J01422
AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS’ QUESTIONS AND STUDENTS’ RESPONSES
IN AN EFL READING COURSE
Vicorio Talentino
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Maria Christina Eko Setyarini
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Abstract
Classroom interaction between a teacher and students always exists. Through their talk,
teachers have an important role in maintaining an alive classroom interaction. One type of the
teacher talk is teacher‟s questions, which are the most important tools that teachers have for
helping students understand their learning materials. This paper investigated the types of
teacher questions and students‟ responses. The subjects of this study were 3 EFL reading
courses teachers and all students in 3 Academic Reading classes at the Faculty of Language
and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University. The study used a mixed method in
collecting and analyzing the data. Different from the results of previous research, the findings
of this study show that in all the classes, open and referential questions were frequently asked
by the teacher, followed by closed and display questions and yes/no questions.
Keywords: classroom interaction, teacher talk, teacher question
INTRODUCTION
There are some benefits to maintaining classroom interaction, oral or written
communication between a teacher and his/her students or students with students (Dobinson,
2001). The interaction becomes more crucial since they can develop students‟
communication skills (Hall, 2002) that benefits students socially and academically
(Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005). Hence, such interaction will increase students‟ opportunities
to use English, as the target language, for their communication. Second, according to Hall
and Walsh (2002), classroom interaction is one of the main indicators in which learning is
accomplished in the classroom. Thus, I possibly think that the better the classroom
interaction is, the better benefit that both students and teachers can obtain.
However, it is not easy to maintain the interaction. A language teacher has a role in
building an environment with optimum learning conditions for learners (Hannas, 2009). It
means that language teachers should actively attract students‟ attention to maintain
classroom interaction. Consequently, in a study of classroom interaction (Hargreaves, 2000),
teachers must look seriously at students‟ emotions, conditions, and expectations.
Nevertheless, not all classroom interaction can be maintained perfectly and naturally.
Sometimes, as stated by Moguel (2004), a classroom interaction may be flat although
teachers try everyday to encourage their students to participate effectively in classroom
discussions. Thus, according to Ellis (1994) as cited by Xu (2010), to avoid such failure in
classroom interaction, teachers need to manage “teacher talk” that means some adjustments
to both language forms and language functions to assist communication.
According to Qu (2011), there are four types of teacher talks. The first one is
informative teacher talk, in which teachers deliver their opinion, facts, and concepts through
their words. The second one is directive teacher talk, which functions to direct classroom
activities running in a classroom. The third one is eliciting teacher talk, which aims to
inspire students and get students‟ answers to some questions asked in a class. The last type
is feedback to students‟ answer.
Teacher talk is a part of classroom interaction that can create a harmonious
atmosphere and promote a more friendly relationship between teachers and students (Liu &
Zhao, 2010). As my experience in following a teaching-learning process, when a class had a
friendly teacher-students relationship and harmonious atmosphere, I would freely participate
through every class discussion. However, not all teachers could maintain teacher talk that
led to such atmosphere. As I noticed, my classroom participation depended on teachers who
taught in a particular class. Turner and Patrick (2004) who found that the pattern of
teachers‟ interactions affected students‟ participation strengthen my experience.
Nevertheless, one of the teacher talk strategies that teachers can do to maintain a
successful classroom interaction is by asking questions. Some previous international studies
have discussed the issues. On her study, Xu (2010) stated that, in most of language
classrooms, a teacher asking questions and students answering the questions generate a
major part of classroom interaction. As a category of input provided by a teacher, teacher
questions shape an integral part of classroom interaction (Ho, 2005). In a more recent year,
Yang (2010) investigates effects of the types of questions that teachers ask to the students‟
discourse patterns. She found that yes/no questions and closed and display questions were
frequently asked by the teachers. Meanwhile, open and referential questions were rarely or
even never asked. In the following year, Khan and Inamullah (2011) explore the levels of
questions teachers asked during their teaching at secondary level using Bloom‟s taxonomy.
The result of their study showed that teacher questions dominated classroom interaction.
The study also found that most of the questions were low-level cognitive questions that were
quite contrast with the higher-level cognitive questions.
The study done by Ho (2005) and Khan & Inamullah (2011) were the background
information in conducting this research. Unlike the two studies, this study was conducted in
an Indonesian context. Besides, it is considering not only the teacher questions but also the
student responses, which is expected to provide insights for teachers on which types of
questions should be more prioritized.
