A study on questioning in PBI micro teaching course at Sanata Dharma University

(1)

i

A STUDY ON QUESTIONING IN

PBI

MICRO TEACHING COURSE

AT SANATA DHARMA UNIVERISTY

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Gregorius Julian Cahyadi Student Number: 121214117

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA


(2)

ASarjana Pendidtkan Thesis on

A STUDY ON QUESTIONING INPmMICRO TEACHING COURSE

AT SANATA DHARMA I]NTVERSITY

By

Gregorius Juliau Cahyad i Stndent Nnmber: 12121"4117

1l


(3)

(4)

STAIEMENT OT' WOBI(:S ORIGINALITY

t honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work.,

or parts of the work of other peoplg oxeept those cited in the quotations and the reference6 as a scientific paper should.

Yograkarta, I I April 2017

The Sirriter

0!tM

Gregorius Julian Cahyadi

t272t4117


(5)

LEMBAR PER}TYATAA}I PERSETUJUAFI

PT]BLIKASI KARYA ILMIAII T'NTUK KEPENTINGAIY AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama

Nomor Mahasiswa

: Gregorius Julian Cahyadi : l2l2l41l7

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahrxm, saya memberikan keapda Perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yaflg berjudul:

A STUDY ON QITESTIOnm{G INrA/MTCRO TEACHING COURSE

AT SANATA DIIARMA UNTYERSITY

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk rnenyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,

mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta {iin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai

penulis.

Demikian pemyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: I I April 201 7

Gregorius Julian Cahyadi Yang menyatakan


(6)

vi ABSTRACT

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.

There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’ and Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.

The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of questioning used by students of micro teaching course. The highest frequency was remember level with 79 questions and the lowest was create level with 1 question. Keywords: Questioning, Levels of Questioning, Types of Questions.


(7)

vii ABSTRAK

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.

Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.

Penelitian ini menemuka n sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79 pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.


(8)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like thank The Almighty God for blessing my life. He gives me strength, chance, good people, patience, and health in order to assist me to finish my thesis.

My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Emanuel Sunarto, M.Hum., for his guidance, motivation, time, and patience. He kindly helped me by giving support and encouragement during thesis consultation. He had shown his quality as an advisor by routinely monitored, giving useful feedback and solutions.

I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved parents, Yulianus Gumpol and Cornelia Dewi Pramana, for their love, prayer, motivation, and patience. I also would like to thank my brothers and sisters, Bang Alfon, Mas Edo, Bagas, Nadia, Dea, Yeyes, and Agapitus for their support. They convinced me that I could finish my thesis well no matter what happened.

I thank to Julyan Adhitama, who helped me to proofread my thesis. Furthermore, I express my gratitude to the members of class D (Penguins), for being best friends during my study in PBI. They taught me a lot of meaningful things. My gratitude goes to members of Train8 (Thomas, Ajeng, Fira, Ave, and Regin) who helped me to lead them by giving motivation and suggestion so that I could my role and finish SPD class. I would not forget anyone who had given me assistance that I cannot mention one by one.


(9)

ix

TABLE OF CONTENS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES ... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Problems ... 4

C. Problem Limitation ... 4

D. Research Objectives ... 5

E. Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 8

A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Types of Questions ... 8

a. Procedural Questions ... 9

b. Convergent Questions ... 9

c. Divergent Questions ... 10

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities ... 10


(10)

x

b. Understand ... 13

c. Apply ... 14

d. Analyze ... 16

e. Evaluate ... 17

f. Create ... 17

B. Theoretical Framework ... 18

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20

A. Research Method ... 20

B. Research Setting ... 21

C. Research Participants ... 21

D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering techniques ... 21

1. Research Instruments ... 21

a) Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016 .. 21

b) Observation Table ... 22

2. Data Gathering Techniques ... 23

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 24

1. Data Reduction ... 24

2. Data Display ... 25

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification ... 25

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 27

A. Types of Question Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 27

1. Procedural Questions ... 28

2. Convergent Questions ... 29

3. Divergent Questions ... 30

B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 31

1. Remember ... 32

2. Understand ... 34

3. Apply ... 36


(11)

xi

5. Evaluate ... 38

6. Create ... 39

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 40

A. Conclusions ... 40

B. Recommendations ... 41

1. For Students of PBI Micro Teaching Course ... 42

2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course ... 42

3. For Future Researchers ... 42

REFERENCES ... 43


(12)

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions ... 22

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ... 23

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions ... 24

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questioning ... 25

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course ... 27


(13)

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of Participants’ Questions in Micro Teaching Course ...45 Appendix B: List of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course ...58


(14)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an introductory part. It presents the research background, research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A.Research Background

Teaching is a process of how to make students particularly experience a learning activity and motivate them to be good and useful people. In addition, teaching also gives big responsibilities to teachers in leading and guiding students. Therefore, teachers are determined to have certain good qualifications either in knowledge, attitude, or even a teaching technique. By having such qualifications, it is able to increase the quality of teaching learning process and give good impact to students’ development.

One of the qualifications should be mastered as a teacher is questioning. It is commonly used in a class activity. Gall (as cited in Richards and Lockhart, 1996) says “in some classrooms over half class time is taken up with question and answer exchanges.” Based on the statement, it shows that questioning plays a critical role during the teaching-learning activity and it indicates that is an interaction between a teacher and students. Additionally, a question also organizes the content of learning and has deep implications in the way that students assimilate the information that is presented and discussed in class (McComas and Rossier, n.d.). In 2014, Chafi and Elkhouzai define “questioning as fundamental part of the staple


(15)

diet of classroom interaction through which a variety of pedagogical and social actions are carried out.”

There is saying “question is knowledge.” It means that the human curiosity that comes from question will lead to knowledge. It seems simple but containing useful things particularly for students’ development. Kerry (2002) in his book says that “questioning transfers the emphasis in learning from the teacher to the student. The teacher enquires, probes, challenges; the student is required to think speculate, and contribute.” (p. 75). Thus, questioning is transfer knowledge from what teachers have to students by processing it. Teacher needs to deliver critical questions to encourage students thinking critically to find the answer. For instance, high order questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and provide their own opinion will help them to develop the way of thinking. However, questions are given should notice what course is being taught because every subject has their own needs. For instance, vocabulary class may determine students’ memorization more than speaking class.

