TEACHER’S QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASSROOM.

TEACHER

’

S QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN

LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASSROOM

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

SUHARTINI

Registration Number: 8136111058

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

i ABSTRACT

SUHARTINI. Teacher’s Questions in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Classroom. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate Scho ol State University of Medan. 2017.

The aim of this study were to describe the teacher’s questions in English as Foreign Language (EFL) occur in English classroom, and to find out the types of teacher’s questions and how far the effectiveness of the teacher’s questions are used in English classroom. The research was conducted by using qualitative descriptive design. The data of this study were teacher’s questions of an English teacher in SMP Negeri 15 Medan. The data were analyzed by using Tsui’s Theory (1995) to find the types of teacher’s questions and the effectiveness of the teacher’s questions based on Ur (1996). The results of this study were (1) There were three types of teacher’s questions used in English classroom of SMP Negeri 15 Medan, namely Open/Closed questions (12.8%), Display/Referential questions (72.6%), and Yes/No questions (14.0%), (2) There were five criteria of the effectiveness of teacher’s questions used in English classroom namely Very Effective (11.9%), Effective (36.7%), Quite Effective (26.5%), Less Effective (17.2%) and Ineffective (7.7%), (3) The reasons of teacher’s questions used in EFL classroom namely (a) Procedural (11.1%), (b) Convergent (70.1% ) and (c) Divergent (18.8% ).

ii ABSTRAK

SUHARTINI. Pertanyaan Guru dalam bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing di kelas bahasa Inggris. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2017.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mendeskripsikan pertanyaan guru dalam bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing yang digunakan di kelas bahasa Inggris, dan untuk menemukan tipe-tipe pertanyaan guru dalam pengajaran kelas bahasa Inggris dan sejauh mana tingkat keefektifan pertanyaan guru yang di gunakan dalam kelas bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini di lakukan dengan menggunakan design penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Data penelitian ini adalah ujaran-ujaran dari pertanyaan guru di dalam kelas bahasa Inggris di SMP Negeri 15 Medan sebagai sumber data. Data di analisis dengan menggunakan teori Tsui (1995) untuk menemukan tipe-tipe pertanyaan guru dalam pengajaran kelas bahasa Inggris dan kriteria keefektifan dari pertanyaan guru di kelas bahasa Inggris berdasarkan teori dari Ur (1996). Hasil dari penelitian ini (1) Ada tiga jenis tipe pertanyaan guru yang digunakan di kelas bahasa Inggris SMP Negeri 15 Medan yaitu Open/Closed questions (12.8%), Display/Referential questions (72.6%), and Yes/No questions (14.0%), (2) Ada 5 kategori tingkat keefektifan pertanyaan yang digunakan guru di kelas bahasa Inggris yaitu Sangat Efektif (11.9%), Efektif (36.7%), Cukup Efektif (26.5%), Kurang Efektif (17.2%), dan Tidak Efektif (7.7%), (3) Alasan guru menanyakan pertanyaan dalam kelas bahasa Inggris adalah sebagai (a) Prosedural (11.1%) (b) Convergent ( 70.1%) dan (c) Divergent (18.8%).

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, in the name of Almighty ALLAH, the most Gracious and the most Merciful, first of all, the writer would like to thank God for His Blessing in the completion of this thesis. Praises are also addressed to our prophet Muhammad SAW who has guided us to the better life of today.

In the completion of this thesis, the writer wishes to acknowledge her deepest gratitude for all generous guidance and assistance which has been given to her by a lot of people.

The highest appreciation goes to her parents and two advisors, Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd and Dr. I Wayan Dirgayasa T, M.Hum as her first advisor and as her second advisor for their all guidance through the completion of this thesis.

Then, her appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed as the Chief of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Hollila Pulungan M. Hum. as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program who have assisted his in processing the administration requirements during the process of her studies in the Postgraduate School of the State University of Medan.

The writer’s great thanks also goes to her reviewers and examiners, Prof. Dr.Sri Minda Murni, then Dr. Zainuddin, M.Hum and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. They had given valuable inputs, suggestions, criticisms and improvements for this thesis. She also would like to express his thankfulness for all lecturers teaching his during the academic years of LTBI. And include to Drs. Sangka

iv

Harahap, MM. as the headmaster of SMP Negeri 15 Medan, and the English teacher Mrs. Anita, S.Pd have helped the writer to support the data.

Finally, her special gratitude is dedicated to her beloved parents, Alm. Sukardi and my mother Almh. Ratnawati. And also special thank for my lovely, soulmate and the sweetest of my heart H. Yanuarlin Lubis, SE. M.Siand also my beloved son Gugun and daughters Hana and Sarah and the whole families who always support her and no suitable word that can fully describe their everlasting love and express how much she loves them.

