Students’ Answer to the Interrogative Sentences

39

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter concludes the study in two ways. The first is the conclusion of the research finding and the data analysis in chapter IV. The second is the suggestion for teacher and other researchers or students who wish to conduct research on the same issue.

A. Conclusions

Concerning the first research objective, which is to find out the levels of the interrogative questions produced by students based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, it can be concluded that the interrogative sentences made by the students are categorized as level one, namely Remembering, as many as 63 per cent. In level two, namely Understanding, there are as many as 15.7 per cent. In level three, namely Applying, there are as many as 11.5 per cent. In level four, namely Analyzing, there are as many as six per cent 6. In level five, namely Evaluating, there are as many as one point three per cent 3. In level six, namely Creating, there are as many as zero per cent 0. Meanwhile two point three per cent 2.3 cannot be categorized in any levels because the questions were made in a form of YesNo question instead of WH question. From the percentage of each level, it could be concluded that students’ skill to produce interrogative question is still low because most of the questions are categorized into level 1 which consists of basic and simple questions. Moreover, there are still so many grammatical errors that occur among the interrogative sentences made by the students. The second conclusion concerns the second research objective, which is to find out how the other students answer the interogative questions. Students answered the questions in many ways. There were 89 per cent of the answers to the questions that can be categorized as matching with the question verb function. There were nine per cent 9 answers which did not match with the questions. In the meantime, there were two per cent 2 of the questions which were not answered by the students. From the research results, it can be summed up that the students ability to answer the questions is considered good because the students could answer most of the questions with a decent answer.

B. Recommendation

The recommendations are adressed to teachers, students, or other researchers who also have an interest in this topic. 1. For Students Concerning the current students’ level to produce interrogative sentences, which is still low, the writer suggests that the students have more practice to produce interrogative sentences. English interrogative sentences seem to be a simple thing to learn, but it takes a lot of time to get used to it. The students can practice to make interrogative questions at school and also in their daily life. Concerning so many grammatical errors that occur in the students’ questions and answers, it is better to learn more about the grammar. It is because a good question or information is useless if it is hard to be understood, especially because of the grammar. It is better to make the sentence meaningful and understandable. 2. For Teachers Based on the finding of this thesis, the teachers have an important role in developing supportive atmosphere to learn language. The teachers could encourage the students to use English all the time during the class, facilitate students to use English interrogative questions during the learning process to improve students’ ability to produce the questions. Teachers’ role in language learning is very important. They manage the students’ process of learning. 3. For Other Researchers Since the participants and areas of this research were limited, the writer recommends other scholars to conduct researches involving more participants and larger areas. The writer also suggests further research on other specific issues related to students’ ability to make and answer interrogative questions, such as finding out the effective method to improve the ability. 42 REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A. 2002. Introduction to research in education. Belmonth, CA: WadsworthThomson Learning. Anderson, L. W. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman Anderson, L. W. Krathwohl, D. R. Eds.. 2001. A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assesment A revision of Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Dulay, H., Burt, M., Krashen, S. 1982. Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edupress Inc. n.d.. Quick flip questions for the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http:www.edupressinc.com Essberger, J. n.d.. W H question words. Retrieved May 21, 2012 from http:www.englishclub.comvocabularywh-question-words.htm Fisher, D. 2005. Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved May 3, 2012 from http:ecampus.oregonstate.edu Greenbaum, S. 1989. A college grammar of English. New York: Longman. Krohn, R. 1977. English structure sentence. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Norish, J. 1983. Language learners and their errors. London: Macmillan Press. Postman, N. 1979. Teaching as a conserving activity, New York: Delacorte Press. Quirck, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd. Suhendro. B. 2006. Panduan penyusunan kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan jenjang pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Jakarta: BNSP. xiv ABSTRACT Prabowo, Yulius Andar . 2013. An Analysis of Interrogative Sentences Made By Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program. Sanata Dharma University. This study was intended to analyze the interrogative sentences and the responses produced by students of grade eleven of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. There are two objectives of this research. The first one is 1 to find out the levels of the interrogative questions produced by the students according to Anderson’s version of Bloom’s taxonomy on education. The second aim is 2 to examine the students’ answers to the interogative questions. This research uses a document analysis. It involves an element of analysis based on Bloom’s taxonomy and its version published by Anderson and Krathwohl. The question-verb functions are used to analyze the students’ replies to the questions. Having analyzed the data obtained, it can be concluded that the interrogative sentences made by the students whicharecategorized as level one, namely Remembering, are as many as sixty-three per cent 63.In level two, namely Understanding, there are as many as fifteen point five per cent 15.7.In level three, namely Applying, there are as many as eleven point five per cent 11.5. In level four, namely Analyzing, there are as many as six per cent 6. In level five, namely Evaluating, there are as many as one point three per cent 1.3.In level six, namely Creating, there are as many as zero per cent 0.Meanwhile, two point three per cent 2.3were categorized as non-WH questions because the questions were in YesNo question form. As for the second objective, it can be pointed out that eighty-nine per cent 89 of the answers to the questions can be categorized as matching with the question verb function. There werenine per cent 9 of the answers that did not match with the questions. In the meantime, there were two per cent 2 of the questions that were not answered by the students. Keywords: interrogative sentences, Bloom’s taxonomy, Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta