TYPES OF TEACHER QUESTIONS AND STUDENT RESPONSES IN EFL CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES :A Case Study of Questioning in SMP in Mataram.

(1)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In classroom, teacher plays very important roles. The teacher can be as controller, director, facilitator, and resource (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 1991, 2001, 2007). In conducting the role of controller, the teacher will determine what the students do, when they should speak, and what language form they should use. As a director of classroom, teacher is responsible to maintain students’ engagement and motivation in order to flow smoothly and efficiently. As a facilitator, the teacher will assist the students to make the learning process easier and more comfortable. When teacher employs the role of resource, he/she will always be available to meet when students need advice or consultation. In conclusion, if teacher wishes to see successful teaching-learning processes in classroom, he/she should be able to conduct those roles appropriately because the teachers’ different roles were related to the students’ levels of participation and their positioning of themselves as powerful or powerless students (Yoon, 2008).

In relation to the English language learning and teaching in classroom, those teacher’s roles will affect the quality and quantity of input, output, and interaction in the classroom. Input can be provided in good quality and sufficient in amount if the teacher contributes maximally in the role of resource from teacher talks (Ellis, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan, 1991) in explaining, commenting, or even questioning during the classroom activities. Language production as the

(2)

2 intended output can also be triggered by teacher when he/she carrying out the role of controller by giving commands or questions to the students in the classroom. Interaction as the core of teaching-learning process and through it acquisition can be facilitated (Long, 1983; Ellis, 1986; Johnson, 2001; and Brown, 2001) can be maximized through the conversation between teacher and students in which questioning-answering dialogue pattern is commonly adopted. To summarize, in fulfilling good quality and enough input, output, and interaction, teacher questions are the central point to take into consideration.

Regarding the importance of teacher questions in language learning, teacher should know what kinds of questions which are potential to support students in learning a target language. The emergency of knowing types of questions are based on the reasons that certain sort of questions will likely trigger the students to respond in more complex answers, provide more comprehensible inputs, and create more genuine interaction. Take for example, when a teacher uses more referential questions in classroom interaction, the answers from student will be more in number of words used, more complex sentences uttered, and more natural of communication developed (Brock, 1986). In other words, by using referential question teacher gives more opportunities for students to receive comprehensible input, more chance to produce output, and more opportunities to create natural interaction.

However, being familiar with the types of questions only is not sufficient to conduct effective teaching. Students as the addressee of teacher questions sometimes or even very often do not understand what the answers of the questions

(3)

3 are. Hence they cannot give any responses. To overcome this problem teacher usually will modify their questions through negotiation of meaning in form of simplifying, redirecting, paraphrasing (Chaudron, 1988), or even translating the question into students’ first language (L1) in such way the students are expected to give responses more easily.

Seeing the central role of questioning in language classroom to facilitate students to have comprehensible input, to trigger students to produce language production (output), and to create interaction in classroom, it is necessary to conduct investigation to reveal the secret around the issue of teacher questions. It is hopefully from the investigation, researcher will find what types of questions which help students to learn language, how teachers modify their questions to be more understandable, and what kinds of student responses are generated from those given questions.

1.2 Research Questions

This study is conducted to find out the answers of the following research questions:

1. What types of question do the teachers usually use in EFL classroom? 2. What modification techniques do the teachers employ when the questions

are not understood?

3. What sorts of responses do the questions generate from the students? 4. How can teacher questions facilitate language learning?

(4)

4 1.3 Objectives of the Study

There are four main purposes of conducting this study. The first purpose is to identify the types of question used by English teacher during English teaching-learning process. Those types of question will be classified into two main types; display question and referential question and three sub types; comprehension check, clarification request, and confirmation check. The second objective of this study is to identify the modification techniques employed by the teachers when their questions are not understood by the students. The main reason for identifying the modification is the importance of them in providing variety of inputs and opportunities for the students to practice the target language. The third purpose is to investigate the sorts and the complexity of student responses due to the use of those questions by the teachers during the classroom teaching-learning process. The forth purpose is to investigate how questions can facilitate language learning classroom activities.

1.4 Significance of the Study

Questioning has been identified as an important aspect of classroom interaction in teaching-learning situation (Wilen, 1987a, 1987b; Willson, 1999). Investigating the types of questions and modification of question used by the teacher in EFL classroom is expected to provide new insight into the use of those types and modifications of questions to facilitate better learning of English language, to encourage the students in order to participate in teaching-learning process, and to promote second language acquisition. As Walsh (2006) asserts

(5)

5 that one of the purposes of searching the teacher questions is to promote the awareness of teacher in using their questions during classroom interaction. By awareness as he states is meant more conscious use of language; noticing the effects of interactional features on learning opportunity; understanding that teachers and learners jointly create learning opportunity; and realizing the importance of using appropriate questions. Teachers of English language will particularly benefit from this study as the findings will be an eye-opener to them on how to use question and their modifications appropriately to improve EFL classroom interaction. Finally, the findings of this study are expected to be another alternative effort of improving students’ competence in learning English communicatively in the basis of classroom activities.

1.5 Definitions of Key Terms

In this section the researcher will elaborate the key terms that will be frequently used in this study. The elaboration is aimed at giving definition, avoiding misunderstanding and limiting the use of the terms, and understanding the context in which the terms being used (Cresswell, 1994).