Then, last but not least, her gratitude goes to the kind, generous and smart friend who helped, spared, guided, corrected and gave much contribution in finishing the thesis Misla Geubrina M.Hum and Masferu Zulfikar M.Hum

And also for my friends of LTBI B1 XXII who have supported her to conduct this thesis, especially for Ratna Soraya, Habib, Sudariyani, Ilham Dodi Trisna, Friscilla, Dewi Suhartini, Eka Rezeki Maha, Yosi, Wirda and others, for their friendship and cooperation.

Medan, 19 December 2016

The writer,

Suhartini

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ... i

ABSTRAK ... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 8

1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 9

1.4 The Scope of the Study ... 9

1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 9

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 11

A. Theoretical Framework ... 11

2.1. Question ... 11

2.1.1 Teachers Questions ... 12

2.1.2 The Reasons for Asking Questions ... 14

2.1.3 The Types of Teacher’s Questions ... 17

2.1.4 The Function of Teacher’s Questions ... 20

2.2. Teacher’s Skill of Questioning ... 21

2.2.1 Skills of Preparing Questions ... 22

2.2.2 Skills of Designing Questions ... 25

2.2.3 Skills of Controlling for Questions ... 26

2.2.4 Skills of Evaluating for Questions ... 31

2.3. The Effectiveness of Questions... 33

vi

C. Conceptual Framework ... 39

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ... 40

3.1 Research Design ... 40

3.2 Data and Source of Data ... 41

3.3 Instrument of Data Collection ... 41

3.4 Techniques of Data Collection ... 41

3.5 Trustworthiness ... 42

3.6 Techniques of Data Analysis ... 44

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS ... 47

4.1 Data Analysis ... 47

4.1.1 The Types of Teacher’s Question ... 48

4.1.1.1 Open and Closed Questions ... 48

4.1.1.2 Display and Referential Questions ... 50

4.1.1.3 Yes/No Questions ... 52

4.1.2 The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Questions ... 55

4.1.2.1 Very Effective ... 55

4.1.2.2 Effective ... 57

4.1.2.3 Quite Effective ... 58

4.1.2.4 Less Effective ... 59

4.1.2.5 Ineffective ... 60

4.1.3 The Reasons of Teacher’s Question ... 61

4.1.3.1 Procedural ... 62

4.1.3.2 Convergent ... 63

4.1.3.3 Divergent ... 65

4.2 Research Findings ... 67

4.3 Discussions ... 68

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 71

5.1 Conclusions ... 71

vii

REFERENCES ... 75 APPENDICES ... 79

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 The Criteria for Effective Questions (Ur, 1996) ... 34

Table 2.2 The Form of Effective Questions Assessment ... 35

Table 4.1 The Distribution of Types of Teacher’s Questions ... 54

Table 4.2 The Distribution of The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Questions ... 61

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 3.1: Components of Data Analysis Interactive Model by Miles Huberman

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Teaching learning process is a complex and multi-faced issue. Teachers‟ teaching and learners‟ learning are two important components to build up a meaningful and effective educational context. In this context, teachers and students learn from one another as they build up an environment of learning in a class (Wood & Anderson, 2001).

At this point, learning process gains a role as a mean for negotiation and the success of this negotiation mainly depends on the quality and quantity of learners‟ participation to information sharing in the class as getting students to speak to use the language they are learning is a vital part of a teachers job and responsibility to adopt the target language to promote their communication with learners within which teachers‟ questions maintain the talk via extending and leading students into continuance. (Yan, 2006).

It means that the significance that departed from the duties and responsibilities of teachers are severe enough to educate their students in class. As the English teacher in classes, requires plenty of practice, needs cooperation between the teacher and students in class to join fulfill the verbal communication and the teaching-learning procedure. Teachers‟ questioning has traditionally been viewed as an important component of teacher talk and the core of effective teaching in classroom context.

2

Questioning is one of the most regularly employed teaching strategies.It is used by many teachers during their teaching process. They consider that it is an effective tool to build students‟ understanding and to stimulate them to participate in learning. Thus, almost all teachers ask questions in the class every day to individual students, to small groups, and to the whole class.

Studies relating to EFL (English as Foreign Language) teaching have pointed out the need for teachers‟ questioning. It can be inferred that in EFL classes, especially in Indonesia, where the target language is seldom used outside the classroom, questioning can be considered as the most powerful device to stimulate students to communicate. A common problem that EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers are facing is to deal with a passive class, where students are unresponsive and avoid interaction with the teacher. This is especially true when a teacher seeks interaction in a teacher-class dialog, such as asking questions to the class as a whole, expecting at least one student to respond.

