh and Moghadam, 2014; Ariani, 2014). Recent study in the United States and England indicates that, of every five questions asked, three require data recall, one is managerial, and only one requires higher-level thought processes (Dillon, 1988). Brown & Wragg (1993) discussed the research study of Stevens (1912) that teachers appeared to ask 400 questions per day, that 65 percent of those questions were concerned with recall of text-book information). Brown & Wragg (1993) also discussed the result study of Gall (1970) who noted that 6 percent of teacher questions required pupils to recall facts in much the same way as that in which they were presented, and only twenty percent required pupils to think beyond the level of recall; the remaining percent involved procedural matters such as classroom management. The results show that the teachers placed the greatest emphasis on the lower thinking processes of knowledge, comprehension and application. Lowerorder cognitive questions embrace chiefly knowledge, comprehension and application; higher order questions, by contrast, involve analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Lower order questions tend to closed questions (when a known response is sought); higher order questions tend to be open questions (when the

54

type of response is known but the actual response is not, students being free to respond in their own way). Lower order questions are knowledge, comprehension and application based which encourage lower levels of thinking while higher order questions develop in students the ability to critically analyze and evaluate the concepts and ideas. Based on the data of teachers’ interviews , the reason why the teachers tended to use the lower level of questions during the class because students at the eighth grade of Junior high school still have middle level of vocabulary mastery. Teachers should not asked questions that did not appropriate with the level of their vocabulary mastery. 4.2.3

Discussion of the Teachers’ Opinions about Questioning and the Use of Cognitive Level on Question In the classroom, teacher’s questioning plays a very important role to

initiate classroom talk. It is evident that a question can stimulate students’ motivation, focus their attention, help students learn and think better, and also help the teacher know how well a student’s learning is (Dillon, 1988). Therefore the investigation on teacher’s questioning behavior has been an important issue in the language classroom. There have been many research studies which revealed teachers preferred to ask plenty of questions with different purposes in the classroom (Long & Sato, 1983; White & Lightbown, 1984; Almeida, 2010). Obviously, during the process of teaching and learning, teacher’s questioning plays a crucial role in the classroom. Question-and-answer activity is viewed as

55

the most common form of communication between students and teachers in the classroom. Teachers at eighth grade in SMPN 10 Kendari thought that questioning as an important activity during the class. The questioning process could be used as a tool to measure students’ understanding towards their learning process. In order that, questioning also could be used to shape students comprehension about the learning material, and checking students’ lacking in learning. Teacher question may serve various functions such as focusing attention, exerting disciplinary control, getting feedback and most important of all, encouraging students to participate. However, the statement that types of teachers’ questions play an important role in teaching since they affect students’ participation in the process of negotiation of meaning supported by the findings by Rezaee and Farahian (2012). Answering questions pushes students to produce language and this causes language development. In the questioning activity, the teachers used the different cognitive level based on students’ class grade. Findings of a number of studies (e.g., Yang, 2010) demonstrate that lower cognitive level of questions are commonly asked, while higher cognitive level questions are rarely asked. In the results of the interview, the teachers noted that the use of cognitive level in each grade in senior high school was different. The teacher claimed that the higher level of questions are more beneficial and appropriate for higher levels, since students are more proficient in their L2 and their vocabulary is wider, too. Teachers used the lower cognitive level (knowledge, comprehension, and application) frequently rather

56

than the higher cognitive level (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). Moreover, during the class, the use of analysis level (C4) was frequent used by the teacher. Teachers questions could be used to improve students’ vocabulary mastery because teachers demand students to use English fully when answering questions. It implicates to the distribution of teachers’ questions. Teachers used lower level of questions frequently rather than the higher cognitive level because the different of students’ vocabulary mastery in every grade of classes. Teachers tend to ask lower-level questions, e.g. questions that ask students to simply recall or recognize information, rather than higher-level questions that require students to analyze and evaluate knowledge (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Research indicates that this occurs with all students, but the practice is particularly prevalent with English language learners because teachers believe that these students cannot understand or respond to higher-level questions. This is not true, because to successfully ask higher level questions of ELLs, teachers must be conscious not only of the stages of language acquisition, but also of the levels of questions that they can ask each day of all their students. It is said that higher level thinking occurs with higher level questions. Teachers play an important role in engaging students in higher order thinking skills by asking higher order questions. A teacher can raise the level of critical thinking and help children in reflective thought by the proper use of questions (Hollingsworth, 1982). Effective teacher makes the students think even when they don’t want to (Fisher, 1998).