1. Question is defined as a functional or speech act label, and refers to an utterance that seeks information or any statement intended to evoke a response.

2. Display Question is the term used to refer to a question to which the teacher already knows the answer (Nunan, 1989b: 29). In asking display question, the teacher does not seek an answer to resolve some

(6)

6 doubts. Rather he/she wants the students to display or show some previous knowledge that has been learned before. Such question like, “What is the capital of Indonesia?” belongs to this category.

3. Referential Question refers to a question to which the teacher does not already know the answer (Brock, 1986; Chaudron, 1988; Nunan, 1991; Gebhard, 1999). For instance: Have you done your homework?

4. Modification of Question refers to the change employed by teacher to make the question understandable. Three additional types associated with the concept of negotiation or modification of meaning through modification of question between interlocutors (Chaudron, 1993:130-131) or modified interaction, are comprehension check, clarification request, and confirmation check.

5. Confirmation checks are moves by which one speaker seeks confirmation of the other’s preceding utterance through repetition, with rising intonation, of what was perceived to be all or part of the preceding utterance.

6. Clarification requests are moves by which one speaker seeks assistance in understanding the other speaker’s preceding utterance through questions, statements such as “I don’t understand,” or imperatives such as “Please repeat.”

7. Comprehension checks are moves by which one speaker attempts to determine whether the other speaker has understood a preceding message ( Pica, 1987).

(7)

7 8. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the process through which someone acquires one or more second or foreign language in addition to their native language (Nunan, 1991). In this study the term of SLA will be interchangeably used with Second Language Learning (SLL).

9. Comprehensible Input is the part of the total input that the learners understand and which is hypothesized to be necessary for acquisition to take place (Ellis, 1997).

10. Input Hypothesis is the hypothesis advanced by Krashen to Explain how learners subconsciously acquire language from input they comprehend (Ellis, 1997).

11. Interaction Hypothesis is the name given to claim that the interactional modification resulting from the negotiation of meaning facilitate acquisition (Ellis, 1997).

12. The term classroom interaction in this study is defined as the interaction between teacher and learners, and amongst the learners in the class room (Tsui, 2001).

13. Output Hypothesis is the hypothesis which claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language (Swain, 2007)

(8)

8 14. Student Language Production refers to the answers or comments given by the students orally, in classroom during English teaching and learning process which is generated from the teacher questions.

1.6 The Structure of This Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. Besides the introduction part, there are four other chapters. They will be introduced separately as follows:

Chapter I is the introduction of the whole study. It includes the background of conducting study on teacher questions, and then presents the research questions and the purposes of the present study. At the end of this chapter researcher presents the key terms those frequently used in this study and the description of this thesis structure.

Chapter II discusses the theoretical views by which the present study underpinned. The theoretical views include the nature of questioning in classroom teaching which covers the functions and purposes of questions in classroom teaching; the position of questioning in classroom language learning which covers comprehensible input hypothesis, interactional hypothesis, and output hypothesis; the position on questioning in classroom interaction; and types of question. Finally, this chapter ends by presenting some related studies conducted by many researchers concerning about the question in classroom language learning.

Chapter III constitutes the methodological aspects of this thesis. In this section, the researcher elaborates the methodological issues of the present study. The elaboration includes the research design, research method, research validity,

(9)

9 participants, research setting, techniques of gathering data, and techniques of analyzing data respectively.

Chapter IV elaborates the findings and discussion. The analysis is carried out based on the three research questions. The analysis is presented in sequence starting from types of teacher questions and student responses, followed by modification techniques used by the teachers, and the last is to what extent teacher questions facilitate language learning. At the end of each elaboration, the researcher presents the findings related to each research questions. Finally, at the end part of this section the researcher discusses how the findings are seen from the perspective of comprehensible input hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, and output hypothesis.

Chapter V is the conclusion part. This part summarizes the findings obtained from the present study. At the end of this section, the researcher will elaborate some possible recommendations for conducting further similar related studies. Then it discusses the limitations of the present study and puts forward some suggestions for the further study on teacher questions.

(10)

45 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this section, the researcher will elaborate the methodological aspects of this study. The elaboration will include the research design, research method, research validity, the participants, the research setting, techniques of gathering data, and technique of analyzing data respectively.

3.1 Research Design

This study was conducted by applying qualitative research design in which the researcher as the main instrument collected data by observing the natural setting of classroom interaction. In this sense, this research is also called “naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nunan, 1992; Cohen & Manion, 1994; Meriam, 1998; Silverman, 2005; Alwasilah, 2008). “Naturalistic inquiry” refers to that the researcher tries not to intervene in the research setting and does not try to control naturally occurring events, because the researcher wishes to describe and understand the process rather than to test specific hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, naturalistic inquiry is holistic, heuristic and low in control (Hussin, 2007).

The most important reason of using qualitative design is that this design is an appropriate way to explore every day behavior, in this case the behavior of teacher and students in classroom. For this, Silverman (2005: 6) states that ‘if you want to discover how people intend to vote, then a quantitative method, like a

(11)

46 social survey, may be the most appropriate choice. On the other hand, if you are concerned with exploring people’s life histories or every day behavior, the qualitative methods may be favored’.