It means that the teachers are facing a challenge of how to create a conducive learning environment which is effective for the learners to attain good achievements in the subject. Without considering a proper plan to use questions as a learning tool, teachers are likely to miss a powerful opportunity to create the type of dynamic and interactive dialogue that promotes an environment in which students actively analyze and process information to answer good questions.

As Tsui (1995) states that in EFL classroom, teachers spend two thirds of the classroom time for lecturing. They do most of the talking whilst students remain silent. However, the most important factor within any effective language teaching-learning is that students are enabled to do most of the talking.It means that students‟

3

talking time (STT) should be more dominant than teachers‟ talking time (TTT). It can be reached when the students participate actively during the lesson.

Therefore, when the students never speak English, teachers‟ question can be used to lead, to extend, and to control communication in order to enhance students‟ exposure to the target language. Furthermore, employing questions in language classrooms also help teachers, to check what students‟ know and can do, to gain students‟ attention to the task, to review and revise on what have been learned, and to help in managing classroom. For instance:

Teacher : Morning everybody. Have you finished your homework? Students : Morning, Mom. Yes, I have finished, Mom.

Not yet Mom.

Teacher : Why haven’t you finished yet, dear? Come on collect your exercise books now.

From the conversation above it could bee seen that there were two types of teacher‟s question used to the students in the classroom namely yes/No question dan referential question. Yes/No question based on the conversation above was marked by teacher‟s question “ Have you finished your homework? . and then the students respon by answering “ Yes, I have finished and Not yet”. While the second types of teacher‟s question used in classroom was referential question which the teacher‟s questions contain an elaboration as such reason. It was marked by teacher‟s questions “ Why haven’t you finish yet, dear?. Both of those teacher‟s questions asked to the students were commonly used in the classroom. And the questions are efective which aim to make the class is to be condisive in order to the learning process run effectively. And it is one of the procedural to manage the class and it is useful to ensure the smooth flow of the teaching process in classroom.

4

Therefore, teachers use questions to engage the students and sustain an active style to the learning. The teacher also uses questions as part of the assessment of learning in order to determine how they best structure, organize and present new learning. However, developing questioning approaches requires much greater emphasis on the time provided for students to think individually, collaboratively and deeply to enable them to develop answers and to share better answers. This will improve their thinking and engagement.

Historically, teachers have asked questions to check what has been learnt and understood, to help them gauge whether to further review previous learning, increase or decrease the challenge, and assess whether students are ready to move forward and learn new information (factual checks – ie „Closed‟ questions). This can be structured as a simple „teacher versus the class‟ approach, where the teacher asks a question and accepts an answer from a volunteer, or selects/conscripts a specific student to answer. These approaches are implicit in any pedagogy, but teachers need a range of „Open‟ questioning strategies to address different learning needs and situations. Teachers must also pitch questions effectively to raise the thinking challenge, target specific students or groups within the class.

Moreover, students fear to produce words in an activity that demands them to speak up. However, students should be encouraged to use the target language because students‟ communicative competence is improved through practicing the language for communication. Actually, the students possibly practice to use the target language, but they are afraid to speak up, so they tend to be quiet. The reason why they do not response their teachers‟ question is not only because they

5

do not understand the lesson nor know the answer, but also it might be caused by the teachers who still do not master or even not know the skill in questioning.

This guidance informs teachers how to pre-plan their questions and select approaches for promoting classroom talk; prepare their „open‟ and „high-challenge‟ questions; pre-determine the level and type of challenge they wish to set, who they will target and how they will target specific groups in the classroom.

Teacher : What are the characters of the story in this text?

Annisa : Cinderella, and fairy.

Farhan : Prince.

Amelia : Step mother

From the conversation above there is a question which the teacher questions by using the characters of the story in this text. Namely “What are the characters of the story in this text?. This question refers to display question which the students can answer what teacher asked. It is proved by students‟ answer who can describe by word by word namely “Cinderella and Fairy, Prince and Step mother”. This question is very effective because the teacher‟s question includes clarity, learning value, interest, availability and extension. It is caused teacher‟s question Convergent. It is an useful question to encourage the students response.

According toTanaka (2011), questions may process a variety of purposes. Therefore, questioning is not only about gathering information from respondents, but includes some other functions. The functions of teachers questions are not only interrogative, but can also be instructional cues or stimuli that convey content elements and directions (what to do and how) to students in the classroom. It means that questions are provided to learners in order to fill the gaps in

6

information between teachers and students during the process of teaching and learning.