57

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter presents conclusion and recommendation that are derived form research findings.The recommendation are intended for the lecturer, the students, and further researchers. 5.1 Conclusion This present study attempts to observe the cognitive level of teachers’ questions based on Bloom’s taxonomy, the distribution of questions on higher and lower cognitive level, and the teachers’ opinion about the questioning and cognitive level of question. The study took place at eighth grade of SMPN 10 Kendari. In the light of results and discussion the following conclusions were drawn. It was observed that the time devoted to asking questions from teachers, almost every lesson was started with the question. Among 106 questions there were 15.1% was knowledge level (C1), 59.4% was comprehension (C2), 4.7% was application (C3), 12.3% was analysis (C4), however synthesis level (C5) was not observed, and just 8.5% was evaluation (C6). Teachers placed the greatest emphasis on the lower thinking processes of knowledge, comprehension and application. The distribution s question at lower and higher level showed that there was 79.2% questions asked in the lower level of cognition. The rest 20.8 % was in the higher level of cognition. Lower- order cognitive questions included knowledge

58

(C1), comprehension (C2) and application (C3). Higher cognition include analysis (C4), synthesis (C5) , and evaluation (C6) provide critical thinking skill. Higher- order questions consist were seldom asked. Very few questions were asked at the evaluation level however synthesis based questions were not observed by the researcher during observation of teachers in their respective classes. From this study it can be learnt that teachers can use varieties of cognitive level of questions to help students achieve their optimum learning. In addition, it also can be explored to know the reason of using certain level of questions. The types of questions asked are determined by the pedagogical purposes and students' level. Teachers thought that questioning was an important activity since it can measure the students’ understanding towards the learning material, improving students’ language developments. The use of variety of teachers’ questions based off Bloom’s Taxonomy can improve students thinking level that could be affected to their vocabulary mastery 5.2. Recommendation Based on the conclusion in this study, the writer can provide suggestions or recommendations for: 1. Teacher •

Since the use of higher cognitive levels are still low especially in synthesis and evaluation level. As a result, the teachers’ questioning is only a superficial form of classroom activity, lacking in the practical value. It can’t really stimulate students’ initiatives, nor can it develop their interactive competence. Teachers should aware of the effects of teachers’

59

questioning on classroom interaction and pay attention to the strategies of questioning in the classroom interaction. •

To facilitate students L2 development, the findings conclude that teachers should not ask only knowledge and comprehension questions. They should ask questions require elaboration and elicit longer and more syntactically complex response. To bring about more dialogic forms, teachers should help student get opportunity to ask questions, motivate them to ask more questions and use the knowledge questions as a tool to help the learners promote higher levels to answer questions synthesis, analysis and evaluations.

2. Future Researcher: However like other research studies so far in the field of second language acquisition, the study brought in certain limitations which should be clarified to overcome doubts about the reliability and validity of the study. Firstly, the subjects were limited to the English teacher at eighth grade in SMPN 10 Kendari. It might not be considered as representatives of English teachers in other class grade; secondly, this study only focused on the cognitive domain in Bloom’s taxonomy which is regarded as the domain. Thus, the research did not consider using the affective and psychomotor domains to analyze teacher’s questions. Therefore, in order to increase the generalizability, a large-scale research study is recommended.

60

REFERENCES Alzu'bi, Akram. (2014) The Extend of Adaptation Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain In English Questions Included in General Secondary Exams. Australian International Academic Centre, 5 (2), 68-69. 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. Ariani, Desi. (2014). An Analysis on the Cognitive Level of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom of Junior High School in Semarang Residence. Unpublished : Thesis. Barjeshteh, H. &Moghadam, B.A. (2014). Teacher Questions and Questioning Strategies Revised: A Case Study in EFL Classroom in Iran. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4 (2), 651-659. Bernadowski, C. C. (2006). The effects of middle school social studies teachers' questioning patterns on learners' outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., &Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman. Brock, C. A. (1986).The effect of referential question on ESL classroom discourse.TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 46-59. Brown, G.(1975). Microteaching. Great Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy . NY: Pearson Education. Brualdi, A.C. (1998). Classroom questions: practice assessment research and evaluation. [Online] Available: http:// PARE online. net (November 13, 2016) Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 62. Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking Formative Assessment. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Cotton, K. (2013) Questioning strategies: The Schooling Practices That Matter Most. In the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) 61