Besides the “appropriateness“ reason in design, this study was carried out on the appropriateness in research paradigm as well. As this study requires the interpretation of researcher to understand the process of classroom setting, it used interpretivism paradigm in which qualitative design is suitable to use (Belbase, 2007; Connole, et.al, 1990; Dash, 2005; Emilia, 2000; Gephart, 1999; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Williamson, 2006). In line with this, (Meriam, 1988) argues that ‘education (classroom) is considered to be a process and school is a lived experience. To understand the meaning of the process and the experience, it must be interpreted then.

3.2 Research Method

In qualitative research design, there are several methods which are prevalent used such as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case study (Alwasilah, 2008). In this investigation the researcher used case study method. Then this study is a qualitative case study which was characterized as being “particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” (Meriam, 1988: 29).

To Meriam, a case study is particularistic because this study focused on a particular situation (classroom setting) and a specific phenomenon (teacher questioning in an EFL classroom).

(12)

47 At the present study, the researcher presented a rich or complete description on types of question used during the process of teaching and learning English in classroom setting. For this, a case study is descriptive. Finally, a case study is heuristic because it illuminates the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under study.

This method was used because it has several advantages as what (Adelman et. al, 1976 in Nunan, 1992: 78) proposed. The first is case study is strong in reality as it can be used to identify and examine certain issues or concern in detail (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) Secondly, case study can represent multiplicity of viewpoints and can offer support to alternative interpretation. Thirdly, if the result of a case study presented properly, it may provide database which may be used and reinterpreted by the future researchers. The last one is that the findings of case study can be beneficial for immediate practice.

Based on the characteristic of qualitative case study, it was reasonable for the present researcher to investigate a teacher questioning in EFL classroom in-depth to understand the process of questioning in classroom setting holistically, to focus the investigation particularly on the types of teacher questions, question modifications, and student responses, and to give complete or “thick description” on the issue of questioning in EFL classroom.

3.3 Research Validity

The feasibility and effectiveness of study must be ensured by the quality of the data gathering and data analysis, that is, the validity of the research. In this

(13)

48 study the validity was ensured through two lenses of paradigm; positivism and constructivism paradigm (Craswell & Miller, 2000). From the lens of positivism paradigm, the validity procedure was conducted through member checking. In this study, the researcher asked the participants’ check in two stances; transcribing and interpreting the video recorded data. In the stance of transcribing video recorded data, both participants were asked to make sure that the transcription was valid based on the recorded data. In interpreting stance, the participants were asked to check whether the questions in the transcription were questions or not. For this, the researcher and the participants had the same perception on determining the utterances into questions or not. From the lens of constructivism paradigm, this study was validated by presenting thick description on the process and the setting of this study based on the field notes during the observation.

Besides the two lenses of paradigms, this study was also validated by the principle of retrievability (Hussin, 2006). In this study all the important moments (questioning-answering activities) during the observations were video recorded and the conversations were transcribed. The video recorded data and the transcription of the conversation were accessible for necessary inspection.

3.4 Participants

To get the data of teacher questioning, this study involved two English teachers and to get data on student responses there were 65 Junior High School students participated. The first teacher was an experienced male teacher and the other was a novice female teacher.

(14)

49 The two English language teachers of the selected school who participated in the study were selected based on accessibility (Kvale, 1996) as there were only two teachers recommended by the headmaster to take part in this study. In this study the teachers were coded as Teacher A and Teacher B. Their academic qualifications and training were in English. They have graduated from a local university majoring in English. Teacher A was male and has been teaching in that school for about more than five years. He was responsible to prepare the students in “Rintisan Sekolah Berstandar International (RSBI)” class in which English is used as the medium of instruction particularly in English subject and natural science subjects.

Teacher B was a female. She was a novice teacher at that school. She has been teaching for about one year. Fortunately, she has been teaching in formal English course for many years. She was recommended to give additional English class at the afternoon after the morning class dismissed for volunteered students.

The data on student responses were taken from two groups of students. The first 50 students of the two classes (25 in 8A and 25 in 8B) became the participants of the study. The students were selected into this classes based on the existing group. They were selected based on their rank when they were in the last semester of the first year. On this regard they were classified into gifted students as they were from the high achiever group of students.

When conducting observation, those students were in the second semester of the second year of Junior High School in the academic year 2008-2009. The special characteristics of those classes are they were established to promote

(15)

50 international based standard school. Consequently, they must use English for all the time during classroom activities. For this, almost all the students join additional English course outside their formal schooling time. These two classes were taught by Teacher A.

The second group of students who participated in this study was 15 students from the mixture class. They were asked voluntarily to join the afternoon English class to have extra lessons on English. Characteristically, the students in this class were more heterogeneous than the first two classes as some them from “RSBI” class and some from regular class, some from first years and some from second year. This class was taught by Teacher B.

3.5 Research Setting

This study was conducted in a Junior High School (SMP) located in Mataram. The reason of choosing this school was the accessibility of the researcher into this school. But the most important consideration of choosing this school is that the school was at the beginning of establishing bilingual classroom in which English is obliged to use both by teacher and all the students.

There were three classes as the focus of observation. The first class was 8A class which consists of 25 students. This classroom was designed and fully facilitated to support the comfortableness of teaching-learning process. This room was also facilitated with air conditioner, four sets of computer, and one set of television with media player. The second class was 8B class which consists of 25

(16)

51 students as well. The situation and the facilities available in this classroom were the same as the room of 8A class.