The aim of this study was to investigate classroom interaction in Academic Reading
courses, especially the teacher questions and the student responses, to classify and to
analyze the questions asked by the teachers by classifying the questions and students‟
responses into types of questions in Bloom‟s taxonomy of educational objectives (1956), as
cited in Anderson & Krathwohl (2000). More specifically, this study attempted to answer
the following research questions: [1] What are the types of questions frequently asked by the
teacher? [2] What are the students’ responses toward teacher’s question?
The study is expected to be useful generally for English teachers and specifically for
teachers in reading classes. It is also expected that that this study can provide beneficial
information for the teachers about what types of questions that are responded well by their
students so that they can be more aware of selecting and in prioritizing types of questions to
be asked to the students. The study, eventually, hopes to help the teachers and students to
make a better classroom interaction that leads to a successful teaching and learning process.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher Questions
Commonly, questioning becomes a popular strategy for eliciting responses from
students during a teaching and learning process. Teachers have some purposes in asking
questions in a classroom. They are to test their students‟ previous knowledge, recall and
recognize something, to think and reason about something, to elicit something from their
students, to promote initiative and originality, to stimulate the interest and effort on the part
of their students to focus attention on a particular issue, to develop an active approach to
learning, and to keep children mentally alert (Raymond, 2004). Al-Aweiny (2002) states
that questioning might be used to stimulate the curiosity of their students, to revise a lesson
as well as to check whether their students are following the lesson or not, to link new
aspects of knowledge with the previous ones, to create a type of cooperation among
students, and to discover the weak points of their students. It would seem to indicate that
teacher questions play an important role in managing classroom routines.
Three question categories (Tsui, 1995 as cited by Yang, 2010) were used in this
study. They are [1] open and closed questions, [2] display and referential questions, and [3]
yes/no questions. Firstly, open and closed questions are classified according to the kind of
elicited responses. Open questions can have more than one acceptable answer. An example
of this type of question is “What do you think of?” Meanwhile, closed questions only accept
one possible answer. Secondly, display and referential questions are more on the nature of
conducted interaction. These types of questions emphasize more on their purpose. In the
display questions, teachers have already known the answer to their questions that aim to
check students understanding. On the other hand, in referential questions, teachers have not
known the answer to their questions.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
In analyzing the types of teacher questions and student responses, Bloom‟s (1956)
taxonomy of educational objectives, as cited in Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) was used.
According to Orlich (2004) as cited in Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2009), there are three
domains in the Bloom taxonomy, namely affective, psychomotor, and cognitive educational
learning objectives. However, due to the time limitation to conduct the study, this research
only concerned the cognitive domain, as it has the closest relation to teacher questions types
and students responses.
The Bloom‟s taxonomy components were arranged from the lowest to the highest
order. The levels of categorization of this cognitive domain are knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Knowledge is recalling facts.
Comprehension is describing in one‟s words. Application is applying information to produce
some results. Analysis is subdividing something to show how it is put together. Synthesis is
creating a unique, original product. Evaluation is making value decisions about issues. The
first three levels of this system deal with lower-order thinking skills that are essential in
laying the foundation for deeper understanding. The other last three levels employ higherorder thinking skills (Hopper, 2009).
Lower-order cognitive questions hold predominantly recall information,
comprehension, and application. Higher order questions, in contrast, involve analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Lower order questions tend to be closed or display questions
because a teacher has already known the answer. Higher order questions tend to be open or
referential questions, because the type of response is known but the actual response is not.
In that case, students are free to respond in their way. Lower order questions are knowledge,
comprehension and application based. They encourage lower levels of thinking. Higher
order questions develop students‟ ability to analyze and evaluate critically concepts and
ideas. Here, teacher question is very important to elicit students‟ level of thinking. The
higher the level of questions is asked, the higher the students‟ level of thinking will be. A
teacher must be able to frame questions that are challenging, structured open or referential
questions with some minor information, and supports higher order thinking.
THE STUDY
This study employed a mixed method: quantitative and qualitative. According to
Creswell (2003), researchers, for many years, have collected both quantitative and
qualitative data in the same studies, but to put both forms of data together as a distinct
research design or methodology is new. Other mixed methods writers emphasize the
techniques or methods of collecting and analyzing data (for example, Creswell;
Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Morse, 2003). Mixed method research involves both
collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data includes closedended information that, for instance, is found in attitude, behavior, or performance
instruments. In contrast, qualitative data consists of open-ended questions. In short, it is not
enough to simply collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data; they need to be
“mixed” in some way so that they form a more complete picture of a problem.