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.html, retrieved November 13, 2016. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press, (Chapter 3). Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP. Farahiana, M. & Rezaeeb, M. (2012). A Case Study of An EFL Teacher’s Type of Questions: An Investigation into Classroom Interaction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 161 – 163. Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, (Chapter 2). Gall, M. D. (1970). The use questions in teaching. Review of educational research, 40, 707-721. Godfrey, K. A. (2001). Teacher questioning techniques, student responses and critical thinking. Mast er’s Thesis. Retrieved February, 2017, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED459609 Gregory, G.H. & Chapman, C. (2007) Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Guihun, C. (2006). To question or not to question, that is the questions. Canadian Social Science. Hollingsworth P.H. (1982). Questioning: The heart of teaching. The Clearing House, Vol. 55, No. 8, (April, 1982). Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp.350-352. Igbaria, A. (2013). A content analysis of the WH-questions in the EFL textbook of Horizons. International Educational Studies, 6(7), 200224. doi:10.5539/ies.v6n7p200. Kanchak, D. & P. D. Eggen. (1989). Learning and Teaching. Mass: Allyn and Bacon. pp. 24-56. Karabenick, Stuart A. (2004). Contextual Determinants of Motivation and Help Seeking in the College Classroom. Khan, B.W. &Inamullah, M.H. (2011).A Study of Lower-order and Higher-order Questions at Secondary Level. Canadian Center of Science and Education Journal, 7 (9). Long, M. H. & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreign talk discourse: forms and functions of teacher's questions. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 26-30.

62

Mahmud, M. (2015).Questioning Power of the students in the class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Ma, Xiaoyan. (2008). The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. International Education Studies, 1 (2), 92-100. Matra, S.D. (2014). Teacher Questioning in Classroom Interaction. A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching and Literature, 14 (1), 83-111. Moleong, L. J. 2004. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Eka Karya. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching.New York: McGraw Hill. Nurbaya. (201). Questioning Frequency of the Student in the Class. Unpublished : Thesis. Richard. J. C. (Ed.). Lockhart. C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosenshine, B. (1976). Classroom instruction.In W. L. Gage (Ed.), The Psychology of teaching methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shen, Pingg & Yodkhumlue, Butsakorn. (2012). A Case Study of Teacher’s Questioning and Students’ Critical Thinking in College EFL Reading Classroom.International Journal of English Linguistics, 2 (1). Toni. A., Parse. F. (2013). The Status of Teacher’s Questions and Students’ Responses: The Case of an EFL Class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 564-569. Weimer, M. (1993).Improving your classroom teaching.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 2. White, J., & Lightbown, P. (1984). Asking and answering in language classes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228-244. Wilen, William W. (1991). Questioning Skills for Teachers, third edition.National Education Association: Washington DC. Wragg E.C. (1993). Primary teaching skills.Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London. Yang, C.C.R. (2010).Teacher questions in second language classrooms: An investigation of three case studies. Asian EFL Journal ,12(1).

63

Zepeda, S.J. (2009). The Instructional Leader’s Guide to Informal Classroom Observations.Eye on Education. Zolfaghari, A. R., Fathi, D., &Hashemi, M. (2011).The role of creative questioning in the process of learning and teaching.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences.

64

APPENDICES

65

Appendix 1. A Guide for the Levels of Questions Based on the Cognitive Domain in Bloom’s Taxonomy Table 1. Cue Questions Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Adapted from Igbaria, (2013). General Instructional Objectives Instructional Verbs Knowledge (C1) It is defined as the remembering of previously learned material. This may involve the recall of a wide range of material, from specific facts to complete theories, but all that is required is the bringing to mind of the appropriate information. Knowledge represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain. -

Observation and recall of List, define, tell, show, label, quote, information name, who, when, where, etc. - Knowledge of dates, events, places - Knowledge of major ideas - Mastery of subject matter Comprehension (C2) It is defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material. This may be shown by translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), by interpreting material (explaining or summarizing), and by estimating future trends (predicting consequences or effects). These learning outcomes go one step beyond the simple remembering of material, and represent the lowest level of understanding. -

Understanding information Describe, interpret, contrast, predict, Grasp meaning distinguish, estimate, differentiate, Translate knowledge into new discuss, extend. context - Interpret facts, compare, contrast - Order, group, infer causes - Predict consequences Application (C3) It refers to the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. This may include the application of such things as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, and theories. Learning outcomes in this area require a higher level of understanding than those under comprehension.

66

-

Use information Apply, demonstrate, illustrate, solve, Use methods, concepts, theories in examine, modify, relate, change, new situations discover, Express. Solve problems using required skills or knowledge

Analysis (C4) It refers to the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. This may include the identification of parts, analysis of the relationship between parts, and recognition of the organizational principles involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than comprehension and application because they require an understanding of both the content and the structural form of the material. -

Seeing patterns Organization of parts Recognition of hidden meanings Identification of components

Analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify, arrange, divide, compare, select.

Synthesis (C5) It refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication, a plan of operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for classifying information). Learning outcomes in this area stress creative behaviors, with major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns or structure. -

Use old ideas to create new ones Combine, integrate, rearrange, Generalize from given facts substitute, plan, create, design, invent, Relate knowledge from several compose, generalize, rewrite areas Evaluation (C6) It is concerned with the ability to judge the value of material for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite criteria. These may be internal criteria (organization) or external criteria (relevance to the purpose) and the student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning outcomes in this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements of all the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria -

Compare and discriminate between Assess, decide, rank, grade, test, ideas measure, recommend, judge, conclude.