In other words, if all teachers have a full understanding of the function and the reason of their questions and it can be the positive effects that they can help the students learn the subject matter in depth, so that they can self-evaluate the questioning techniques applied in their lessons particularly in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context in which Junior High School teachers teach English to their students.

As what Brown (2001:169) states that one of the best ways to develop teachers‟ role as an initiator and sustainer of interaction is to develop a repertoire of questioning strategies. Therefore, what kind of and how questions are used in the class is important to provide an effective interaction. It will happen if the teachers can make the effective questioning to ask the students in teaching-learning process.

Effective questioning by the teacher directs students into understanding lesson content, arouse their curiosity, stimulate their imagination, and motivate them to seek out new knowledge. If executed skillfully, questioning would elevate pupils' level of thinking (Muth & Alverman, 1992; Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Kauchak, & Gibson, 1994; Ornstein, 1995; Hussin, H., 2006). Correspondingly, this elevates students‟ inquiry in the form of challenging assumptions and exposing contradictions that lead to acquisition of new knowledge. As it can be seen at the conversation below:

7

Teacher : How does Cinderella feel about her step mother?

Rafli : Sad

Putra : Kejam.

Agnes : Cruel.

Teacher : Yes, Putra that’s right. Good Agnes. Rafli, Do you understand with this question? Maksudnya How does her step mother treat her? Do you know the meaning of treat?

Rafli : Silent

Based on the conversation above there are two types of questions which the teacher asked to students in the classroom namely Display and Yes/No Question. Display question who teacher used to ask in the class such as “How does Cinderella feel about her step mother?”. This question refers to display question which the students can answer what teacher asked. It is proved by students‟ answer who can describe word by word namely “sad, kejam and cruel”. But from the students‟ answers are considered correctless (sad) based on the text about. Here the students have any wrong interpretation about what teacher questioned. Then the teacher changes the question to be ““How does her step mother treat her?”. From this question, the teacher expects that the student can answer correctly. But the result is nothing. Finally the teacher reformulates the question specifically by “Do you know the meaning of treat?”. It is kinds of yes/no question which the first question is display to be yes/no. In fact that the student (Rafli) has any limitation in mastering vocabulary. It is marked by word treat. From the questions above it can be said that display question that teacher used is effective. It is proved which the question contain clarity, learning value, interest and availability. While yes/no question used by the teacher is less

8

effective. It is characterized with clarity, interest and learning value. The reason of the teacher used these questions to encourage students to answer what the teacher questioned. It is called as divergent dan convergent.

Those phenomena above have shown that teachers have known the purpose and the way to ask the questioning in teaching learning process, but they do not know the types of teachers questioning and the skills of questioning. It is in line with Brualdi (1998) states that the teachers should create the various questions based on the purposes of the questions and teachers must be able to ask question efectively in order to teach well. Effective questions depend on the using of teachers‟ skills. It means that when the teachers ask questions there must be having knowledge and skills in questioning for teachers in teaching learning process.

In line with all explanations above, this study would like to describe the teachers questioning in (EFL) classroom in SMP Negeri 15 Medan.

1.2 The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study above, the problems are formulated as the following:

1. What types of teacher‟s questions are used by the teacher in EFL classroom?

2. How far the effectiveness of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom? 3. Why does the teacher ask those questions in EFL classroom?

9

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problem of the study, it attempts to reach the following objectives:

1. To find out the types of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom. 2. To describe of the effectiveness of those questions in EFL classroom.

3. To find out the reasons of those questions asked by the teacher in EFL classroom.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

With reference to previous explanation, questions not only take place in daily conversation but also in the teaching learning process. This study attempts to investigate the teacher‟s questions which shown the conversation between teacher and students in EFL Junior High classes. The aspects will be observed in this study are the types of teacher‟s questions in EFL classroom proposes by Tsui (1995), the effective of those questions according to Ur (1996) and the reasons of those questions asked by the teacher according to Richards & Lockhart (2000).

1.5 The Significance of the Study

The findings of the study are expected to be relevant and significant theoretically and practically. The findings could give contribution to all readers for those who are concerned with this field. In the following significances of the study are stated theoretically and practically.

a. Theoretically

10

i. The enrichment of questions knowledge in the field of teaching especially in the teacher‟s questions.

ii. To widen horizon in the theory of teaching especially in the teacher‟s questions.

b. Practically

Practically, the usefulness of the findings is described as the following:

i. This research can be a source for especially other researchers who want to conduct a research on questioning, and generally for every teacher in conducting teaching process.

ii. By knowing the types of teacher‟s questions in English classroom, it is expected for the teacher will improve the teachers‟ skills of questioning in teaching-learning process.

iii. The teachers should be selective and having preparation in giving questions to the students in English classroom which are useful as the teachers skills in developing teaching-learning process