The use of effective questions can lead students to become more curious and active (Fusco, 2012). By possessing questioning skills, teachers immediately notice a positive difference in their students. A smoother flow of interactions and more dynamic relationships in the classroom even become conscious fewer discipline problems (Pagliaro, 2011). Furthermore, a questioning activity shows that there is a dynamic interaction between a teacher to students and students to students. By having a well interaction, a teacher is able to check students’ understanding on certain topics and students are able to perform their understanding


(16)

when given questions. Considering how important questioning and its questions is, experts believe that it is a tool that teachers have for helping students to build understanding (Wiseman and Hunt, 2008). The researcher is in line with the experts’ argument that asking questions gives positive impact to students’ development and make a teacher easier to adapt with the class situation. In order to have qualified teachers in the future, the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) provides students with a course to facilitate what teacher candidates’ need. The course is famously called Micro Teaching. The ELESP is a department that is affiliated with the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education. This course is given in accordance with the provision of the ELESP that is being a study program that prepares and produces students to become English teachers who are professional, intellectual, humanistic, dignified, and acquiring the characteristic as educators.

The researcher observes that the students of Micro Teaching course who do teaching simulation often ask some questions either in the pre-activity, main activity, or closing activity. It is natural that questioning is one of the most familiar forms of teacher talk in classrooms (Chafi and Elkhouzai, 2014). In addition, the researcher also sees that the students of Micro Teaching might not realize when asking questions. As teacher candidates, Micro Teaching students need to raise their awareness of importance of asking questions’ purposes. The students should know what they are looking for from proposing their questions. Considering the situation in Micro Teaching course, the researcher proposes a research to study about


(17)

questionings. Therefore, this research is expected to enrich knowledge particularly for teacher candidates in having a good questioning skill.

B. Research Problems

Based on the research background above, there are two research problems formulated in this study.

1. What types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

2. What levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

C. Problem Limitation

The study focuses on the analysis of questions by students when they have teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching course. Specifically, the focus is questions in a verbal way produced during the simulation. The researcher employs the theory of types of questions suggested by Richards and Lockhart (1996) to analyze the first research problem which is types of questions. For the second research problem, the researcher uses the theory of Anderson, et al. (2001) in Bloom’s Taxonomy (the revised version)


(18)

D. Research Objectives

Based on the research problems, the objectives of this study are as follows. 1. To find out the types of questions asked by students’ teaching practice in Micro

Teaching class D batch 2013

2. To analyze the levels of questioning used by students’ teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013

E. Research Benefits

By conducting this study, it is expected to give benefits especially in English Language Teaching.

1. Micro Teaching Students

This study is able to enrich students’ knowledge on levels and types of questions. It also helps students to reflect their questioning skills so that in the future they are able to improve their performances and know how to ask questions properly.

2. Micro Teaching Lecturers

Lecturers are expected to guide and take responsibility on students’ teaching skills. Therefore, this study provides information needed for lecturers in giving suggestion and feedback to students during the teaching practice especially levels and types of questions.


(19)

3. The ELESP Sanata Dharma University

The finding of this study is expected to raise awareness of English Department on the issue of questioning especially in Micro Teaching course. In addition, it helps the ELESP to make a good teaching material about questioning. 4. Future Researchers

Future researchers are expected to conduct more aspects of questionings used in Micro Teaching course. In addition, future researchers may investigate levels and types of questions based on subjects or courses taught in Micro Teaching course, school, and campus particularly the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.

F. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding and to give better understanding of some terms, the researcher provides their definitions.

1. Questioning

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions (“Questioning”). Questioning is fundamental to good teaching and learning (Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.1). In addition, it is one of the skills and techniques in teaching. By questioning, it helps students to review, check on comprehension, stimulate critical thinking and control classroom activities (Blosser, 1991).

2. Micro Teaching

Singh and Sharma (2004) state that “microteaching is a training course, which requires pupil teachers to teach a single concept using specific teaching skills


(20)

to a small number of pupils in a short duration of time.” In this case, Micro Teaching is a course offered in the sixth semester of the ELESP Sanata Dharma University. This course provides teaching practice simulation with allocated time for students to practice and to master teaching skills before experiencing Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL) in junior or senior high schools.

3. Levels of Questioning

Levels of questioning is levels of asking questions in context of classroom situation. The levels relate to the cognitive ability in the revised theory of Bloom’s Taxonomy, namely: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. In Indonesia curriculum, those levels are well known as C1 (cognitive 1), C2, C3 until C6 which are used by teachers to plan their questions. Remember, understand, and analyze are categorized as the low levels. Meanwhile, analyze, evaluate, and create are categorized as the high levels.


(21)

8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A.Theoretical Description

In this section, the researcher provides relevant theories and reviews similar research studies. Thus, the researcher employs the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to examine the levels of questioning and uses the theory of types of questions. 1. Types of Questions

There are several types of question suggested by experts. In this study, the researcher employs theory suggested by Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). Based on the theory, there are three types of questions, namely procedural, convergent, and divergent. According to Qashoa (2013), the use of such classifications is able to engage students’ participation and make them to take part in classroom interaction. He also argues that the types are better used in heterogeneous class since it makes students feel more successful and challenged (p.54). However, the researcher elaborates the theories with some others in order to support the study.

Sukur (2016), in her research about a teacher’s question in micro teaching class, finds that the most type of question used by students in their teaching practice simulation is a convergent question. In her cases, it is found when the teacher leads the students to the topic of learning and function as introductory questions. The second place is procedural questions. This type is mostly found in an opening class


(22)

activity and sometimes used for asking willingness. Meanwhile, the lowest type is divergent questions.

a. Procedural Questions

Procedural questions have a relation with classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.186). It means that this question has a function as opposed to the content of learning. As an illustration, the following questions such as how are you? or have you done, class? contain different meanings and they have their own purpose as complement of questions relate to mastering content of a lesson. The first question is used in pre-activity. The intention of the question is to ask about students’ condition and make them be ready to follow activity. In the second question, the teacher asks for students’ confirmation in doing exercises or discussions. Based on the example above shows that procedural questions have a different function from questions designed to help students master the content of a lesson (Richards and Lockhart, 1996).

b. Convergent Questions

The second type is a convergent question. In short, Gallagher and Aschner (as cited in Wilen, 1987) define convergent as a question that tends to demand a students’ responses along a single direction which requires a single correct or best answer. Wilen (1987) specifically adds that the form of convergent questions is close-ended but more demanding than factual question (p.71). The explanation provided by Richards and Lockhart (1996) say that convergent questions can be known from several conditions. The first is focusing on a central theme. Next, it needs a response in a short answer and a short statement such as “yes” or “no”.


(23)

Then, it does not need high order thinking. Furthermore, convergent questions focus on the recall of previously presented information. The additional function of convergent questions is to introduce the topic before the teacher begins lesson and explains the content of learning.

c. Divergent Questions

The last is a divergent question. Wilen (1987) states that this question is less predictable than the convergent question. The teacher may not expect and know the response or answer given by students. Richards and Lockhart (1996) add that divergent questions do not seek short answers and responses and they require high-level thinking. Students should be able to provide their own information and to view a topic from new perspectives. The examples of divergent questions are how have computers had an economic impact on society? and how would business today function without computers? The teacher can provide divergent questions after asking convergent questions (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187)

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions (“Questioning”). In addition, people propose questioning in order to find out answers and more information. In the context of classroom situation, questioning is an activity which involves interaction between a teacher to students and students to students. The questioning activity may happen when a teacher checks students’ understanding, tests students’ knowledge, or because of students’ curiosity. It requires questions and answers. Sometimes, questioning does not seek for answer.