Context of the Study
Due to the time limitation to conduct the study, the study was only focused on English
teaching-learning processes in a classroom, Academic Reading, at English Language
Education Program at Satya Wacana Christian University (ED-SWCU). The class is the last
advanced level of reading courses in ED-SWCU. This course focuses on how to give critical
responses to an academic journal articles. In the class, students need to have a deep critical
thinking, since they have to give their opinions on a particular topic.
Research Participants
This study involved three English teachers from three different Academic Reading
courses at ED-SWCU. Besides, all students in those three classes also participated in this
study.
Instrument of data collection
In conducting this research, primary data were used in a form of transcriptions that
were obtained from a video recording. The recording device helped us recording all
questions uttered by the teachers during the whole teaching-learning process in the
classrooms completely. A manual field note taking was also done during the observation in
the classroom as a non-participant observer.
Data Collection Procedure
Firstly, A meeting was held with the observed teachers to discuss the observation time
and to ask their permissions to video-record their teaching. After obtaining the permissions,
the observations were started, we took a field note on the students‟ responses, and recorded
the verbally spoken data both from the teachers and from students who gave responses. The
researchers are non-participant observers during the teaching learning process that means
that we did not take any in-class participation to make the classroom run naturally.
The observations were conducted once for each teacher. Each observation took 2
hours as equal as one teaching learning process. Then the recordings were transcribed, only
on the teacher question sections. After that, the teacher question transcriptions were
gathered with the field note taken on the student responses. We categorized them according
to Bloom‟s taxonomy categories for question and responses.
Procedure of Data Analysis
Teacher questions
First, after the primary data were obtained on transcription of the teacher questions
and students‟ responses, we categorized them into the types of questions categories (Tsui,
1995 as cited by Yang, 2010). Some examples of procedural questions in the data were
“Open up your handout at page 4 and read it please?”. Then, some rhetorical questions were
“That was tasty, wasn„t it?” were not analyzed. In analysing and calculating the data,
symbols: “1)” for yes/no questions, “2)” for closed or display questions and “3)” were used
for open or referential questions. Second, using Bloom‟s taxonomy, the teacher questions
were categorized again to determine the level of thinking. The categorization of Bloom‟s
taxonomy of teacher questions helped me more to decide whether the observed classes have
high-level thinking or low-level thinking.
Effects of teacher questions on students’ responses
To analyze the students‟ responses, the lesson transcripts of students‟ responses were
analyzed quantitatively. In this case, the average length or the number of words of the
students‟ responses on the questions categories were calculated using Yang‟s (2010) method
in counting the length of students‟ responses.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Types of Teachers’ Questions in Academic Reading Classes at ED-SWCU Based on a
Study Done by Tsui (1995) as cited by Yang (2010)
The lesson transcripts of the present study show that in three observations done in the
classes, except for the lesson in first observation, open and referential questions were
frequently asked. Meanwhile, yes/no questions, and closed and display questions were asked
less frequently. Table 1 details the findings.
Table 1. The Types of Questions Used by the Teachers in Each Observation
Type of question asked
1st Observation
2nd Observation
3rd Observation
Yes/No questions
11 (24%)
14 (20%)
8 (27%)
Closed and display questions
29 (63%)
20 (29%)
5 (16%)
Open and referential questions
6 (13%)
37 (52%)
17 (57%)
Total no. of questions asked
46
71
30
In the first observation, the type of questions asked most frequently by the teacher was
closed and display questions (63%). Mainly, the teachers asked them to check their students
understanding about a particular text:
(1) “How big is the Walt Disney influence to the world?”
(2) “What is the topic of the second essay?”
The teachers had already known the answer, but they wanted to check their students
understanding. There were 29 closed and display questions, followed by 11 yes/no questions
and 6 open and referential questions. Some examples of yes/no questions are:
(3) “Have you ever had fruit smoothie?”
(4) “Can you see the fruit after mixing?”
(5) “Can you still taste the fruit when it is mixed”
Importantly, questions (3), (4), and (5) possibly trigger students‟ critical thinking that can
get them to be more interested in the discussion. For the open and referential questions, they
were asked mainly at the beginning of the lesson. For example, the teacher asked open
question:
(6) “After looking at the picture, what comes to your mind about synthesizing?”