67

-

Assess value of theories, presentations Make choices based on reasoned argument Verify value of evidence Recognize subjectivity

Table 2. Sample Question Stems Based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Adapted from Anderson & Krathwohl, (2001) Teachers’ Activity -

-

-

-

Questions Prompts

Knowledge (C1) Present information about the What do you remember about __? subject to the student How would you define _______? Ask questions that require the How would you identify________? student to recall the information How would you recognize_______? presented Describe what happens when______? Provide verbal or written texts How is (are) ________________? about the subject that can be Where is (are) ________________? answered by recalling the Which one ________________? information the student has learned Who was _________________? Why did _______________? What is (are) __________________? When did __________________? List the ___________in order. Comprehension (C2) How would you compare ____? Ask questions that the student can Contrast _____? answer in his/her own words by How would you differentiate between stating facts or by identifying the _____? main idea. How would you generalize _____? Give tests based on classroom How would you express _______? instruction What can you infer from __________? What did you observe _________? How would you identify _________? Will you restate ________________? What would happen if ________?

68

What is the main idea of ________? What can you say about ________? Application (C3) Provide opportunities for the What actions would you take to student to use ideas, theories, or perform _______? problem solving techniques and What other way would you choose to apply them to new situations. _______? Review the student’s work to How would you demonstrate _____? ensure that he/she is using problem How would you present ______? solving techniques independently How would you change ______? Provide questions that require the How would you modify ______? student to define and solve problem How could you develop ______? Why does __________work? What examples can you find that __?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Analysis (C4) How can you classify ____ according Allow time for students to to _____? examine concepts and ideas and How can you compare the different to break them down into basic parts _____________? parts. What explanation do you have for ___ Require students to explain why _________? they chose a certain problem How is_____ connected to ______? solving technique and why the Discuss the pros and cons of ______. solution worked. How can you sort the parts _______? What is the analysis of ________? What can you infer ___________? How would you explain _________? What can you point out about ____? What is the problem with _______? Why do you think _____________? Evaluation (C5) Provide opportunities for students What data was used to evaluate ___? to make judgments based on What is the most important ______? appropriate criteria. What would you suggest _______? Have students demonstrate that How would you grade ___________? they can judge, critique, or What is your opinion of __________? interpret processes, materials, How could you verify ___________? methods, etc. using standards and What information would you use to

69

criteria.

-

-

prioritize ______________? Rate the ____________. Rank the importance of _________. Determine the value of __________.

Synthesis (C6) Provide opportunities for students What alternative would you suggest to assemble parts of knowledge for ______? into a whole using creative What changes would you make to thinking and problem solving. revise __________? Require students to demonstrate How would you generate a plan to__? that they can combine concepts to What could you invent _________? build new ideas for new situation What facts can you gather _______? Predict the outcome if ________. Devise a way to _____________. How would you elaborate on the reason ________________? How would you improve _____?

/

70

Appendix 2. The observation Protocol of cognitive level on teachers’ questions Adapted from Dornyei (2007) Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher B : Saturday, 11th February 2017 : 07.15 – 08.35 P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 1 Table 3. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 1st

Activities •

Discussing, • explaining, and drilling about the expression of asking information based • on the dialogue on the handbook.

Task Characteristics Students read the dialog about asking information on the handbook Teacher asked students about the dialog on the handbook and little bit inserted explaining the expression of asking information

No 1

2

3

4

Level of Questions Teachers’ Questions LOCQ HOCQ Kn Com Ap An Syn Ev ✓ Ketika kita ke dokter, and you want to meet the doctor, you have a problem about? ✓ Dokternya mengatakan “Please sit down, tell what’s your problem, apa masalahmu”. Itu berarti bahwa kita memiliki masalah pada? ✓ “Tell me what’s your problem”, itu adalah ekspresi untuk menanyakan? ✓ Untuk menanyakan informasi, apa lagi?

71

5

•

Students answered the teacher’s questions.

•

Teacher drilled students to use the expression of asking information

•

Teacher asked students to identify the expression of asking information to someone

6

7

•

Students made conclusion and summary about the dialog.