(24)

Levels of questioning vary from an expert to another. This study employs levels of questioning based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Krathwohl (2001) says that the taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction. It means that the taxonomy provides an important framework focusing on higher order thinking. By providing it, this taxonomy can assist teachers in designing performance task, crafting questions, and giving feedback to students’ work.

Anderson et al. (2001) in their taxonomy divide the six categories of the cognitive process dimension (p.31). They are remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Those levels are often used in the objective of learning as well-known as C1 until C6 in Indonesia curriculum

a. Remember

Anderson, et al. (2001) say that remember is a process to retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term memory. They add the scope of this level.

Remember knowledge is essential for meaningful learning and problem solving as that knowledge is used in more complex tasks. For example, knowledge of the correct spelling of common English words appropriate to a given grade level is necessary if the student is to master writing an essay (p.66).

Based on the explanation above, remember knowledge can be a meaningful learning if the assignments or tasks integrated with comprehensive knowledge and not isolated from their context. In addition, Price and Nelson (2010) call this level as the lowest level of cognitive domains (p.22). In fact, the process that is needed by students in answering remember questions is recalling knowledge and information.


(25)

In this level, there are two processes of cognitive: recognizing and recalling. Anderson et al. (2001) says that recognizing involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory in order to compare it with presented information. They explain that in recognizing, the students recall for a piece of information that is identical to the presented information. Then, they determine whether the information matches with previously learned knowledge or not. Recognizing is used when students are able to connect their memories with what they have experienced or known before. As an illustration, Reeves (2011) gives a clear example of recognizing. The question “which of these numbers is one thousand?” requires student to recognize the correct answer in one possibility (p. 201).

Actually, recalling has the same procedure as well as recognizing. Anderson et al. (2001) specifically define its cognitive process as follows.

Recalling involves retrieving relevant from-long term memory when given a prompt to do so and it is usually in form of question. In recalling, students search long-term memory for a piece information and brings that piece of information to working memory where it can be processed. For instance, in literature, an objective could be to recall the poets who wrote various poems. A corresponding test question is “Who wrote The Charge of the Light

Brigade?” (p.69).

From the explanation above, it can be said that there is a time limit for students finding the poets who wrote the poems based on previously learned knowledge. After obtaining the information needed, students have to quickly answer it. An alternative for this cognitive process is retrieving. The following question “what is this number?” or “what are the characteristics of mammals?” may be quiet challenging for students since they need to recollect when there is no choice for answer (Reeves, 2011, p.201).


(26)

b. Understand

Students are said understand when they are able to construct meaning from instructional languages, including oral written, and graphic communications. Besides, students understand when they build connections between the new knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). In this category, there are six cognitive processes like interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, and comparing.

Interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one representational form to another. It may involve converting words to words, pictures to words, words to pictures, numbers to words, words to numbers, and the like. Translating, paraphrasing, representing, and clarifying are alternative terms for interpreting (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). Exemplifying according to Anderson, et al. (2001) occurs when a student gives a specific example or an instance of a general concept or principle and it involves identifying the defining features of the general concept or principle. For instance, a teacher gives four kind of texts (only one of which is a descriptive text) and asks students to name the text that is descriptive.

The third cognitive process is classifying. It begins with a specific instance and requires the students to find a general concept or principle. Classifying involves detecting relevant features that “fit” both the specific instance and the concept (Anderson et al, 2001. p.72). The situation of this process is like a teacher displays a video of conversation and then indicates the greeting. Next level is summarizing. Anderson et al. (2001) state that it happens when a student suggests a single


(27)

statement that represents presented information a general theme. Alternative terms of summarizing are generalizing and abstracting.

The fifth is inferring. It occurs when a student is able to abstract a concept or principle that accounts for a set example by encoding the relevant features of each instance. Mayer (2002) says that inferring involves drawing a logical conclusion from presented information. For instance, when learning Spanish as a second language, the objective may be “Students will be able to infer grammatical principles from examples.” Then, to assess the objective, students are given article noun pairs “la casa, el muchacho, la senorita, el pero.” What they need to do is formulating a principle when to use the article la and el (p.229)

Comparing usually involves making comparisons among instances within the context of the entire set (Anderson et al. 2001). Furthermore, they say that detecting things such as similarities and differences between two or more objects are the part of comparing the cognitive process. The alternative terms for this cognitive process are contrasted, mapping, or matching.

According to Anderson et al. (2001), explaining cognitive process happens when a student is able to construct and use a cause-and-effect model of a system. Reeves (2011) adds when people understand, they are able to express information or concepts in their own words or explain a meaning of something to a new situation and idea (p.202).

c. Apply

In applying, it contains procedures to perform exercises or solve problems (Anderson et al, 2001). Therefore, this level has a correlation with procedural


(28)

knowledge. In addition, it requires students to know (remember) and then understand either knowledge or information (Reeves, 2011). When students are given apply questions, they need to implement certain concepts or knowledge in finding answers and solutions.

There are two cognitive processes in the applying level. They are executing and implementing. Mayer (2002) says that executing requires students to apply a procedure to a familiar task. In this type, students need to make a choice about what steps are used and they are determined to modify it if the chosen procedure goes wrong. To illustrate the situation, here is the example given by Mayer.

A sample objective in elementary level mathematics is learn to divide one whole number by another, both with multiple digits. Then, in order to assess the objective teacher gives worksheet to students containing 15 whole number division exercises and ask them to find the quotients (p.229). The second cognitive process of apply is implementing. According to Mayer (2002), implementing occurs when a student applies one or more procedures to an unfamiliar task. Anderson et al. (2001) argues that since students need selection, they must possess an understanding of the type of problem encountered as well as the range of available procedures. It means that students need to know and understand the problem then solve the problem using the selected procedures. Implementing has correlation with understand and create levels. Here is the sample objectives and corresponding assessments.

A corresponding assessment is to present students with a problem in which they must choose the most economical financing package for a new car. In the natural sciences, a sample objective could be to learn to use the most effective, efficient, and affordable method of conducting a research study to address a specific research questions (Anderson et al, 2001, p. 79).


(29)

d. Analyze

Anderson et al. (2001) says that analyze involves breaking a material into its constituent parts and determining how the parts are related to each other and to an overall structure. Most of courses insist students to have a good analyze ability. Therefore, this category is often used in teaching-learning activity and students are hoped to be able to differentiate facts and opinions then make conclusions for supportive information. In 2002, Mayer adds the objective of analyze learning is to determine relevant or important pieces of a message (differentiating), the ways in which pieces of a message are configured (organizing), and the underlying purpose of the message (attributing).