71

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the data analysis on the previous chapter, the study made it possible to arrive at the following conclusions:

1. Focusing on how the teacher’s question produced in EFL classroom, the

research relates the findings of the types of the teacher’s question with the learning opportunities created by analyzing them through classroom management and teacher-student relationship analysis. During the five-week classroom observation, the conducted research has shown the expected types of teacher’s question which are possible to occur in the classroom interaction. The types of the teacher’s question was based on the Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology in which the features or types of teacher’s questions were adopted from Tsui’s Theory (1995). There were three types of teacher’s questions used by the English teacher in classroom namely open and close question, display and referential questions and yes/no questions. There was one new types of teacher’s question found in the construction and obstruction types of teacher’s question. Namely unfinished sentence questions. Each types came with different of questioning by the teacher in the classroom. Even the number of occurrence was not significant; the teacher still produced the types of teacher talk which belonged to obstruction types. Teacher echo and teacher interruptions mostly found from the analysis. Teacher unnecessarily

72

echoed the students’ answer which had no specific benefit for the students. Moreover, teacher interruptions also led students to have fewer opportunities as it resulted in the teacher took over the discussion which made students had no space to contribute.

2. In spite of that, the overall teacher’s question showed that the efectiveness of questioning when the teacher’s question at the EFL was frequently very effective, effective, quiete effective, less effective and ineffective produced. All those effectivenesses based on the the criteria Ur (1996) which covered clarity, learning value, interest, availability and extention were as the result. This result had proven that the teacher managed to keep giving the students the language support. It goes in line with the fact that the students were young learners which meant that they had very limited access to the new language. By producing this positive feature of teacher’s question, teacher succeeded to maintain the flow of interaction in the classroom by creating learning opportunities for students. Such as courages and confidences to answer or respons what the teacher questioned.

3. The reasons of teacher used teacher’s questions in English classroom were procedural, convergent and divergent. In addition to that, the good effectiveness of teacher’s question produced by the teacher was supported by other aspects of her teaching ability. Through the field notes taken during classroom observation, the teacher managed to show her ability in managing the classroom and developing a good relationship with the students. These two important aspects had successfully supported her

73

ability in controlling the language use in the classroom. The three combinations of producing a constructive teacher’ question, managing the classroom as a whole, and developing a good and supportive relationship with the teacher becomes the way for the teacher and students to have a good learning environment such as check the routines and class management, encourage the students respons eventhough high or low level thinkng to give their own answers and express themselves instead of just recalling previous lessons. It is useful to ensure the smooth flow of the teaching process in classroom having a good environment of learning leads students to have more opportunities to learn which will have a good impact on their learning achievements..

5.2 Sugestions

Based on the conclusion previously stated, then suggestions are follow:

1. As it was found in this study, it suggested to the readers especially teacher should have knowledge about the types of questions so that it affected to the feedback in the teaching-learning process so that student-centered approach will be reached out.

2. The readers especially the teachers were suggested to have some creation that the question was to be effective. The effective question can be created if the teacher knows what students’ interest. Moreover the teacher can relate with the question what will be asked so that it elicites students’ courges and confidences to answer the question based on the new topic that is considered

74

has never learned or even heard by the students especially for the specific materials in English that has so many new terms.

3. The readers especially teachers who teach the subject in English are suggested to have elicitation in question slowly because the limitation of the students in English especially vocabularies. For having feedback, even the answer in wrong. It is suggested to have encouragement to help the students in keeping their activities in the teaching-learning process since it is hard to involve the students in the teaching-learning process especially for English subject.

75 REFERENCES

Arends, R. 1994. Learning to Teach. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Bond, N. 2007. 12 Questioning Strategies That Minimize Classroom Management Problems. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(1), pp.18-21.

Brualdi, A. C. 1998. Classroom Questions. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 6(6). Online. Available at: <http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=6> Accessed 15 May 2012.

Brown, G. 1975. Microteaching. London: Mathuen.

Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd Edition).London: Longman, Pearson Education.

Cotton, K. 2001. Classroom Questioning. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS).

Online. Available at: <http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.htm>Accessed 13 June 2012.

Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman

Dillon, J. T. 1988. Questioning and Teaching: A manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press, (Chapter 3).

Department for Education and Skills. 2004. Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools, Unit 7: Questioning. United Kingdom:

Department for Education and Skills. Online. Available at:

<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/wsassets.s3.amazon aws.com/ws/nso/pdf/027c076de06e59ae10aeb9689a8a1c04.pdf> Accessed 14 April 2012.

E. C. Wragg – G. Brown, 2003. Questioning in the Secondary School (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library)

Ellis, K. 1993. Teacher Questioning Behaviour and Student Learning: What research says to teachers? (Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Westernstates Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico).