The third class was a mixture class which consists of 15 students from non-bilingual class. The room for this class was not designed and facilitated as 8A and 8B were. There was not computer, television, or air conditioner found in this class. This class was programmed for giving additional English lesson for those students of non-bilingual class. This class was labelled mixture because the students were from many classes. There were some students from the first year students and some others from second year students.

Those three classes (8A, 8B, and mixture class) were at the second semester of academic year 2008/2009. Those two classes (8A and 8B) conducted teaching-learning in morning shift from 07.30 a.m to 01.00 p.m. They get English lesson three times a week. The mixture class, on the other hand, was conducted at the afternoon after morning shift starting from 02.00 a.m until 03.00.

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques

There were two main techniques used to collect data in this study namely observation and video recording. The observation was conducted to identify teachers’ questions and students’ response, while the video recording was utilized to ‘capture many details of lesson that cannot easily be observed such as the actual language used by teachers or students during a lesson’ (Richards & Lockhart, 1994). No interview conducted because those data collected from the observation and video recording were sufficient to answer the research questions of this study.

(17)

52 3.6.1 Observation

One of the purposes of conducting this study was to find out types of questions used by the teachers in their English classroom activities. For gaining the data concerning that purposes, direct observation techniques was used. Observation types utilized in this study was non-participant observation. The researcher did not involve in the classroom activities. He took seat at the back of classroom without intervening the activities he investigating and eschewed from group membership (Cohen & Manion, 1994).

The observation was conducted by using the observation guidelines which has been approved by the researcher advisor. The format and the model of the observation guidelines can be seen as an appendix in this thesis.

During the observation the researcher didn’t find what makes this technique problematic. For example, as what Bailey (2001) argues that the presence of the observer will affect the naturalness of the interaction in the classroom as what he states in this quotation.

“The historical development of second language (L2) classroom observation is not limited to the use of observation instrument, and it has not been without problems. Teachers (and perhaps learners) have sometimes felt like objects being observed without input or consultation, whose behavior and key decisions were reduced to tally marks on a page by observers who might or might not understand the day-to-day workings on the language classroom. As a result, a tension emerged in some areas between the observers and the observed” (Bailey, 2001: 115).

On the contrary to Baleiy’s argument, the researcher found that the participants, particularly the students acting very naturally. It seemed that they did not feel that they were being observed and did not care on the presence of

(18)

53 other people in their classroom. This was reasonable because the school has been frequently used to conduct research as such. The situation of such classroom was also found when the researcher carried out preliminary research in a Junior and a Senior High Schools in Bandung in which many researchers have chosen these schools as setting to conduct various kinds of research.

Although the researcher did not find what many researchers worried about, he anticipated the possibility of unnaturalness of the setting by explaining the purposes of the observation to the teacher and the students. The explanation was also delivered to the principal in case of getting permission to do research in his school. In this sense, the natural behavior of the classroom was ensured.

For this study, the researcher conducted six observations. The first Observation was conducted in 8A class when the students got the material of news item by making summary of two articles taken from English newspapers or English magazines individually. Before observing this class however, the teacher asked the researcher to introduce himself to the students in front of the class. In the introduction, the researcher introduced his identity, his educational background, and explained the purposes of his presence in that class. At this time, several students asked some questions as the teacher asked them to do so. This was also done in his observation in 8B class. The second observation was carried out in 8B Class with the same material as in 8A Class. The third observation was done in 8A Class with the material of narrative which was included in drama of various stories. The next observation, the fourth, was conducted in 8A Class with the same material (narrative) by using group presentation technique. The

(19)

54 observation five and six were carried out in the mixture class with the material of question tag and passive voice respectively. The distribution and the description of the observation can be seen at the table below.

Table 3.1: Distribution of Observation

During the observation, the researcher made field notes for all the classroom activity to have description of context in which the teaching-learning process happened. Description of each session can be seen at the appendix on this study. These descriptions were used when analyzing and interpreting the data. To gain data on the types of questions used, the modification of questions employed, and the student responses, in this study, the researcher used video recording.

3.6.2 Video Recording

To get “the actual language used by the teacher and the students, as well as interpersonal dynamics and affective climate of the classroom” (Nunan, 1989: 79), video recording was used in each observation. However, in classroom observation not all sessions of the teaching-learning process were video-recorded. The researcher only recorded the phases of teaching-learning process when there

Participants Observations Type of Lesson

Duration in

minutes Class

No. of Student

Teacher A

I News Item 70 8A 25

II News Item 70 8B 25

III Narrative 65 8A 24

IV Narrative 75 8B 25

Teacher B

I Question Tag 60 Mixture 7

(20)

55 were any questioning activities took place. In the observation I and II which were conducted in 8A class and in 8B class, for instance, the researcher only recorded the classroom event when the student were told to report their summaries on the articles in front of the teacher through interview technique. In observation III in 8A class, there was no event recorded as the classroom activity was set in group discussion in which the teacher did not involve in. He just gave general instruction and suggestion on how to perform the dialogue on the drama script. At this time the researcher only made field note on how group discussion happened. The last observation for teacher A was recorded when he moderated the students to take part in group presentation. The recording was focused on the last part of the presentation in which the students were asked to give comments or questions to the groups who presented their material at that time.