Differentiating involves distinguishing the parts of a whole structure in terms of their relevance or importance (Anderson et al. 2001). It means that differentiating requires students to determine relevance or essential things with the overall structure. Mayer (2002) adds that this cognitive process occurs when students discriminate relevant from irrelevant parts or important from unimportant parts of presented materials. For instance, in differentiating apples and oranges, the relevant thing in the context of fruit is internal seeds, not colors or even shapes. Discriminating, selecting, distinguishing, and focusing are alternative terms for differentiating.

Mayer (2002) states that organizing involves determining how elements fit or function within a structure. In this cognitive process, students need to identify and recognize elements to form solid structure within which elements that fit. The third is attributing. It happens when a student is able to ascertain the point of view,


(30)

biases, values, or intention underlying communications (Anderson et al. 2001. p.82). They add that attributing involves a process of deconstruction, in which students determine the intentions of the author of the presented material.

e. Evaluate

Evaluate is defined as making judgments based on criteria and standards (Mayer, 2002). There are a few criteria used in evaluating such as quality, effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency and the use of those criteria are determined by students or other factors. Anderson et al. (2001) state that not all judgments are evaluative. Therefore, evaluating focuses on the criteria related to effectiveness of a result then it is compared with planning and procedures which are being used. The cognitive processes of this category are checking and critiquing.

In 2002, Mayer states that checking happens when students detect inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product, determines whether those things has internal consistency as it is being implemented (p.230). Anderson et al. (2001) find that when checking is combined with planning and implementing, it involves determining how well the plan is working. This cognitive process is usually called as testing, detecting, monitoring, and coordinating. The second is critiquing. Mayer (2002) argues that it requires students to find inconsistencies among products, detect internal consistency, and even make judgment. When making critique, students have to use external criteria and judge it.

f. Create

According to Anderson et al. (2001), create involves putting elements together to form a coherent whole. The objective is to make students produce a new


(31)

product by organizing several elements into a different pattern or structure. Similarly, Mayer (2002) says that students are determined to produce an original product. Creating is connected with previously learned knowledge. There are three cognitive processes in this category: generating, planning, and producing. The process of generating represents the problem and arriving at alternatives or hypotheses that meet certain criteria (Anderson, et al, 2001, p.68). Besides convergent thinking, Mayer (2002) adds that generating also involves divergent thinking and forms the core of what can be called creative thinking. It means that create provides opportunities for students to assemble parts of knowledge into a whole using creative thinking and problem solving.

The second is planning. It involves devising a solution method that meets a problem’s criteria, that is developing a plan for solving the problem (Anderson et al. 2001). In 2002, Mayer adds that in planning, students may establish a sub goal, for instance breaking a task into subtasks to be performed when solving the problem. The last is producing. Here, it carries out a plan for solving a given problem that meets certain specification. It is not only producing but inventing a product. He says that students are given a functional description of a goal and must create a product that satisfies the description. The situation of this cognitive process is like a teacher asks students to create or make a recount text based on their experiences.

B. Theoretical Framework

Questioning becomes one of familiar forms in a teaching-learning activity (Chafi and Elkhouzai, 2014) and it has been widely used in classrooms. This form


(32)

requires teachers to have a good questioning skill in order to support the teaching-learning activity and develop students’ critical thinking. Before becoming teachers in regularly school, teacher candidates need to be trained particularly their questioning skill in Micro Teaching course as it plays an important role either for them or students.

Addressing the first research problem about types of questions, the researcher employs the theory of Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). The use of the theory is intended to identify what types of questions asked by the students of Micro Teaching course. Based on the theory, there are three levels of questions, namely, procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions.

Addressing the second research problem about levels of questioning, the researcher employs the theory of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by Anderson et al. (2001). The theory talks about six levels of cognitive abilities, namely remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. This theory is used to assist the researcher to identify what levels of questioning used by students in PBI Micro Teaching course.


(33)

20

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the discussion about the method employed in this research. The detailed discussion includes the research method, research setting, research participants, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis technique.

A. Research Method

In conducting this study, the researcher implemented qualitative research. Creswell (2014) states that qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to social or human problem. In addition, qualitative research focuses on reports of experience or on data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically (Hancock, Ockleford, and Windridge, 2009, p.6). The purpose of qualitative research is to give total picture of the study in a detailed description so that readers have better understanding on the phenomenon (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh, 2010). The researcher employed qualitative research to understand and describe a phenomenon on students of micro teaching questioning in their teaching practice.

This study specifically belonged to content analysis. “Content analysis is defined as a tool to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts” (Writing@CSU, 2004). Similarly, Rose, Spinks, and Canhoto (2015) mention that content analysis can be applied to all kinds of written text such as speeches, letters, or articles as well as texts in form of videos, pictures, or films.


(34)

The data were collected from the video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The content that was analyzed is questioning part and its questions. It was transcribed into the written form to assist the researcher in identifying levels of questioning and types of questions.

B. Research Setting

This research was conducted in PBI Micro Teaching class D Batch 2013 at Sanata Dharma University. There were 14 participants and each participant was given one section and 25 minutes allocated time to have teaching practice.

C. Research Participants

The participants who were involved in this research were 14 students of Micro Teaching class D batch 2013. They were in sixth semester of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.

D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques. 1. Research Instruments

In order to gather the data and answer the research problems, the researcher used two instruments, namely video recording and observation table.

a. Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016

According to Smith (as cited in Bowman, 1994), the use of mechanical recording devices usually gives greater flexibility than observation done by hand. By using video, the researcher might have observation and research anywhere and anytime. In 2012, Jewitt says that a video can be used in a number of ways for research including participatory video, videography, the use of existing video data, and video based on fieldwork. In this study, the data which were used were in form


(35)

of videos. The videos were recorded during the teaching practice section based on time allocation. The duration of teaching practice simulation for each participant was maximum 25 minutes. Every participant taught different topic for levels of junior and senior high schools and it was adapted based on curriculum 2006 and 2013. The researcher did the observation and note typing from the video of teaching simulation to collect the data. Then, the collected data which were in form of utterances or questions were analyzed using several techniques.

b. Observation Table

In order to support collected the data, the researcher used an instrument as tool named observation table. This observation table was functioned to classify the collected data. In gathering data for the research problems, the researcher used observation table as follows.

Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions

Participant Number of Case

Form of

Questions Time Context

Types of Questions PC CV DV P1

Notes:

PC: Procedural Questions CV: Convergent Questions DV: Divergent Questions

The table above shows the three types of questions. The column from participant until context has the same function as shown in Table 3.1. Meanwhile, for the right side of the table, it indicates types of questions used by students of Micro Teaching. These columns are where the researcher puts check marks based on its types.