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

Untuk melanjutkan atau mengorek informasi informasi selanjutnya, apa lagi yang biasa kita katakan? Jika kita sudah diberikan informasi dan kita ingin mengorek informasi selanjutnya, what’s you say? Kan Tadi tell me what’s your problem, setelah si pasien melanjutkan kira-kira apa yang dikatakan selain yang ada disini? Untuk mengorek keterangan selanjutnya apa? Oke, what do you……? “What do you feel right now”, apa lagi? Tell me…….? “I have a cough and headache for all day”, itu adalah respon dari pertanyaan? So, the doctor, what’s he say? So, what is your conclusion of the conversation? Apa yang bisa kalian simpulkan terhadap conversation diatas? What’s your conclusion or your summary?

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

72

17

18 19 20 Total Grand Total

✓

There are two summaries, ada dua hal yang bisa kita simpulkan disitu, The first…? If you have a problem about condition, you must go to…? Jika kita menderita batuk, maka kita menghindari mengkonsumsi? Well, number two, the second?

✓ ✓

0

15

0

0

0

✓ 5

20

Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher A : Saturday, 11th February 2017 : 11..05 – 12.25 P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 7 Table 4. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 2nd Activities

Task Characteristics

Discuss about the • Teacher asked students use of simple about simple perfect perfect tense tense • Students gave responses

No 21

22

Level of Questions Teachers’ Questions LOCQ HOCQ Kn Com Ap An Syn Ev “Have you finished”, ini adalah ✓ contoh penggunaan dari tenses jenis apa? ✓ Kata perfect mana kata kerja yang dipakai : go, went atau gone?

73

to the questions

teacher’s

23 24 25 26 27

Total Grand Total

Jika ada orang ketiga tunggal maka harus pakai? Andi has gone to school, have or has? Dalam kalimat perfect, I, we, you, they menggunakan..? My father, maka pakai? Jika dia laki-laki maka pakai?

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5

2

0

0

0

0

7

Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher A : Tuesday, 14th February 2017 : 07.15 – 08.35 P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 6 Table 5. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 3rd

•

Level of Questions Activities Task Characteristics No Teachers’ Questions LOCQ HOCQ Kn Com Ap An Syn Ev ✓ Discussing the • Teacher asked 28 Find the difficult words in the text! monologue and students to read the 29 Masih ingat kalau kata kerja yang ada ✓ ing-nya biasanya? find the difficult monologue and find words out the difficult 30 Seperti writing, reading, tetapi ✓ words maksudnya apa ini biasanya? 74

•

Discuss about self introduction •

•

Discuss tenses

about • •

•

•

31 Students wrote the 32 difficult words on 33 the whiteboard one 34 by one 35 Teacher discussed the difficult words 36 Students practiced introducing their 37 selves in front of the class 38 Teacher asked 39 students about verbs that used in different 40 tenses 41 42 Students made 43 sentences about 44 simple past, simple present, simple 45 perfect, and simple future 45 47

“Larger”, kalau ini dari kata? Began dari kata apa? “Shout”, bentuk keduanya apa? Tata bahasa yang digunakan dalam narrative text yaitu? Masih ingat rumus dari simple past tense? Who can make the sentence about this difficult word number six? (word : begin) Bagaimana kalau masukkan dalam simple past tense? My brother is three. Is it right? What is it should be? Penutup percakapan atau pidato bagaimana? Apa bahasa Inggris Ibu rumah tangga? Are you ready to study? Kapan kita harus menggunakan write? Kapan kita harus menggunakan wrote? Kapan kita harus menggunakan written? “I write a letter”, kalau ini masuknya di simple..? “I wrote a letter yesterday”, kalau yang ini? “I have written a letter”, kalau yang ini?

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

75

48

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Total Grand Total

✓

Jika kita berbicara tentang yang lampau maka gunakan bentuk yang ke..? Jika tidak ada kata kerja maka menggunakan ? Apa tujuan mempelajari tenses untuk kamu? Kapan menggunakan kata bantu be, been, dan being? Bagaimana kalau “saya sedang menulis”? “Saya akan menulis”, dalam bahasa inggris bagaimana? Apa hubungannnya dengan passive voice? How is rainbow formed? Apa bentuk kedua dari repair?

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

6

✓ ✓ 16

4

2

0

1

29

Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher B : Friday, 17th February 2017 : 07.15 – 08.35 P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 4

76

Table 6. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 4th Activities -

Task Characteristics

No

Discuss about • the Conversation on the telephoning and giving attention to someone •

Teacher asked 57 students to observe the picture on the 58 handbook 59 60 Teacher asked 61 students about their 62 experience when do telephoning. 63

•

Discuss the dialog 64 about telephoning on 65 the handbook 66 Discuss about the 67 expressions that used when do telephoning 68 Teacher asked students to identify the expression of 69