The last two recordings were conducted in Teacher B’s class when she taught the material of question tag and passive voice to the students of mixture class. Tough this class was flooded by questioning activities, not all of them were recorded. The similar patterns of questioning were skipped to overcome the overloaded data on the same categories.

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques

In analyzing data from field notes and video recording, first of all, the researcher made description of each observation based on the notes taken during the observation. The result of the description will be used to provide more detail context when classifying types of questions and interpreting the meaning of

(21)

56 certain utterances. After having the description, the next step was transcribing the data from video-recording. In making this transcription several codes used to indicate specific features of the transcription. Those codes were T for teacher, S for one student, Ss for many students, … for pausing, * for no response, and ( ) for non-verbal responses.

After having the transcription, then the researcher classified the utterances into two categories, teacher questions category and student responses category. After all the utterances have been categorized, then the researcher classified all the teacher questions based the taxonomy of question which adapted from the frame work of Long (1983). The categories are display question, referential question, comprehension check, clarification request, and confirmation check. In this step the researcher confirmed the participants whether their utterances belong to question or not. This was done because there were many utterances, especially uttered by Teacher B, were not in interrogative pattern but generated responses from students.

The next step was categorizing the techniques of modifying question employed by the teachers when their questions were not understood by the students. For this purpose, the researcher analyzed the transcription to find out which teacher questions could not generate student responses and which ones could generate incomplete responses. In classifying the techniques of modifying questions, the researcher referred to the frame work of Chaudron (1988) who classified the techniques into repetition, rephrasing, and additional question. As certain questions raised by the participants could not fit with that classification,

(22)

57 the researcher used another additional classification which have been used by Wu (1993). The classification was decomposition technique and probing technique.

Finally, to analyze the student responses to answer the third research question, the researcher categorized them into verbal response and non-verbal response. In categorizing the verbal responses, work of Wu (1993) was used to categorize the verbal responses into restricted category and elaboration category. While for categorizing non-verbal responses, the frame work of Lörscher ( 2003) was operationalized.

The sequence of conducting the present study starting from determining the background, formulating the problems into research questions, determining the techniques of collecting and analyzing data, presenting the findings, to recommending the further study was summarized in the following figure.

(23)

58 Figure 3.2 Sequence of Conducting the Present Study

Fact

Theory Problems

Teacher Questions

Research Questions Background

Conclusion & Recommendation

Data Analysis, Findings, and

Discussion Data Collecting Techniques

Observation + Video Recording Validity: member

checks, thick description, and peer debriefing

(24)

96 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is the end part this thesis. Here the researcher will elaborate the conclusion drawn from the present study and some possible recommendations for conducting further related studies.

5. 1 Conclusions

This thesis investigates teacher questioning in EFL classroom activities of two English teachers in a Junior High School in Mataram. The purposes are to identify the types of questions used by the teachers in EFL classroom activities, techniques of modifying questions, types of student responses, and how questioning facilitates students in learning L2.

The findings of the present study show that the two participants use different types of questions during their EFL classroom activities. Teacher A who teaches writing and reading using authentic material uses more referential questions than other types. This finding supports the previous studies conducted by Brock‘s (1986), Yamazaki’s (1998), and Shomoosi’s (2004) research, while Teacher B who teaches grammar uses more display questions than the other types. This corroborates the studies of Wu (1993), Xiao-yan (2006), Hussin (2006), David’s (2007), Tan (2007), and Chun-miao (2007). This means that this study gives additional support to the related previous studies. From this finding, it can be inferred that the two teachers are very different in using questions during their EFL classroom. The discrepancy is caused by the material and the approach used

(25)

97 in teaching. Authentic materials and group discussion trigger the teachers to use more referential questions.

This study also reveals that both teachers use various techniques to modify questions when their questions cannot generate student responses. Those techniques are repeating, rephrasing, giving additional questions, and decomposing the questions. In this case, this finding supports the study of Wu (1993) and Yamazaki (1998). Concerning this finding, it is concluded that modifying question is done not only because of the students’ absence of giving responses, but of intending complete answer and wanting the other responses also. As well, this study reveals that the students respond their teacher questions verbally and non-verbally. The verbal responses are characteristically restricted to display questions and elaborative to referential ones. The non-verbal responses are used when the teachers use referential questions. At this point, this finding is in accordance with Lörscher’s (2003). In summary, the students give various types of responses and much dependent on the types of questions given.

The last but not the least, types of teacher questions and question modifications affect how teacher conduct language learning in classroom. They can affect the amount of input, classroom interaction, and the use of the target language. Referring to this, it is inferred that teacher questions facilitate students in learning L2 in terms of providing inputs, building interaction, and giving opportunity to use the L2.

Regarding those findings, it is expected that this study contributes something to the area of related research and more specifically to the language

(26)

98 learning insights. Though it is just a small-scale investigation and the findings reveal partial views of classroom questioning research, supposedly it gives insights on the importance of using quality questioning in language classroom, and promotes the awareness toward using questions properly to facilitate students in learning foreign language.

As this study involves small-scale participants and short-time research, the holistic understanding on teacher questioning could not be revealed. In addition, this research just covers three aspects only, so this research does not provide views from all perspective of language learning. To this end, involving more participants and longitudinal research are recommended to carry out.