(36)

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning Remember

Participant Number of Case Questions Time Context P1

The table above shows how the data are classified into each category of level. The top row of the table represents the levels of questioning. Every level is placed in a separated table. The left side of the table marks every participant. The columns of form of questions and time are used to record what participants asked and when it happened in minutes and seconds. There is a column of number of case. Its function is to give a call number for every question so that readers are easy to find examples of levels of questioning. The context column is used to explain the situation and purpose when the participants proposed questioning.

2. Data Gathering Techniques

The main source of this study is video recordings of students’ teaching practice in Micro Teaching course. The videos were collected from Micro Teaching Laboratory by contacting its staff. The researcher randomly chose the videos and did not know the participants personally. Then, the researcher watched the videos and transcribed them into written questionings. The videos were played by using VLC media player. In playing the videos, the researcher used the observation table to obtain the data as shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. The tables mainly consisted of columns of levels of questioning and types of questions as the matters of this study. The columns of the tables were filled by words, sentences, and check marks.


(37)

In addition, the researcher also took notes if there were any levels and types besides the observation table.

E. Data Analysis Techniques

This section presents how the data were analyzed. In this study, the researcher used qualitative data analysis as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) to analyze the data. There are three steps in analyzing, namely, data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification.

1. Data Reduction

Miles and Huberman (1994) state that data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, and transforming the data based on field notes or transcriptions (p.10). In this step, the researcher selected the relevant data and listed question forms from the videos. Then, the collected data were classified based on their levels and types. After collecting and classifying the data, the researcher recorded them using a table. For the first problem, the form of the table is as following.

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions

No Types of Questions Number of Questions Percentage 1 Procedural questions

2 Convergent questions 3 Divergent questions


(38)

Table 3.3 aimed to help the researcher analyzing the data of levels of questioning. The table recorded the number of every type in form of number and percentage.

For the second research problem, the researcher used Table 3.4 to record and analyzed the data. The table had the same function as Table 3.3. Specifically, it was used to record the number of every types of question.

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questionings

No Levels of Questioning Number Percentage 1 Remember

2 Understand

3 Apply

4 Analyze 5 Evaluate 6 Create

2. Data Display

The second step was data display. A display is an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p.11). At this stage, the researcher provided how the result of data was displayed. The researcher used a form of text to display the data. Specifically, the text was used for explanation was narrative text.

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification

In this section, the researcher drew conclusion based on the result of study. When making the conclusion, it needs the process of verification. The researcher


(39)

did verification through the existing field, using further data collection, and reviewing among colleagues. However, the conclusion was verified during research and involved the researcher’s interpretation.


(40)

27

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the researcher presents the results and discussion of the data to answer the research questions as stated in chapter I. There are (1) what types of questions Micro Teaching students occur when performing teaching simulation and (2) what levels of questioning are asked by students of Micro Teaching in their teaching practice simulation.

A. Types of Questions found in Micro Teaching Course

In this part, the researcher presents the data of the second research problem. There are 262 questions asked by the participants. Based on the findings, the researcher finds that there are three types of questions during the teaching practice simulation. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions. The details of the findings are showed in the table as follows.

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course

The table above indicates that all types of questions occur during students’ performance. Besides, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ capacity in asking questions. The total number of questions relate to the types of questions are 262.

No Types of Question Number Percentage

1 Procedural Questions 123 47 %

2 Convergent Questions 118 45 %


(41)

1. Procedural Questions

Richard and Lockhart (1996) state that procedural questions only relate to classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management. It means that this type does not have any relation with the content of learning (p.186).

Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows that procedural is the number one type of question used in the teaching practice simulation. Most of the participants state this question to open the class at the beginning. Here are some examples of procedural.

[145] How are you today? [297] How was your holiday?

For case [145], most of the participants state the question to open the class and only few say [297] because the schedule when having teaching practice is different. Case [145] is classified as a classroom procedure and routine so that it is a part of procedural question. The participant uses the question to check students’ condition and make sure if they are ready to join the class. Case [297] is also stated to open the class. It is like a chit-chat or informal conversation in order to attract students’ attention.

Procedural questions can be used when the participant asks for students’ willingness such as the following cases.

[163] Can anyone help me? [208] Mario, can you read?

[213] Anyone who want to lead the prayer?

Several participants conduct those questions to ask for students’ help doing something such as reading, leading praying, answering, and the like. Such questions


(42)

are grouped as classroom procedures and routines and have no relation with the topic of the day.

Another function of procedural questions is asking for students’ confirmation. It is delivered after the participant has finished explaining the main topic, giving instructions or commands, and checking assignments. Here are the following examples.

[209] Is it understood or not? [235] Have you finished, guys? [257] Anyone get this sheet? 2. Convergent Questions

This type seeks for similar students’ responses and focuses on a central theme (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p. 186). Besides, convergent questions require short answers and statements so that they do not need high level of thinking. Based on the Table 4.2, 45% type of question belongs to convergent.

Before starting the lesson, some participants propose questions to lead the students to the topic. They ask various convergent questions such as the following cases.

[146] What do you do before the class?

[218] Did you know how to make your breakfast or your indomie maybe? Question [146] is used as an introductory part of the topic being taught. The participant states the question related to the lesson and it is daily activities. This question requires student to recall a specific moment of their habit before joining the class. Therefore, case [146] is categorized as a convergent question. Case [218] has the same function as [146] but with the different situation. In case [218], the topic that is being taught is a procedure text. In the beginning, the participant asks


(43)

students’ favorite food. Then, the participant chooses one of students to explain the steps of making his breakfast, in this case is indomie. The researcher sees the both case [146] and [218] may engage students’ participation in the teaching-learning activity.

The data findings show that convergent questions are also stated in the end of the class. Most of the participants restate questions that are delivered in the beginning of the lesson. The function of these questions is to review materials that have been learned. Here are the following questions.

[292] What have we learned today? [405] What is the generic structure?

In case [292], the participant states the question to make a conclusion of the lesson. Then, students respond by giving an answer about the topic of the day. For instance, if in the beginning the participant says the class would learn a report text, students give the same words. The same case happens to [405]. In the beginning, the participant provides information about the generic structure of a text. Then, in the end, the participant proposes the same question to review and recall students’ knowledge on the materials. Therefore, the functions of questions [292] and [405] are to review the lesson and make a conclusion by recalling previously learned knowledge.

3. Divergent Questions

Divergent questions require students to provide their own information and need a higher level of thinking. This type does not seek a short response and recall previously learned knowledge (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187). Table 4.2 shows 8% belongs to divergent questions and it is the lowest frequency than two


(44)

others. This finding has the same result as Gallagher and Aschner’s (as cited in Wilen, 1987) which find that divergent questions are seldom used by classroom teachers (p.15).