Here, the open question accepts more than one answer. Question (6) was followed by
another question:
(7) “Any other point or thought?”
This incompletely structured question was effective to trigger another different answer from
the students and to trigger more participation. Some referential questions related to
reasoning were also asked. One example is:
(8) “Why do you make it as fact?”
In the second observation, more than half of questions (37 out of 71 questions) were
open and referential questions, which indicated that the students had more chances to deliver
their personal thought. From the beginning, open and referential questions (9-12) were
asked to make different students came up with their critical thinking even questions.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
“What kind of question would we ask?”
“Why no why yes?”
“What would you need to know?”
“Why do you think it is random?”
Here, the teacher was likely to become a facilitator who helped the students learned by their
various opinions. Besides, a simple form of questions asked just after the open, and
referential questions were also considered as open and referential questions:
(13) “Any other thought of the overall text whether it is convincing or less convincing?”
(14) “Other reason?”
(15) “Any Other?”
Closed and display questions were in the second place with 29% of responses. The
questions (16-17) mainly focused on the students‟ knowledge about the journal text that was
being discussed.
(16) “What are some other experts who are quoted?”
(17) “What are some samples or evidence used?”
Here, the teacher has already known the answer but s/he wants to check whether the
students can find any correct information from the journal text or not. The third type, yes/no
questions, covered only 14 questions (20%). The questions in this lesson were asked to
attract students‟ attention. For example:
(18)
“So, let‟s see on the first statistic. Is it convincing or less convincing?”
In that case, the teacher also provided some examples of imaginary cases (see examples 1920) to grab students‟ attention by the yes/no responses.
(19) “So, for example, let I say that all students in UKSW want to volunteer, but I only interviewed
people of FBS. Would that be representative of the whole campus?”
(20) “What if I said that I only interviewed only female students, Would it be representative?”
Finally, in the third observation, open and referential questions were dominant (57%).
Contrary, closed and display questions were low, only 5 questions (16%), even lower than
yes/no questions that covered 8 questions (27%). Here, just from the beginning of the
lesson, the teacher asked open and referential questions as a discussion opener to check the
level of students‟ familiarity with a concept of a topic. Some questions (21-23) that led
students to share their opinion or thought were dominant.
(21) “After you read, what comes to your mind?”
(22) “Murti, want to share?”
(23) “Why does the writer start the essay with some chained questions?”
The closed and display questions were aimed to draw students‟ attention back to the
knowledge of the discussed essay text. For example:
(24) “What does in paragraph 7 tell us about?”
(25) “So, the hypothetical technique is stated in a paragraph?”
Yes/no questions sometimes asked about factual cases that were close to the students‟
experience in their daily life. Questions 26 and 27 illustrate the idea.
(26) “If I say that Fatiah is such a feminine lady because she likes to wear jasmine perfume. Is that
stereotyping?”
(27) “Do you believe that Martin is more handsome than Bejo?”
To sum up, in three observed classrooms, open and referential questions were
frequently asked. Moreover, open and referential questions were being used as a classroom
interaction opener (asked at the beginning of the lessons). Hence, the teachers expected that,
from the beginning, opinions or thought from the students would dominate the classroom
interaction. Also, such type of questions would make the discussion alive. Then, the rest
types of questions; closed and display questions and yes/no questions, were asked to help
teachers check their students‟ understanding and getting their attention.
Types of Teachers’ Questions in Academic Reading Classes at ED-SWCU Based on
Bloom’s Taxonomy
In the first observations, teacher questions were absolutely in the level of lower-order
thinking skill, since the questions were only knowledge, comprehension, and application
based (see Table 2).
Table 2. The Number and Percentage of the Types Teacher Question
in the First Observation
No. of
questions
46
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
25
19
2
54,3%
41,3%
4,4%
100%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
0%
This finding was quite reasonable since there were only 4 (9%) open and referential
questions asked by the teacher. The knowledge and comprehension base mainly could be
found in the yes /no questions, closed, and display questions. Therefore, in this observation,
students were not critically enough in responding teacher questions.
Table 3. The Number and Percentage of the Types Teacher Question
in the Second Observation
No. of
questions
71
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
13
16
11
18,3%
22,5%
15,5%
56,3%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
15
16
21,2%
22,5%
43,7%
In this second observation, questions asked by the teacher was the highest in numbers
among other observations. Different from the first observation, the second observation was
quite balanced between lower-order and high-order thinking skill, although the lower-order
thinking skill was higher (56%). However, in this observed lesson, the teachers could reach
a high number of evaluation based (22,5%), which was the highest level of thinking skill.