•

•

Level of Questions LOCQ HOCQ Kn Comp App Ana Syn Eva ✓ What do you think about the boy in the picture is? ✓ What happen with the boy? ✓ What does he do? ✓ What’s up? ✓ What treatment does he have? ✓ Yang pertama adalah untuk memulai percakapan, kita harus? ✓ Jika percakapan ditelepon, apakah kita harus greeting? ✓ Greetingnya harus sesuai dengan? ✓ Kalau kalian yang sering kalian alamin, gimana? ✓ Langsung dijawab atau bertanya? ✓ Ketika kita menelpon tetapi kita tidak bisa menanyakan “dengan siapa ini?” , seharusnya gimana? ✓ Bagaimana cara menanyakan dengan siapa kita bicara ditelepon dengan sopan, polite? ✓ Kalimat mana untuk memulai Teacher’s Question

77

giving attention someone

to 70 71 72 73 74 75

percakapan? Kemudian jika ingin menjawab? Mau memperpanjang percakapan? Merespon? If you say “ I sad to hear that” ini ekspresi tentang apa? “I hope you brother will get well soon”, ini ekspresi tentang? Kalimat yang bisa digunakan untuk menutup percakapan seperti?

Total

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

0

Grand Total

11

1

7

0

0

19

Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher A : Tuesday, 21st February 2017 : 09.30 – 11.05 P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 5 Table 7. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 5th Activities

Task Characteristics

No

Teachers’ Questions

Level of Questions LOCQ HOCQ

78

•

Sing a song in • English • •

Teacher asked students 76 to sing an English song 77 in front of the class 78 Teacher sing an English 79 song in the classroom 80 Teacher gave questions 81 related to the English 82 song 83

84 85 86 Total Grand Total

Are you ready to use English along the class? Do you understand? Where is your voice? Ada yang pintar menyanyi lagu Bahasa Inggris disini? “The poor man”, siapa yang tau? Apa artinya? Siapa yang bisa ceritakan itu? Jadi si miskin has a dog. And Bingo is the name. Dan namanya adalah? Apa itu “chance”? What do you think about Anissa?/ Siapa yang mau tampil menyanyi lagu Bahasa Inggris?

Kn Com Ap ✓

An Syn Ev

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5

6

0

0

0

0

11

Teacher Day/Date Time Duration

: Teacher B : Wednesday, 22nd February 2017 : 07.15 – 08.35P.M. : 2 x 40 minutes

Class

: VIII 1

79

Table 8. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher in Observation 6th Activities

Level of Questions LOCQ HOCQ Kn Com Ap An Syn Ev ✓ 87 How old is Andre? Students read the text ✓ of monologue on the 88 What is Andre’s little brother’s name? handbook about ✓ recount text : telling 89 When did Andi get fever? personal experience ✓ 90 What did Andi’s mother do ? ✓ 91 What is the doctor say about Andi? Teacher asked students 92 Ada yang lain, the others? ✓ what the dialogue tells 93 What did the doctor do to cure ✓ about Andi? ✓ 94 When did the story take place? Teacher asked students 95 Was the writer is a diligent student? ✓ about questions on the 96 What lessons did the writer hate? ✓ handbook verbally ✓ 97 What was the title of the book that the writer read? Teacher gave students 98 What happened to the writer after ✓ questions about true or he read the book? false ✓ 99 Who made Rujak? ✓ 100 Why the writer go to Rahman’s Students gave house?

Task Characteristics

•

Discuss about • tasks on the handbook

•

Questionanswer about questions in • exercises on the handbook orally •

•

•

No

Teachers’ Questions

80

✓

responses to the 101 Why did the writer go to there? teacher’s questions 102 When did the writer go to Rahman’s house? 103 Why did the writer not go to school the next morning? 104 “The writer was a lazy student when he was in Junior High school”, is it true or false? 105 “He looked for the book in the bookstore”, Benar atau salah? 106 What do you think we should do to prevent dengue fever? Total Grand Total

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 0

13

0

4

0

3

20

Abbreviation 1. Matrix for Recording Types of Question Used by the Teacher Kno

: Knowledge (C1)

Ana

: Analysis (C4)

Comp : Comprehension (C2)

Syn

: Synthesis (C5)

App

Eva

: Evaluation (C6)

: Application (C3)

LOCQ : Lower Order Cognitive Question HOCQ : Higher Order Cognitive Question

81

Appendix 3. Guiding of Teachers Interview Questions The interview consists of six questions that the first three items were mainly related to teachers’ questioning behavior in general (Question 1-3) and, the last two focused on the use of cognitive level on teacher questions (Question 4-5). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

How much class time do you think you spend on question-and-answer exchanges in the classroom? What are language teachers’ purposes when asking students questions? How do you think questioning affects students’ language development? How do you think about the use of cognitive level on your questioning in the classroom? Is there any difficulty or problems when you want do questioning in your teaching process?

82

Appendix 4. Transcript of Teachers’ interviews Table 9. Interview with Teacher A Informant’s Name Date Time Place

: Teacher A : 18th of February, 2017 : 11.30 : SMPN 10 Kendari

Researcher : Seberapa banyak waktu yang dihabiskan untuk sesi taya-jawab didalam kelas? (How much class time do you spend on question-and-answer in the classroom?) Informant : Rutinnya, sebenarnya dalam proses itu selalu kita awali dengan kuis atau pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan tema atau materi-materi yang kita bawakan. Pertanyaan yang biasa diutarakan adalah intruksi. Intruksi itu peertanyaanpertanyaan yang mengarahkan mereka untuk dilakukan apakah yang akan mereka kerjakan itu mereka mengerti atau tidak. Pertanyaan-pertanyaan seperti itu. Jadi kita berikan dulu semacam intruksi. Kemudian setelah itu mungkin kita berikan juga pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ada hubungannya dengan tema, atau katakanlah pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ada hubungannya dengan proses belajar mereka, begitu yang sering kita lakukan. (Routinely, actually in the process we always begin with quizzes or questions that relates to the topic or learning material. The frequently questions is instruction form. Instruction is questions that lead them to do whether they understand what they do or not. Questions like that. So, we give them such instruction previously. Then, maybe we give them questions related to the topic, or questions related to their learning process, so this is we do frequently) Researcher : Apa tujuan guru ketika mengajukan pertanyaan kepada siswa? (What are English teachers’ purposes when asking questions to students?) Informant : Pertama untuk mempertajam materi atau isi materi yang telah diberikan, diprintkan agar dipelajari oleh siswa apakah masih ada keraguan, masih ada kekurangan atau masih ada problem yang mungkin jadi masalah atau tidak. Tujuannya seperti itu. Ketika ada masalah pada mereka, kita harus berikan solusi bersama. Guru memberikan solusi dan kemudian mungkin dari siswa juga mampu memberikan itu, kta terima masukkannya. Jadi, bukan hanya dari guru saja sebagai otonomi, tetapi kita 83

hargai siswa-siswa lain untuk mengeluarkan idenya sehingga mereka dan juga yang lain melihat ternyata yang seperti itu juga harus kita ikuti. (Firstly, to shape the material and the content that has been given, printed it to be studied by the students, whether extant hesitance, lacking and problems or not. Its aim is such that. When there is a problem, we should give them solution. Teachers give them solution and maybe students also can give solution, we accept it. Therefore, it is not only from teachers as autonomous, but we appreciate others students who lean out their ideas, so that the others can see, we should follow it). Researcher : Bagaimana pertanyaan dapat mempengaruhi perkembangan Bahasa Inggris siswa? (How do questioning affects students’ language development?) Informant : Jelas berpengaruh untuk kemajuannya. Karena pertama melatih anak untuk dia bisa memahami tujuan pertanyaan. Jadi ketika mungkin ada pertanyaan pasti dia “jadi kalau pak guru tanya dalam Bahasa Inggris seperti ini, berarti maksudnya seperti ini juga.” Jadi, pasti akan mempengaruhi perkembangan Bahasa Inggris siswa. (Absolutely, it affects to their progress. Firstly, it can coach students to understand the aim of a question. Therefore, when there is a question, students can guess "So, when teacher asks in English like this, it’s meaning like this". So that, it will affect students English development) Researcher :Jika kita ingin menerapkan cognitive level berdasarkan Taxonomy Bloom pada pertanyaan, apakah ada perbedaan pada level kognitif dalam masing-masing jejang? (If we apply cognitive level Based on Blooms’ taxonomy on questioning, is there any difference of cognitive levels in each grade?) Informant : Perlu karena setiap jenjang itu berbeda tingkat penggunaan kosakata. Penggunaan kosakata dikelas tujuh masih low, kalau di kleas 8 sudah middle. Dan kalau di kelas 9 sudah high. Sehinggga totalitas sebetulnya penguasaan kosakata dalam anjuran kurikulum, kelas 9 sudah mampu menguasai 1500 kosakata. Tetap kalau di kelas 7 low, bawah. Jadi disini kita harus middle di kelas 2. Jadi harus dibedakan tingkat kognitif mereka. Sehingga didalam pembelajaran sebetulnya juga dianjurkan dari yang mudah, sedang dan tinggi. Sama juga dengan orang kursus ada level elementary, intermediate, and advanced. Itu tahapannya, jadi kita dari sekolah harus klasifikasi. Jangan dulu kasih bahasa-bahasa ilmiah, kata-kata yang susah yang tidak dimengerti mereka sehingga arah mereka lebih bagus dan tertuntun. Dalam arti jangan kita kasih tahu kata, tetapi tunjuk, minta mereka mencari di kamus. Mengapa kita harus tuntun mereka buka kamus agar lesson itu dapat lebih lama tersimpan. (It’s necessary because every grade is