The finding is also supported by Sukur (2016) which states that divergent questions are rarely employed in Micro teaching course. However, the researcher finds some divergent questions in the following examples.

[150] From the video, what question that you can ask?

[183] What do you think about the moment that always update in the news? Case [150] is categorized as a divergent question since the question is asked by students is less predictable. The participant states the question to explore students’ ideas about the video and determine them to create a product (question). In this situation, there are no wrong answers because all responses are acceptable. In case [183], the participant gives an open-ended question. It means that student can present any answer and the participant may not expect the responses given. However, case [150] and [183] do not seek single answer and short response but look for a variety of possible answers that can make longer discussion about news. B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course

In this section, the researcher presents the findings of the first research problem. Based on the data, the researcher finds that all six levels of questioning are employed by students of Micro Teaching. The details of the findings are showed in the table as follows.


(45)

Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course Levels of Questioning Number Percentage

Create 1 0.6%

Evaluate 7 4.9%

Analyze 12 8.3%

Apply 11 7.7%

Understand 34 23.6%

Remember 79 54.9%

The table indicates that all levels of questioning occur during the students’ performance. In addition, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ teaching capacity in asking questions. The total number of levels of questioning employed by the students are 144. Remember is the most frequently applied in Micro Teaching class and create has the least number compared with the others. The detailed description and explanation of the data findings are discussed in the following sections. 1. Remember

Remember involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory (Mayer, 2002, p.228). Students will identify and match questions with presented information when they are given things that are related to previously learned knowledge (Anderson et al. 2001). Based on the findings, most participants deliver the remember question in opening and closing the class. Here are some examples of the cases.

[39] : Can you mention the phrases or words that are usually used? [65] : How would you say?


(46)

Case [39] is asked when the participant opened the class and the question is categorized as an introductory part. The participant previously asked students’ experiences on receiving and making invitation card. Several students have the situation and the participant instructs them to mention phrases or words used in the card based on their experiences.

For case [65], it is expressed after the participant asked a specific moment about greeting and farewell. Several students experienced such situation and they are asked to give some examples on how to say something in greeting and farewell.

Remember questions can also be differentiated from the context or situation. To give an illustration, here are the examples.

[24] : Which one is transition words?

[51] : What is language features of recount text? [78] : What is the generic structure?

Basically, those questions do not belong to level of remember. However, if readers see from time and situation where those are delivered, they are. The situation for the first sentence is when the teacher has just explained about transition words. In the explanation, the teacher gives some examples of transition words. Then, students are given a text and asked to mention the transition words. It means that the students retrieved relevant knowledge from a long-term memory, in this case was the transition words, then compare and match it with the presented information.

For case [51] and [78], the teacher places them at the end of the class. Actually, those sentences have been delivered in the main activity and in this


(47)

situation, the teacher restates it in order to review the topic and recall the knowledge.

The researcher sees that remember level becomes the highest frequency because Micro Teaching students have the tendency to restate questions. For instance, a teacher asks the purpose and the generic structure of a text in the beginning of the class. Then, he/she proposes the same questions in the end of class activity to make lesson review. In addition, Micro Teaching students often ask questions relate to experiences in the past so that students need to retrieve their memory.

2. Understand

When students are able to build connection between the new knowledge and theirs, they are said understand (Anderson, et al. 2001). This level has six cognitive processes. In this case, the researcher finds 5 types of understand occurring in the teaching practice. They are interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, comparing, and explaining.

[87] : What have you learned from video?

Case [87] belongs to interpreting. Mayer (2002) states that interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one form representation to another such as words to words, pictures to words, and the like (p.228). The researcher sees that the participant uses a video in order to stimulate the students’ thinking. It is a kind of warming up before going to the main activity. By asking the question, the students might state opinions using their own words.


(48)

Case [103] is expressed after the participant has explained the concepts or principles of the topic. In order to check the students’ understanding, the participant asks the question and hoped the students can give some examples. Thus, this case belongs to exemplifying.

[112] : Which one is the title?

In case [112], the participant and students are analyzing a text. The participant has explained the generic structure of a text and gives an example. The researcher sees that the aim of this question is to make the students are able to determine and categorize something, in this case is the title. Therefore, case [112] is classified as exemplifying.

[111] : Do you know what the difference between report text and descriptive text is?

Case [111] above is classified as comparing cognitive process since the question intends to contrast differences between two texts. Several things can be compared from those texts such as meaning, purpose, language features, generic structure, and the like. The question is delivered in the beginning of the activity when the participant talks the main topic.

[94] : So, do you know how to make application letter?

Case [94] is expressed as an introductory part. The participant asks the chosen student to explain steps or process of making application letter. This question is given to students who have ever applied for jobs (by condition) because they know, understand, and have experience. Then, the chosen student is asked to explain it to the other students.


(49)

3. Apply

Reeves (2011), says applying knowledge requires students’ memorization and understanding. Further, an application level refers to an outcome where students use the new information they have learned (Price and Nelson, 2010). In this level, the researcher finds two types of application levels, executing and implementing. Here are the examples of executing.

[121] : Inggit, may I borrow your book? [122] : Tita, can I borrow your paper?

In case [121] and [122], the participant gives direct questions to two students after explaining and giving examples of the topic. Here, the two students face the same situation as the different substance in which the first case uses may and the second one uses can. The participant proposes the questions in order to see how far the students are applying acquired knowledge. Fortunately, the students can give the right response.

[119] : If your teacher is your father, and you talking with him at home, what would you say?

In this case, the participant raises the level of question into difficult one. For some students, it might not be familiar situation to them. The substance of case [119] gives the right response based on the situation by applying previously learned knowledge. The researcher sees that such a question may need a higher level of understanding because students face complicated situation. Thus, they are determined to recognize patterns of transferring to situations that are new.


(50)

4. Analyze

Analyze level gives students to learn more of the nature of something by distinguishing its components and figuring out how those relate to each other (Reeves, 2011). Additionally, the outcome of this level requires that students understand both the content and the structural form of the material (Price and Nelson, 2010). Table 4.1 presents 6,7% of the questions which belong to this category.

There is one of three types found. It is organizing. Organizing process is also called as structuring. Structuring refers to analyzing the organizational structure of a work. The following cases are the examples.

[129] What is the text structure of this thing?

[133] Can you identify what is the generic structure of this?

In cases [128] and [133], the participant uses the questions to ask students analyze and identify the structure. Those questions are stated after the participant distributes sheets containing a recount text. Based on the explanation in the beginning of the class, the students determine the elements or parts of generic structure of recount text.

Another type of analyze question is found when the participant asks students to determine a kind of text by stating the following question.

[132] What kind of text this is?