Although there was no synthesis based found, the number of analysis and evaluation based
could determine that the teacher questions could develop students‟ ability to analyze
critically and evaluate the concepts and ideas.
Table 4. The Number and Percentage of the Types of Teacher Question
in the Third Observation
No. of
questions
30
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
3
9
6
10%
30%
20%
60%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
8
4
26,7%
13,3%
40%
The third observation also indicated that the teacher questions were lower-order
thinking skill. However, the high-order thinking skill still had a quite big portion (40%).
Moreover, the teacher questions in this observation could reach 13,3% of evaluation based
which was the highest level of thinking skill.
Effects of teacher questions on students’ responses
Yang (2010) has shown positive correlation between asking referential questions and
students‟ production of the target language. Nevertheless, Yang‟s study states a negative
correlation between asking display questions and the length of students‟ responses. The
result of the present study shows a similar pattern. The effects of different types of questions
asked by the teachers in the Academic Reading classes on the length of students‟ responses
are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. The Length of Students‟ Responses for Different Types of Questions
Asked in Each Lesson
Length of students‟ responses for
different types of questions asked
Yes/No questions
One word
Two to three words
Four to six words
Closed and display questions
Three words or less
Four to twelve words
Open and referential questions
Three words or less
Four to nine words
1st Observation
2nd Observation
3rd Observation
7 (64%)
1 (9%)
3 (27%)
8 (57%)
1 (7%)
5 (36%)
5 (62,5%)
1 (12,5%)
2 (25%)
15 (52%)
14 (48%)
2 (11%)
17 (89%)
2 (40%)
3 (60%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
8 (22%)
29 (78%)
2 (12%)
15 (88%)
Table 5 shows that students‟ responses were brief when teachers asked yes/no
questions. In the first observation, more than half of the yes/no questions (64%) elicited oneword responses only, that is either “Yes” or “No”. However, a long answer from four to six
words only indicated 3 questions, which students didn‟t answer directly using yes/no. They
added some explanations found in the text.
In the second observation, still one-word responses led the numbers although two to
three words even four to six words long were quite high. The same as the first observation,
the students seemed not to feel satisfied with only yes/no response on yes/no types of
questions, they added more explanation. Question 28 shows the teacher‟s yes/no question.
(28) “How If I choose female only, is it representative?”
was followed by the students four to six words response,
(29) “No, because there are not only just females but also males”
Moreover, longer responses with more than six words on the yes/no questions can also be
found:
(30) “Does this example help to convince?”
The response was followed by a student‟s long response:
(31) “Less convincing. There is no quantity of the students. So, there is no percentage of how many
people in a specific sample. We don‟t know how many people involved.”
Then in the last observation, the yes/no questions still dominantly response with a
one-word response. For the other long response, only because the students preferred to give
complete grammar answer, such as for the teacher yes/no question,
(32) “If a child has a best friend, and the best friend told the child about „ such and such‟, will the
child believe to his/her best friend?”
was followed by student‟s response,
(33) “Yes, usually the child will believe.”
The closed and display questions asked by the teachers during their classroom also
generally elicited long responses. In the first observation itself, the number of long
responses reached 48%. Mainly, the long responses occurred by reading sentences in the
text that students thought it as a correct response. Question 34 provides an example.
(34) “What does Kamisar suggest about Euthanasia?”
Then, a student responded the question:
(35) “The active participation of physicians in active euthanasia violates the code of medical
ethics.”
This finding was also similar to the second and third observation. Moreover, in the second
(89%) and the third (60%) observation, such long responses were dominant. Besides, few
short responses were also found in the second and third observations. Question 36 was an
example of short responses in third observation.
(36) “So, the hypothetical technique is stated in a paragraph?”
It was followed by a student‟s response:
(37) “Nine.”
When the open and referential questions were asked, the students‟ responses tended to be
longer. Moreover, Table 5 showed that the four to nine words responses were higher than
the three words or less response in all three observations. Open and referential questions
elicited original responses as the product of students‟ critical thinking. One of the examples
that I took from the third observation is:
(38) “And why are those comment sections not good enough?”