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

For further investigation the following aspects could be the focus to take into consideration. Firstly, the further study could be focused on what makes the teachers use different types of question in their classroom teaching. The study can be directed to aspects of classroom teaching; 1) to what extent the material, especially ,authentic material (Gilmore, 2007) used in teaching process affect teachers in using certain types of questions, and 2) what kinds of classroom activities contribute to the use of different types of questions. Secondly, the further studies can be directed toward how teacher questions can increase students’ language development. The studies can be emphasized on how questioning can increase students communicative competence in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

(27)

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET...i

APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS...ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...iii

DECLARATION...iv

ABSTRACT...v

TABLE OF CONTENTS...vi

LIST OF TABLES...viii

LIST OF FIGURES...…...ix

CHAPTER I...1

INTRODUCTION...1

1.1 Background...1

1.2 Research Questions...3

1.3 Objectives of the Study...4

1.4 Significance of Study...4

1.5 Definitions of Key Terms...5

1.6 The Structure of This Thesis...8

CHAPTER II...10

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...10

2.1 Questioning and Classroom Teaching...10

2.1.1 Definition of Question...12

2.1.2 The Purposes of Questioning...13

2.1.3 The Functions of Questioning...16

2.2 Teacher Questions and Classroom Second Language Learning...21

2.2.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis...23

2.2.2 Output Hypothesis...25

2.2.3 Interaction Hypothesis...27

2.2.4 Classroom Interaction and Questioning...30

2.3 The Types of Teacher Questions...37

(28)

2.5 Studies on Questioning...42

CHAPTER III...45

METHODOLOGY...45

3.1 Research Design...45

3.2 Research Method...46

3.3 Research Validity...47

3.4 Participants...48

3.5 Research Setting...50

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques...51

3.6.1 Observation...52

3.6.2 Video Recording...54

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques...55

CHAPTER IV...59

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS...59

4.1 Types of Teacher Questions and Student Responses...59

4.2 Questioning Modification Techniques...73

4.3 Teacher Questions and Classroom Language Learning...79

4.3.1 Teacher Questions and Language Input...79

4.3.2 Teacher Questions and Interaction...83

4.3.3 Student responses and Students’ Output...91

CHAPTER V...96

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...96

5.1Conclusions...96

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research...98

REFERENCES...99

APPENDIXES...109

Appendix 1: Transcript of Video Recording...109

Appendix 2: Observation Guideline...130

Appendix 3: Field Notes...133

(29)

v LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 2.1: Bloom’s Question Taxonomy………...38 2. Table 3.1: Distribution of Observation……….……… 54 3. Table 4.1 Number and percentage of question types ..…….……....…… 62 4. Table 4.2: Frequency and techniques of modifying question…….…..…78

(30)

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 2.1: Input & output through teacher questioning………...………22 2. Figure 2.2: The Input Hypothesis Model of L2 learning and

production………...………..24 3. Figure 2.3: Process of classroom interaction……… 31 4. Figure 3.1 Sequence of Conducting the Present Study…….………58

(31)

99 REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2003). “L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development”. Language Teaching Research 7, (3), 347–376.

Alison, K. (1994). “Guiding Knowledge Construction in Classroom: Effects of teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain”. American educational Research Journal Summer, 31, (2), 338-368.

Alwasilah, A.C. (2008). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Allwright, D. (1983). Centered Research: State of The Art Classroom-Centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning A Brief Historical Overview. TESOL QURTERLY,17 (2).

Allwright, D. (1989). Interaction and Negotiation in Classroom: Their Role in Learner Development. Available in

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile50allrigh.pdf.

Bailey, K.M.(2001). Observation in (Eds)Carter, R and Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Belbase, S. (2007). Research Paradigms Politics of Researchers. Available in http://www.iltaonline.com/newsletter/01-2005may/latedialog-lynch.htm Accessed on 22 May 2008.

Bitchener, J. (2004). The Relationship between the Negotiation of Meaning and Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study. LANGUAGE AWARENESS 13, (2), 2004.

Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Ally and Bacon, Inc.

Brock, C. (1986). The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, (1), 47-59.

Brown, G.D. & Edmondson, R.(1984). Asking Question. Wragg, E.C.(Eds.) Classroom Teaching Skills. Great Britain: Billing & Sons Limited, Worcester.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

(32)

100 Busching, B. and Slesinger, B. (1995). Authentic Questions: What do They Look

Like? Where do They Lead? Language Arts, 75, (5), 341- 351.

Cabrera, M.P. & Martinez, P.B. (2001). The Effects of Repetition, Comprehension Checks, and Gestures, on Primary School Children in EFL Situation. ELT Journal, 55, (3), 281-288.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in Classrooms: A sociolinguistic Perspective. Review of Educational Research, 62, (2), 157- 178.

Carter, M. and McCarthy, M. 2004). Talking, Creating: Interactional Language, Creativity, and Context. Applied Linguistics, 25, (1), 62-88.

Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (2001. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.

Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of Input: Topic Reinstatements and their Effects on L2 Learners’ Recognition an Recall. TESOL QUARTERLY, 17, (3), 437 – 458.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Languge Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from the Modern Language Journal, 1916-2000. The Modern Language Journal, 81, (i), 57-76.