The participant states the question as part of topic that would be learned in the class. The researcher analyzes that question [132] requires students’ ability to find evidence, parts, or elements that relate each other in order to support


(51)

generalization. In this context, the students should be able to categorize texts by identifying things such as language features, generic structure, and their function. 5. Evaluate

In brief, evaluate involves making judgments based on criteria and standards (Mayer, 2002). In addition, people must have knowledge of what is being judged as well as knowledge of the judgment criteria (Reeves, 2011). This level of questions 4,9% occurs during teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching. It means there are 7 evaluative questions asked by several participants. Here are the examples.

[137] Is it informal or formal? Why?

[140] Why you can say that it is the orientation? [142] Can you explain why?

If readers take a look at the data findings, most of the participants stated evaluative questions using “why”. They use [137] to ask the students give answers and their reasons. This question practices the students to present and defend opinion by making judgments about the answers based on a set of criteria. The criteria here are things, situation and even principles which are established and categorized as informal and formal. Case [140] and [142] are also classified as evaluative questions because they demand the students’ opinions. In this case, students are determined to defend and give reasonable opinions toward their answers. By stating such questions, it may help the students to develop critical thinking in presenting and defending opinions based on certain criteria.


(52)

6. Create

The last level of questioning found in teaching practice simulation is create. This is the lowest frequency with 0,6% or in the number of 1 question. Creative questions form a coherent whole by putting elements together (Anderson et al. 2001). In this level, the students are determined to have and produce original products. It can be seen from the following questions.

[144] What question can you ask from the video?

In this situation, a product refers to question that is made by students. Before playing a video, the participant asks students to make questions and present them to class. Only several students could understand and followed the instruction. It portrays that how difficult is to make questions especially the essential or critical ones. This level of question requires the students to compile information together and then invent a product or even propose alternative solutions.

In addition, the findings also show a connection between the first research problem and the second one. Every level of questioning has a dominant type of question. When asking remember level of questioning, the students mostly use convergent questions with 92,4%. In understand level, convergent questions are also mostly used by students of Micro Teaching with 68,5%. Convergent questions are still dominant in the use of apply and analyze levels of questioning with 100% and 90%. Meanwhile, 85,7% of evaluate level of questioning belongs to divergent questions. Then, 100% of create level of questioning asked by the students is categorized as divergent question.


(53)

40

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the research conclusions and recommendations of this research. In the conclusion part, the researcher provides the results of the research problems. For the recommendation part, the researcher gives some suggestions that are addressed to Indonesian teachers and future researchers.

A. Conclusions

Based on the research results and discussion in the previous chapter, there are there are three types of questions found during the students’ performance. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent questions. The total number of cases are 262 questions. The procedural type is on the top list with 123 questions compared with two others. It occurs when the participants check students’ conditions, ask for students’ confirmation and willingness. This type is used as classroom procedures and routines. The second place is the convergent questions. There are 118 cases related to the type. It involves recall previously learned knowledge, short and response answer. Meanwhile, the divergent questions have the lowest number with 21 cases. The finding of divergent questions in this study has the same result as Sukur’s (2016). In her study about the teacher’s question, she finds that divergent questions are the lowest frequency used by students of micro teaching compared the others.

The result of the second research problem in Micro Teaching course finds that six levels of questioning employed by 14 students’ Micro Teaching course, namely remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. The researcher


(54)

finds 144 questions that are related to the levels of questioning and remember level is the most frequently used by 79 cases. The remember level is mostly found in the beginning and in the end of class. For the understand level, there are 36 cases and most of the participants place them in the middle of the class activity, explaining about the main topic, and discussing the exercise. Meanwhile, the apply level has 11 cases. It occurs after the participants explain materials and they give a few questions to students. The questions given have a function to test students in solving problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge and information. There are 10 analyze level appearing in Micro teaching course. This level is often found when the participants ask students to analyze parts of structure of a text. Evaluative level has 7 cases. Most questions stated by the participants have a function to make students present and defend their opinions and answers by using certain criteria. The last but not the least, the create level only finds 1 case that makes it is the lowest frequency compared with the others. This case happens when students make questions based on the provided video. The analysis shows that the use of high level of questioning are less common compared the others. In addition, the researcher sees that the students of Micro Teaching might have lack of knowledge about questioning so that the distribution of questions are not equal each other.

B. Recommendations

Seeing the findings of this study, the researcher presents some recommendations for PBI students of Micro Teaching course, lecturers of Micro Teaching course, and future researchers.


(55)

1. For PBI Students of Micro Teaching Course

Through the results of this study, it is expected that PBI students of Micro Teaching have to possess the questioning skill well. They should make self-reflection on their questioning skill after watching their video recordings. If it is needed, they may have some discussions with other friends and even lecturers about their performances in teaching practice.

2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course

Lecturers of Micro Teaching course should spend at least one meeting talking about questioning with their students. In that meeting, lecturers should explain things related to questioning such as levels of questioning, how to make questions based on the levels or even tips of making questions based on the subjects that are being taught. When giving feedback on students’ performance, one of points the should be reviewed is their questioning skill.

3. For Future Researchers

This study only focuses on students’ questioning in general. Therefore, future researchers may explore more on students’ questioning based on subjects that students of Micro Teaching teach. Then, future researchers are expected to conduct research about reasons why high levels of questioning such as analyze, evaluate, create and divergent questions are less used than the others. In doing so, it can enrich the knowledge on questioning.


(56)

43

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W. et al. (Eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and

Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). An Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to Ask Right Questions. Arlington: NSTA Press. Bowman, M. (1994). Using Video in Research. Retrieved on November 15, 2016

from

Chafi, E.M. & Elkhouzai, E. (2004). Classroom Interaction: Investigating the Forms and Functions of Teacher Questions in Moroccan Primary School. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 06, 353-361. Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Questioning. In Pedagogy and

Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools (Unit. 7). Retrieved

on February 02, 2017 from

http://www.mmiweb.org.uk/publications/re/questioning.pdf

Fusco, E. (2012). Effective Questioning Strategies in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hancock, B., Ockleford, E. & Windridge, K. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Retrieved on November 10, 2016, from https://www.rds- yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/5_Introduction-to-qualitative-research-2009.pdf

Jewitt, C. (2012). An Introduction to Using Video for Research. Retrieved on

November 15, 2016, from

http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf

Kerry, T. (2002). Explaining and Questioning. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory

into Practice, 41 (4). Retrieved on October 24, 2016, from http://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus Meaningful Learning. Theory into Practice, 41

(4). Retrieved on October 24, 2016, from

http://web.mit.edu/jrankin/www/teach_transfer/rote_v_meaning.pdf

McComas, W. F. & Rossier, L, A. (n.d.). Asking More Effective Questions. Retrieved on November 20, 2016, from https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-


(1)

Understand Participant Number

of Case Questions Time Context

P1 1 Do you know what will we

learn today?