84

different in the use of vocabulary. The use of vocabulary in seventh grade is low, in eighth grade is middle. And in ninth grade is high. So that, actually it’s totality for vocabulary mastery in ninth grade based on curriculum must mastery 1500 vocabularies. But in seventh grade is low. So, here we use middle level for second grade. Therefore, we should classify their cognitive levels. Then, in learning process actually is advised to start from the easy one, intermediate and high. Similar to the course which there is elementary level, intermediate, and advanced. That is the steps. So, we are the school should classify it. Do not give scientific languages, difficult words and could not be understood by them so that their aim will be better and be guided. It means that we do not inform them the words, but point out it, ask them to search it in dictionary. Why we have to lead the to open the dictionary because it can be saved long time). Researcher : Tingkat cognitive level apa saja yang digunakan pada level Sekolah Menengah Pertama? (What kinds of cognitive levels that is used in Junior High School level?) Informant : Tingkat kognitif yang misalnya mention (sebutkan) jadi itu yang banyak pada level C1. Jadi, C1, C2, yang selalu muncul. Kalau C3 masih terlalu jarang. Apalagi C4, C5, dan C6 itu semua sudah level tinggi. (The cognitive level used such as mention. The frequent question used is level of C1. So that, C1, C2 level always appeared. C3 level is rarely. Evenless C4, C5, and C6 its all are high level) Table 10. Interview with Teacher B Informant’s Name Date Time Place

: Teacher B : 22th of February, 2017 : 08.30 am : SMPN 10 Kendari

Researcher : Seberapa banyak waktu yang dihabiskan untuk sesi taya-jawab didalam kelas? (How much class time do you spend on question-and-answer in the classroom?) Informant : Pertanyaan cukup sering dilakukan dalam mengajar khususnya itu pada reading lebih banyak. Kayak yang sementara ini kan lebih banyak. (Questioning is done frequently in teaching especially in reading section is more a lot. Like what happened right now is more a lot) Researcher : Apa tujuan guru ketika mengajukan pertanyaan kepada siswa? (What are English teachers’ purposes when asking questions to 85

students?) Informant : Untuk melihat sejauh mana siswa mengerti tentang proses pelajaran yang sedang berlangsung apakah prosesnya sudah lewat, materinya sudah lewat atau yang sementara berlangsung sanggat perlu. (To see how far students' understanding to the learning process which still happens whether the process has passed, its material has passed, or still happen is very necessary) Researcher : Bagaimana pertanyaan dapat mempengaruhi perkembangan Bahasa siswa? (How do questioning affects students’ language development?) Informant : Ya, akan mempengaruhi karena disitu saya tuntut harus memakai Bahasa Inggris secara full. Tetapi kalau memang dia tau Bahasa Inggrisnya maka dia akan ucapkan Bahasa Inggrisnya kemudian dia sambung lagi ke Bahasa Indonesia. (Yes, it will affect because here I demand them to use English fully. But, if he can utter into English, so he will do then he interlock in Indonesian again) Researcher :Jika kita ingin menerapkan cognitive level berdasarkan Taxonomy Bloom pada pertanyaan, apakah ada perbedaan pada level kognitif dalam masing-masing jejang? (If we apply cognitive level Based on Blooms’ taxonomy on questioning, is there any difference of cognitive levels in each grade?) Informant : Ada, mungkin kalau yang kelas 7 hanya quote saja, mungkin kalau kelas 8 sudah bisa identifikasi, mungkin kalau kelas 9 sudah bisa membuat summary. Tentunya lebih sulit lagi. (Available, maybe in seventh grade just quote, in eighth grade they can able to identify, and in ninth grade is summary. Obviously, it will more difficult) Researcher : Tingkat cognitive level apa saja yang digunakan pada level Sekolah Menengah Pertama. (What kinds of cognitive levels that is used in Junior High School level?) Informant : C1- C5. C5 pun jarang, yang mungkin dikhususkan untuk essai pada kelas 3 itu pun nanti semester terakhir yaitu menganalisa. Hanya saja kelas 8 saya ajarkan menganalisis setiap teks mana yang umpama descriptif atau yang naratif itu mana. Apa karakteristiknya, saya memang sudah ancang-ancang mereka sudah tau. (C1- C5. But C5 used rarely, that maybe specialized to essay in ninth grade especially in last semester which is analyze. But just for eighth grade, I teach them to analyze each text, which one is descriptive and narrative text. What its characteristics, I have guess that they have known)

86

DOCUMENTATIONS 1. Profile of SMPN 10 Kendari

2. Observation at Teacher A Classes

87

3. Observation at Teacher B Classes

88

89

90