Chavez, M. (2006). Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and teachers' self-perceive... International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, (1), 49-102.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (1), 1315–1346.

Chun-miao, X. (2007). A Study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching, 4, (4), 29-37.

Clavin, K.K. (2007). Non-Verbal Communication in the ESL Classroom. Available in http://kathleenclavin.org/files/non-verbal_communication5.pdf Clegg, A. (1987). Why Questions in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions,

Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

(33)

101 Clifton, J. (2006). Facilitator Talk. ELT Journal, 60, (2), 142-150.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. 4th Edition. London: Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane.

Commeyras, M. (1995). What Can We Learn from students’ questions? Theory Into Practice, 34, (2), 101-106.

Connole, H. et al. (1990). Issues and Methods in Research. Study Guide. Adelaide: South Australian College Advanced Education.

Danelson, K. (2008). The Art of Asking Questions: Two Classes That Changed My Teaching Life. English Journal, 6, (97), 75-78.

Darn, S. (2008). Asking Questions. Retrieved on March 28 2009 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/asking-questions

Dash, N. K. (2005). Research Paradigms in Education: Towards a Resolution. Journal of Indian Education, 19, (2), 1-6.

Day, R. R. (1984). Student Participation in The ESL Classroom or Some Imperfections in Practice. Language Learning, 34, (3), 69-98.

Dilon, J.T (1978). Using Question to Depress Student Thought. School Review, 50-61.

Dilon, J.T (1981). “To Question and Not To Question During Discussion”. Journal of Teacher Education, XXXII, (6), 15-20.

Dilon, J.T (1982). “Cognitive Correspondence Between Question/Statement and Response”. American Educational Research Journal Winter, 19, 94), 540-551.

Dillon, J.T. (1987). The Multidisciplinary World of Questioning. in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Ellis, R.(1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994a). The Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. et al. (1994b). “Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the

(34)

102 Ellis, R.(1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emanuelssone, et al. ( 2008). “The Price of Participation: Teacher Control Versus

Students Participation in Classroom Interaction”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, (2), 205-223.

Emilia, E. (2000). Research Method in Education (Hasil Pemikiran).Diktat Kuliah Mata Kuliah Qualitative Research. Universitas Pedidikan Indonesia: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris.

Eng Ho, D.G. (2005). “Why Do Teachers Ask the Questions TheyAsk?”, RELC Journal, 36, 297-310.

Enright, D.S. & McCloskey, M.L. (1985). Yes, Talking!: Organizing the Classroom to Promote Second Language Acquisition. TESOL QUARTERLY, 19, (3), 431-453.

Farmer, L.S.J. (2007). What is the Question? IFLA Journal, 33, (41).

Fitriani (2009). Pentingnya Guru Menguasai Keterampilan Mengajar. Jambi Express, Minggu, 24 Mei 2009. Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from

http://jambiekspres.co.id/new/index.php/guruku/2506-pentingnya-guru-mengusai-keterampilan-mengajar.

Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a Theory of Question Asking. Psychological Research, 43, 407-420.

Gabrielatos, C. (1997). A Question of Function. Abstract of 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Greece, 12-13 April 1997.

Gall, B. and Rhody (1987). Review of Research On Questioning Techniques in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Gall, M. (1970). The Use Question in Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, (5), 707-721.

Gall, M. et al.(1978). Effects of Questioning Techniques and Recitation on Student Learning .American Educational Research Journal, 15, (2), 175-199.

Garton, S. (2002). Learner Initiative in The Language Classroom. ELT Journal, 56, 47- 56.

(35)

103 Gebhard, G.J. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. USA:

The University of Michigan Press.

Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods Research Method Forum, 4 (summer 1999).

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic Materials and the Authenticity in Foreign Language Learning. Language Teaching, (40), 97-118.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf.

Goodboy, A.K. & Myers, S.A. (2008). The Effect of Confirmation on Student Communication and Learning Outcomes. Communication Education, 57, (2), 153-179.

Graesser, A. C. & Person, N. K. (1994). Question Asking during Tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Spring, 1994), pp. 104-137.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching, New Edition. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Third Edition Completely Revised and Updated. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Forth Edition.

UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61, (3), 193-201.

Hussain, N. (2003). Helping EFL/ESL Students by Asking Quality Questions. The Internet TESL Journal, IX, (10), October 2003.

Hussin, H. (2006). Dimensions of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom Practice in Malaysia. TESL-EJ. 10, (2).

(36)

104 Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and Production Process in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, (2), 168-196.

Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education limited.

Johnson, R. (1997). Question Techniques to Use in Teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, (8), 45-49.

King, A. (1990). Enhancing Peer Interaction and Learning in The Classroom Through Reciprocal Questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, (4), 664-687.

King, A. (1994). Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, (2), 338-368.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Great Britain: Pergamon Institute of English.

Krashen, S.D. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present and Future. RELC Journal, 39, 178.

Kruse, J. (2009). More than Questions? .Available in

http://educatech.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/more-than-questions/

Lang, R H. and Evans, N.D. (2006). Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effective Teaching. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lei, X. (2009). Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom. English language Teaching, 2 (1), 75 – 79.

Lincoln, Y.S & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

Long, H.M. (1987). The Experimental Classroom. ANNALS, AAPSS, 490, March 1987.