03:43 The teacher wanted students to guess what material 2 Number 12, What is the

subject?

23:02 A student answered the subject was

3 What will “it” be

followed?

23:10 The teacher responded students’ answer 4 Do we need to add s or es? 23:15 The teacher responded

students’ answer 5 In this sentence, what is

the subject?

23:29 A student answered the subject was

6 Is it followed by “s” or

“es”? 23:57 The teacher responded students’ answer

P2 7 What is news? 04:35

P3 8 What have you learned

from this video?

05:58 After watched video, the teacher asked the main idea of the video

9 What the sentence is tell us about?

06:26 10 Can you give us the

example of the word?

07:18 The teacher asked specified student to give an example 11 For the third from, is it

formal or informal?

18:12 Students were asked to choose

P4 12 What is the video talking about?

05:48 The teacher asked the general information of the video

13 How about the second video, what is the video talking about?

06:59 The teacher asked the general information of the video

P5 - - - -

P6 14 What is invitation? 03:20 The teacher lead to the topic 15 Can you mention the

example of the personal invitation?

08:30 Students could answer well

P7 16 So, do you know how to make application letter?

02:30 The teacher introduced the topic

17 What do you think about resume actually?

05:15 The teacher lead the class to the topic

18 What actually resume is talking about?

05:27 The teacher tried to dig deeper about students’ knowledge on resume From the example, can

you guess what kind of job that they want to apply?

12:32 After showed job vacancy, the teacher asked students to guess what job to apply


(2)

P8 19 Do you know about what is recount text?

05:48 The teacher lead the class to the topic

P9 - - - -

P10 20 Can we imagine what will we learn today after watching the video?

07:38 After watched video, the teacher asked students to guess what topic that would be learned on that day

P11 21 Do you know what are we

going to learn today?

03:19 The teacher just told a story and lead to the topic 22 Is this moment formal or

informal?

06:35 The teacher just showed video about greeting and farewell

23 Arum, what do you think about this moment?

07:02 The teacher just showed a video and asked a student to guess it

24 Can you give me some examples of formal greeting and farewell?

13:07 After did review, the teacher asked the question to check students’

comprehension 25 Can you give me some

examples of informal greeting and farewell?

13:30 The teacher asked deeper to check students’

comprehension P12 26 Now, what are we going to

learn?

04:22 The teacher lead the class to the topic

27 For the formal one, do you use may or can?

05:12 The teacher just explained about permission

28 Who is she talking to? 06:47 The class was discussing about picture on the screen P13 29 From these two pictures,

what do you think what we will learn for today?

02:56 The teacher lead the class to the topic of the day

30 What is short message? 03:45 The teacher informed that topic of the meeting was short message

31 From this short message, what is the information that the writer gives?

09:43 The teacher asked general information from the short message

P14 32 Do you know what is the difference between report text and descriptive text?

05:50 The teacher lead the class to the topic

33 Which one is the title? 14:11 All students answered “kangaroo”

34 What do you think, guys? 15:47 The teacher asked students to analyze the answer 35 What does it mean? 19:00 No one could answer

question number eight choice A


(3)

Apply Participant Number

of Case Questions Time Context

P1 1 When the subject is my

sister, what is the verb will you use?

23:51 The teacher asked students to analyze language features of the text

P2 - - - -

P3 - - - -

P4

P5 - - - -

P6 - - - -

P7 - - - -

P8

P9 - - - -

P10 2 When I say good

morning, what is your respond?

16:58 The teacher just explained then checked students’ comprehension by asking 3 When I say how are you,

what is your respond?

17:05 The teacher tried to dig deeper on students’ knowledge by asking 4 When I say how do you

do, what’s your respond? 17:33 Students could answer well

P11 - - -

P12 5 When you are talking

with your teacher in school, would you like to say may or can?

09:06 The students proposed answers/solution for the situation

6 If your teacher is your father, and you talking with him at home, what would you say?

09:27 The students proposed answers/solution for the situation

7 Can I borrow your pen? 12:09 The teacher just explained about can and may

8 Inggit, may I borrow your book?

12:19 The teacher provided another question to check students; comprehension 9 Tita, can I borrow your

paper?

12:32 The teacher tested Tita to answer the question 10 You asking permission at

the office and meet your boss, how would you say?

18:49 The students proposed answers/solution for the situation

11 Your father at the hospital, how would you say?

19:02 The students proposed answers/solution for the situation

P13 - - - -


(4)

Analyze Participant Number

of Case Questions Time Context

P1 1 When we use this text, do

you know what is the language feature?

12:29 The teacher asked students to analyze language features of the text

P2 2 What do you think about

the moment that always updating in the news?

03:30 Few students gave opinion

P3 - - - -

P4 3 What is the text structure of this thing?

14:06 After showed a text, the teacher asked students to analyze deeper about the text

P5 - - - -

P6 4 What is its function? 03:23 The teacher responded students’ answer to dig deeper about their knowledge

P7 5 What kind of thing that you can find from the opening sentences?

14:07 Students discovered things from the opening sentences P8 6 What kind of text this is? 05:33 Students analyzed an text

then guess what kind of text it is

7 Do you know what is the structure of recount text?

08:00 The teacher explained in every kind of text, there are generic structure

8 Can you identify what is the generic structure of this?

18:53 The teacher distributed sheet

P9 - - - -

P10 9 Do you know the parts of

introduction, guys?

11:21 No one could answer the parts of introduction 10 Can you analyze this is

content or opening or closing?

13:08 After read the text, the teacher tried to check students’ comprehension

P11 - - - -

P12 - - - -

P13 - - - -


(5)

Evaluate Participant Number

of Case Questions Time Context

P1 - - - -

P2 - - - -

P3 1 Is it informal or formal? Why?

14:55 Most students answered formal and the teacher asked their reason

P4 2 Why do you like sate? 03:19 A students answered sate and the teacher asked the reason

P5 - - - -

P6 3 What do you think that

make you say that is it graduation?

01:36 The teacher asked for students’ reason or opinion

P7 - - - -

P8 4 Why you can say that it is the orientation?

19:15 The teacher asked students to criticize their answer 5 How do you can say that

it is re-orientation

20:03 Students were asked to criticize their answer

P9 - - - -

P10 - - - -

P11 6 Do you know why? 06:40 Students answered “formal” and the teacher wanted to know why

P12 - - - -

P13 - - - -

P14 143 Can you explain why? 17:21 The teacher responded a student’s answer and tried to dig deeper about the reason or opinion

Create Participant Number

of Case Questions Time Context

P1 144 What question can you ask from the video?

05:36 The teacher asked students to make question

P2 - - - -

P3 - - - -

P4 - - - -

P5 - - - -

P6 - - - -

P7 - - - -

P8 - - - -

P9 - - - -


(6)

P11 - - - - P12

P13 - - - -