Ellis,R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis,R. & Fotos,S. 1999. Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis,R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76

Hussin, H. 2006. Dimensions of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom Practice in Malaysia. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. Hymam, R. T. 1972. Strategies Questioning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Inomori, T. 2010. Planning Writing Class with Questioning, My translation from Japanese Writing no jugyo wo ‘hatumon’ de tsukuru. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.22-24.

J. Richards and C. Lockhart, 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Johnson, K.E. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kifle Azerefegn. A Study on the Types of Teacher Questions and Questioning Strategies. (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University Institute Of Language Studies, 2008), 7.

Lestari, A.D. 2009. The Teacher’s Technique of Basic Questionings in English Classroom Activity. Semarang: Semarang State University.

Leven, T. and Long, R. 1981. Effective Instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lightbown, M. P. and Spada, N. 2006. How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Publications.

Mackey, A. 2007. The Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Maeda, Y. and Abe, M. 2010. Considering Class Development Through Questioning: Project in Niigata High School, [My Translation From Japanese Hatumon ga umidasita mekara uroko no jugyo tenkai: Niigata koukou project]. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.28-29.

Ma, X. 2008. The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. International Education Studies.

Markee, N., & Kasper, G.2004. Classroom Talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491-500.

Mauigoa, L. 2006. Enhancing Teacher’ Questioning Skills to Improve Children’s Learning and Thinking in Pacific Island Early Childhood Centres. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work

McComas, W. F. and Abraham, L. 2005. Asking More Effective Questions. Online.

Available at

:<http://www.usc.edu/programs/cet/private/pdfs/usc/Asking_Better_Questions.pdf > Accessed 10 June 2012.

Mekonnen, Z.1995. Thesis: “The Nature and Kinds of Questions Teachers and Students Ask In the English Classrooms of Secondary Schools” (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University).

77

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. Califormnia: Sage.

Morgan, N. and Saxton, J. 1991. Teaching, Questioning, and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Mutai, N.C. A Critical Review of Oral Questioning Technique in Secondary School English Language Teaching in Eldoret Municipality, Kenya, Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 324.

Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.

Nakajima, Y. 2010. Prescription à la carte for ‘Questioning’: Questioning is Art, My translation from Japanese ‘Hatumon’ no syohosen à la carte. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59 (1), pp.36-39.

Nicholl - Tracey, 2007. Questioning: A tool in the Nurse Educator’s Kit, Nurse Education in Practice. Vol. 7, 288-289.

Ohno, R. 2010. Teaching English Through The Moral Point of View, My Translation from Japanese Eigo no jugyo wo ‘doutoku no kankaku’ de. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59 (1), pp.20-21.

Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Teaching Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. 2002. Theories of Teaching in Language Teaching. In: J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19-25.

Rosenshine, B.1971. Teaching Behaviours and Student Achievement. London: Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

Rowe, M. B. 1986. Wait- time: Slowing Down may be a way of Speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 37.

Sakai, H. 2010. Questioning in Class for ‘Listening’and’Speaking’instructions. My Translation from Japanese ‘Kiku’ ‘hanasu’ jugyo ni okeru hatumon. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.25-27.

Scrinvener, J. 2005. Learning Teaching. UK: Macmillan Education.

Seda Ozcan, 2010. The Effects of Asking Referential Questions on The Participation and Oral Production of Lower Level Language Learners in Reading Classe. Izmir: Izmir University.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith H and Higgins S 2006. Opening Classroom Interaction: The importance of Feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education 36(4) 458-502. doi:10.1080/03057640601048357

78

Stevens, R. 1912. The Question as A Means of Efficiency In Instruction: A critical Study of Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Sullivan, P. 2000. Playfulness as Mediation Communicative Language Teaching in a Vietnamese Classroom. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by James P. Landtolf. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taguchi, T. 2010. Questioning-Centred Lesson Planning: Practice in Junior High School, My Translation from Japanese‘Hatumon’ chūshin no jugyo planning. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.14-16.

Tanaka, T. 2010. Good Questioning and Bad Questioning: What is the Questioning That Can Change Class? [My translation from Japanese Yoi hatumon, warui hatumon: jugyo wo kaeru hatumon toha. The English Teachers Magazine, 59(1), pp.10-13.Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom Interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.120-125.

Tanaka, S. 2011. The Power of Asking Questions in Getting L2 Classrooms Activated, Japanese title Communicative na eigokyoiku ni okeru hatumon ryoku. ARCLE Review, 4, pp.6-16.

Thompson, G. 1997. Training teachers to Ask Questions. Teaching Journal, 50, pp.99- 105.

Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.120-125.