Long, H.M. (1981). Input, Interaction, and Second-Language Acquisition. Annals New York Academy of Science, 259-278.

Lörscher, W. (2003). Nonverbal Aspects of Teacher-Pupil Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. KD2 Web Proceedings, July, 2003.

(37)

105 Ma, Xiaoyan. (2008). The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes.

International Education Studies,1, (4).

Mackenzie, M and Knipe, S.(2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology Issues In Educational Research, 16, accessed on 22 May 2008.

Marke, N. (2002). Language in Development: Questions of Theory, Questions of Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 36, (3).

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology A Textbook for Teacher. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989a). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989b). Understanding Language Classrooms A Guide for Teacher-Initiated Action.London: Prentice Hall Group (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative Language Teaching: Making it Work. ELT Journal, 41, (2).

Ornstein, A.C. (1987). Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching. NASP Bulletin, 71; 71-79.

Ornstein, A.C. (1990). Strategies for Effective Teaching. Chicago: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.

Otero, J. & Graeser, A.C (2001). Elements of a Model of Question Asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, (2), 143-175.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007a). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (1), 36- 37.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007b). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (2), 32- 33.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007c) Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning Part III. Journal of Developmental Education, (31), (3), 34- 35.

Peacock (1997) The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51,(2), 144-156.

(38)

106 Pica, T. et al.(1987). The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL

QURTERLY, 21, (4).

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. and Linnell, J. (1996). Language

Learners’ Interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30(1): 59-84.

Pinter,A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poulos, A. and Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of Feedback : The Students’ Perspective. Assesement and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, (2), 143-154.

Sabeni, M. (2008). Keterampilan Bertanya dasar dan Lanjutan. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://beni64.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/keterampilan-bertanya-dasar-dan-lanjut/

Sadker and Sadker (1990). Questioning Skills in (Eds.) Cooper, J.M. (1990) Classroom Teaching Class, Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath Company.

Seedhose, P. (1996). Classroom Interaction: Possibilities and Impossibilities. ELT Journal 50; 16-24, 1996.

Shannon, F. (2005). Interactionist Theory In SLA. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From http://fredshannon.blogspot.com/2005/11/interactionist-theory-in-second.html

Shomoossi, N.(2004). The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction : A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Matrix, 4, (2).

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Sofa, P. (2008). Keterampilan Menjelaskan dan Bertanya. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://massofa.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/ketrampilan-menjelaskan-dan-bertanya/

Steensig and Drew (2008). Introduction: questioning and affiliation/ disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies, 10, (5).

Sugita, Y. (2006). The Impacts of Teacher’s Comment Types on students’ Revision. ELT Journal, 60, 34-41.

(39)

107 Suherdi, D. (2006). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach.

Bandung: UPI Press.

Suherdi, D. (2008). Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: UPI Press.

Suter, C. (2001). Exploring Teacher’s Questions and Feedback. Module One Assessment Task.

Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In (Eds.) Lantoolf (2000) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2007). The Output Hypothesis: Its history and Its Future. A seminar

handout. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From

http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf.

Tan, Zhi. (2007). Questioning in Chinese University EL Classroom. Regional Language Centre (RELC) Journal, 38, (1), 87- 102.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, Volume 3, Number 3, September, 1997. Retrieved on April 24, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html.

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

Thornbury, S. (1996). Teacher Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal, 50, 279-289. Tollefson, J. (1997). A System for Improving Teachers’ Questions. In Ed. Kral,

Thomas (1997) Teacher Development Making the Right Moves, Selected Articles from English Teaching Forum 1989- 1993.

Tsui, A. B.M (2001). Classroom Interaction in (Eds) Carter, R and Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. B.M. (1985). Analyzing Input and Interaction in Second Language Classrooms. RELC Journal 1985; 16; (8).

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of Negotiation on Language Learner’ Output. Language Learning, 47, (4), 589-636.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman Group UK Limited.

(40)

108 Varlander (2008). The Role of Students’ emotions in formal feedback situations.

Teaching in Higher Education, 13, (2), 145-156.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, (1), 3-23.

Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the Talk of the TESOL Classroom. ELT Journal 60, 133-141.

Wilen, W. (1987a). Effective Questions and Questioning: A Classroom Application, in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Wilen, W. (1987b). Improving Teachers’ Questions and Questioning: Research Inform Practice. in Ed. Wilen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Williamson (2006). Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library Trends, 55, (1), 19, Accessed on 22 May 2008.

Wilson, J. (1999). High and Low Achievers’ Classroom Interaction Patterns in an Upper Primary School. Paper presented at AARE Conference- Melbourne Australia 29th November – 2nd December 1999.

Winataputra, U. S. (2008). Keterampilan Dasar Mengajar. Accessed on May 25, 2009 from http://solselku.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/keterampilan-dasar-mengajar/

Wu, Kam-Yin (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisted. RELC Journal, (24), (22), 49-68. Accessed on May 22 2008.

Xiao-yan, MA (2006). Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. A Dissertation Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of M.A. in English Language and Literature.

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited Guests: The Influence of Teachers’ Roles and Pedagogies on the Positioning of English Language Learners in the Regular Classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45, (2), 495-522.

Zee, E. van & Minstrell (1997). Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, (2), 227-269.