Tsui, 1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction (London, UK: Penguin English).

Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walsh, W. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. London: Routledge.

Wilen, W. 1991. Questioning skills for teachers. What research says to teacher. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Wilen, W. and Clegg, A. 1986. Effective questions and questioning: A research review.

Theory and research in social education, 14(2), pp.153-161.

Wajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.

Wood, A. T., & Anderson, C. H. 2001. The Case Study Method: Critical Thinking Enhanced by Effective Teacher Questioning Skills. The 18th Annual International Conference of the World Association for Case MethodResearch & Application.

Yan, X. 2006. Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis, Chongqing Normal University & Yangtze Normal University, China.

73

ability in controlling the language use in the classroom. The three

combinations of producing a constructive teacher’

question, managing the

classroom as a whole, and developing a good and supportive relationship

with the teacher becomes the way for the teacher and students to have a

good learning environment such as check the routines and class

management, encourage the students respons eventhough high or low level

thinkng to give their own answers and express themselves instead of just

recalling previous lessons. It is useful to ensure the smooth flow of the

teaching process in classroom having a good environment of learning

leads students to have more opportunities to learn which will have a good

impact on their learning achievements..

5.2 Sugestions

Based on the conclusion previously stated, then suggestions are follow:

1.

As it was found in this study, it suggested to the readers especially teacher

should have knowledge about the types of questions so that it affected to the

feedback in the teaching-learning process so that student-centered approach

will be reached out.

2.

The readers especially the teachers were suggested to have some creation that

the question was to be effective. The effective question can be created if the

teacher knows what students’ interest. Moreover the teacher can relate with

the question what will be asked so that it elicites student

s’ courges and

confidences to answer the question based on the new topic that is considered

74

has never learned or even heard by the students especially for the specific

materials in English that has so many new terms.

3.

The readers especially teachers who teach the subject in English are

suggested to have elicitation in question slowly because the limitation of the

students in English especially vocabularies. For having feedback, even the

answer in wrong. It is suggested to have encouragement to help the students

in keeping their activities in the teaching-learning process since it is hard to

involve the students in the teaching-learning process especially for English

subject.

75

REFERENCES

Arends, R. 1994. Learning to Teach. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Bond, N. 2007. 12 Questioning Strategies That Minimize Classroom Management

Problems. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(1), pp.18-21.

Brualdi, A. C. 1998. Classroom Questions. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 6(6). Online. Available at: <http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=6> Accessed 15 May 2012.

Brown, G. 1975. Microteaching. London: Mathuen.

Brown, D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy (3rd Edition).

London: Longman, Pearson Education.

Cotton, K. 2001. Classroom Questioning. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Online. Available at: <http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.htm>Accessed 13 June 2012.

Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman

Dillon, J. T. 1988. Questioning and Teaching: A manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press, (Chapter 3).

Department for Education and Skills. 2004. Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and

Learning in Secondary Schools, Unit 7: Questioning. United Kingdom:

Department for Education and Skills. Online. Available at: <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/wsassets.s3.amazon aws.com/ws/nso/pdf/027c076de06e59ae10aeb9689a8a1c04.pdf> Accessed 14 April 2012.

E. C. Wragg – G. Brown, 2003. Questioning in the Secondary School (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library)

Ellis, K. 1993. Teacher Questioning Behaviour and Student Learning: What research

says to teachers? (Paper presented at the 64th annual meeting of the Westernstates

Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico).

Ellis,R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis,R. & Fotos,S. 1999.

Learning a Second Language through Interaction.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ellis,R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2005

. Analyzing Learner Language

. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

76

Hussin, H. 2006. Dimensions of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom

Practice in Malaysia. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language.

Hymam, R. T. 1972. Strategies Questioning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Inomori, T. 2010. Planning Writing Class with Questioning, My translation from

Japanese Writing no jugyo wo ‘hatumon’ de tsukuru. The English Teachers’

Magazine, 59(1), pp.22-24.

J. Richards and C. Lockhart, 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Johnson, K.E. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kifle Azerefegn. A Study on the Types of Teacher Questions and Questioning Strategies. (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University Institute Of Language Studies, 2008), 7.

Lestari, A.D. 2009. The Teacher’s Technique of Basic Questionings in English Classroom

Activity. Semarang: Semarang State University.

Leven, T. and Long, R. 1981. Effective Instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lightbown, M. P. and Spada, N. 2006. How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Publications.

Mackey, A. 2007. The Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Maeda, Y. and Abe, M. 2010. Considering Class Development Through Questioning:

Project in Niigata High School, [My Translation From Japanese Hatumon ga

umidasita mekara uroko no jugyo tenkai: Niigata koukou project]. The English

Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.28-29.

Ma, X. 2008. The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. International

Education Studies.

Markee, N., & Kasper, G.2004. Classroom Talks: An introduction. The Modern

Language Journal, 88(4), 491-500.

Mauigoa, L.

2006.

Enhancing Teacher’ Questioning Skills to Improve Children’s

Learning and Thinking in Pacific Island Early Childhood Centres. New Zealand

Journal of Teachers’ Work

McComas, W. F. and Abraham, L. 2005. Asking More Effective Questions. Online.

Available at

:<http://www.usc.edu/programs/cet/private/pdfs/usc/Asking_Better_Questions.pdf > Accessed 10 June 2012.

Mekonnen, Z.1995. Thesis: “The Nature and Kinds of Questions Teachers and Students

Ask In the English Classrooms of Secondary Schools” (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa

77

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M 2014.

Qualitative Data Analysis

. Califormnia:

Sage.

Morgan, N. and Saxton, J. 1991. Teaching, Questioning, and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Mutai, N.C. A Critical Review of Oral Questioning Technique in Secondary School

English Language Teaching in Eldoret Municipality, Kenya, Journal of Emerging

Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 324.

Naegle, P. 2002. The New Teacher’s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.

Nakajima, Y. 2010. Prescription à la carte for ‘Questioning’: Questioning is Art, My

translation from Japanese ‘Hatumon’ no syohosen à la carte. The English

Teachers’ Magazine, 59 (1), pp.36-39.

Nicholl - Tracey, 2007. Questioning: A tool in the Nurse Educator’s Kit, Nurse Education

in Practice. Vol. 7, 288-289.

Ohno, R. 2010. Teaching English Through The Moral Point of View, My Translation

from Japanese Eigo no jugyo wo ‘doutoku no kankaku’ de. The English Teachers’

Magazine, 59 (1), pp.20-21.

Richards, J.C. & Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Teaching

Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. 2002. Theories of Teaching in Language Teaching. In: J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology

of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19-25.

Rosenshine, B.1971. Teaching Behaviours and Student Achievement. London: Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

Rowe, M. B. 1986. Wait- time: Slowing Down may be a way of Speeding up. Journal of

Teacher Education, vol. 37.

Sakai, H. 2010. Questioning in Class for ‘Listening’and’Speaking’instructions. My

Translation from Japanese ‘Kiku’ ‘hanasu’ jugyo ni okeru hatumon. The English

Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.25-27.

Scrinvener, J. 2005. Learning Teaching. UK: Macmillan Education.

Seda Ozcan, 2010. The Effects of Asking Referential Questions on The Participation and

Oral Production of Lower Level Language Learners in Reading Classe. Izmir:

Izmir University.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith H and Higgins S 2006. Opening Classroom Interaction: The importance of

Feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education 36(4) 458-502.

78

Stevens, R. 1912. The Question as A Means of Efficiency In Instruction: A critical Study

of Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Sullivan, P. 2000. Playfulness as Mediation Communicative Language Teaching in a

Vietnamese Classroom. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning,

edited by James P. Landtolf. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taguchi, T. 2010. Questioning-Centred Lesson Planning: Practice in Junior High

School, My Translation from Japanese‘Hatumon’ chūshin no jugyo planning. The

English Teachers’ Magazine, 59(1), pp.14-16.

Tanaka, T. 2010. Good Questioning and Bad Questioning: What is the Questioning

That Can Change Class? [My translation from Japanese Yoi hatumon, warui

hatumon: jugyo wo kaeru hatumon toha. The English Teachers Magazine, 59(1),

pp.10-13.Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom Interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.120-125.

Tanaka, S. 2011. The Power of Asking Questions in Getting L2 Classrooms Activated,

Japanese title Communicative na eigokyoiku ni okeru hatumon ryoku. ARCLE

Review, 4, pp.6-16.

Thompson, G. 1997. Training teachers to Ask Questions. Teaching Journal, 50, pp.99- 105.

Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. Classroom interaction. In: R. Carton and D. Nunan (Eds.), The

Cambridge Guide to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp.120-125.

Tsui, 1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction (London, UK: Penguin English).

Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walsh, W. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. London: Routledge.

Wilen, W. 1991. Questioning skills for teachers. What research says to teacher. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Wilen, W. and Clegg, A. 1986. Effective questions and questioning: A research review.

Theory and research in social education, 14(2), pp.153-161.

Wajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.

Wood, A. T., & Anderson, C. H. 2001. The Case Study Method: Critical Thinking Enhanced by Effective Teacher Questioning Skills. The 18th Annual International

Conference of the World Association for Case MethodResearch & Application.

Yan, X. 2006. Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. Unpublished Master of