It was followed by a student‟s response:
(39) “I think it is not clear enough because the writer doesn‟t mention the statistic. So, how can we
measure it? And he/she write most but most from what? It is unclear.”
Moreover, there was another student who responded the same question with his/her long
answer:
(40)
“Because how people commenting in Jakarta post reader forum is are representing people
awareness of whole Indonesia, and people have a positive attitude toward English.”
Surely, there is no doubt that the open and referential questions that are dominant in the
three observations elicited long and complex critical thinking of students‟ responses.
Based on the analysis of all three observations, students were able to elicit long
responses to teachers‟ questions, especially for open and referential questions even they
sometimes gave long responses for only yes/no questions. By that finding, It can be
interpreted that the students in Academic Reading courses were ready for the more
dominant high-order level of thinking, as Table 2 – 4 obviously showed that high-order
thinking skill was quite comparable with the lower-order thinking skill.
CONCLUSION
The study concluded that in all the classes, open and referential questions were
frequently asked by the teachers, followed by closed and display questions and yes/no
questions. Moreover, although low-level cognitive questions were higher than high-level
cognitive questions, they did not so contrast like the one stated by previous research.
Besides, most of the students in all classes produced long responses.
The result of this study showed a different result with the previous related studies
(Ruby, 2010; Khan & Inamullah, 2011). It could be different due to the subjects of the
research. In this study, the subjects were well-educated lecturers and high level of university
students. That fact was different with the study done by Chi Cheung Ruby who took the
subjects of research from a secondary school. Therefore, this kind of research may result
differently if it is conducted with different subjects. The education background of the
subject is the most significance factor that determines the result.
To maintain a balance classroom interaction between the teacher‟s questions and
students‟ responses, It is suggested that a teacher has to apply open and referential
questions. The long responses indicate that students understand better and have big interests
in following the classroom interaction. Also, the other two types of questions still need to be
applied to attract students‟ attention on their learning materials.
REFERENCES
Al-Aweiny, B. (2002). Insights into Pencil and Paper English Language Tests and Their
Alternatives.Forum, 6. Sultan Qaboos University. Oman.
Anderson, L., &Krathwohl, D.R. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition
(paperback). Allyn& Bacon 2nd Edition.
Beyazkurk, D. &Kesner, J. E. (2005) „Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United
States schools: a cross-cultural study‟, International Education Journal, 6, 547–554.
Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Chi Cheung Ruby, Y. (2010). Teacher Questions in Second Language Classrooms: An
Investigation of Three Case Studies. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 181-201. Retrieved
April 20, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed meth-ods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dobinson, T. (2001). Do Learners Learn From Classroom Interaction and Does the Teacher
Have a Role to Play? Language Teaching Research, 5 (3). 189-211. Retrieved April
4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hall, J.K. (2002). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of
learners in the classroom .New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.
Hanaas, K. (2009). Decision-making Tasks in Computer-mediated Communication (CMC),
in Teaching English with Technology:A Journal for Teachers of English . (1), 1642.
Retrieved April 5, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers perceptions of their interactions with
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (8), 811–826. Retrieved April 5, 2012
from www.ebscohost.com
Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional Language
Centre Journal, 36(3), 297-310. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hopper, C.H. (2009). Practicing College Learning Strategies.(5thEd). Cengage Learning,
Inc.
Khan, W., & Inamullah, H. (2011).A Study of Lower-order and Higher-order Questions at
Secondary Level. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 149-157. Retrieved April 3, 2012 from
www.ebscohost.com
Liu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2010). A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English
Classes.Chinese Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 76-86. Retrieved April 6,
2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Moguel, D. (2004) „What does it mean to participate inclass?: integrity and inconsistency in
classroominteraction‟, Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39 (1),19–29. Retrieved
April 7, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Raymond, E. (2004). Questioning Skills: Asking Questions in the Classroom. On Line
Article Retrieved April 6, 2012 from the World http//www.Catb.org/
Tsui, A (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin Group
Turner, J.C., and H. Patrick. 2004. Motivational influences on student participation in
classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record 106, no. 9: 1759–85.
Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Qu, Y. (2011). The Influence of Communicative Teacher Talk on College Students
Interlanguage. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(9), 572-612. Retrieved April 4, 2012
from www.ebscohost.com
Xu, X. (2010).Analysis of Teacher Talk on the Basis of Relevance Theory. Canadian Social
Science, 6(3), 45-50. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
IN AN EFL READING COURSE
Vicorio Talentino
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Maria Christina Eko Setyarini
Faculty of Language and Literature
Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Abstract
Classroom interaction between a teacher and students always exists. Through their talk,
teachers have an important role in maintaining an alive classroom interaction. One type of the
teacher talk is teacher‟s questions, which are the most important tools that teachers have for
helping students understand their learning materials. This paper investigated the types of
teacher questions and students‟ responses. The subjects of this study were 3 EFL reading
courses teachers and all students in 3 Academic Reading classes at the Faculty of Language
and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University. The study used a mixed method in
collecting and analyzing the data. Different from the results of previous research, the findings
of this study show that in all the classes, open and referential questions were frequently asked
by the teacher, followed by closed and display questions and yes/no questions.
Keywords: classroom interaction, teacher talk, teacher question
INTRODUCTION
There are some benefits to maintaining classroom interaction, oral or written
communication between a teacher and his/her students or students with students (Dobinson,
2001). The interaction becomes more crucial since they can develop students‟
communication skills (Hall, 2002) that benefits students socially and academically
(Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005). Hence, such interaction will increase students‟ opportunities
to use English, as the target language, for their communication. Second, according to Hall
and Walsh (2002), classroom interaction is one of the main indicators in which learning is
accomplished in the classroom. Thus, I possibly think that the better the classroom
interaction is, the better benefit that both students and teachers can obtain.
However, it is not easy to maintain the interaction. A language teacher has a role in
building an environment with optimum learning conditions for learners (Hannas, 2009). It
means that language teachers should actively attract students‟ attention to maintain
classroom interaction. Consequently, in a study of classroom interaction (Hargreaves, 2000),
teachers must look seriously at students‟ emotions, conditions, and expectations.
Nevertheless, not all classroom interaction can be maintained perfectly and naturally.
Sometimes, as stated by Moguel (2004), a classroom interaction may be flat although
teachers try everyday to encourage their students to participate effectively in classroom
discussions. Thus, according to Ellis (1994) as cited by Xu (2010), to avoid such failure in
classroom interaction, teachers need to manage “teacher talk” that means some adjustments
to both language forms and language functions to assist communication.
According to Qu (2011), there are four types of teacher talks. The first one is
informative teacher talk, in which teachers deliver their opinion, facts, and concepts through
their words. The second one is directive teacher talk, which functions to direct classroom
activities running in a classroom. The third one is eliciting teacher talk, which aims to
inspire students and get students‟ answers to some questions asked in a class. The last type
is feedback to students‟ answer.
Teacher talk is a part of classroom interaction that can create a harmonious
atmosphere and promote a more friendly relationship between teachers and students (Liu &
Zhao, 2010). As my experience in following a teaching-learning process, when a class had a
friendly teacher-students relationship and harmonious atmosphere, I would freely participate
through every class discussion. However, not all teachers could maintain teacher talk that
led to such atmosphere. As I noticed, my classroom participation depended on teachers who
taught in a particular class. Turner and Patrick (2004) who found that the pattern of
teachers‟ interactions affected students‟ participation strengthen my experience.
Nevertheless, one of the teacher talk strategies that teachers can do to maintain a
successful classroom interaction is by asking questions. Some previous international studies
have discussed the issues. On her study, Xu (2010) stated that, in most of language
classrooms, a teacher asking questions and students answering the questions generate a
major part of classroom interaction. As a category of input provided by a teacher, teacher
questions shape an integral part of classroom interaction (Ho, 2005). In a more recent year,
Yang (2010) investigates effects of the types of questions that teachers ask to the students‟
discourse patterns. She found that yes/no questions and closed and display questions were
frequently asked by the teachers. Meanwhile, open and referential questions were rarely or
even never asked. In the following year, Khan and Inamullah (2011) explore the levels of
questions teachers asked during their teaching at secondary level using Bloom‟s taxonomy.
The result of their study showed that teacher questions dominated classroom interaction.
The study also found that most of the questions were low-level cognitive questions that were
quite contrast with the higher-level cognitive questions.
The study done by Ho (2005) and Khan & Inamullah (2011) were the background
information in conducting this research. Unlike the two studies, this study was conducted in
an Indonesian context. Besides, it is considering not only the teacher questions but also the
student responses, which is expected to provide insights for teachers on which types of
questions should be more prioritized.
The aim of this study was to investigate classroom interaction in Academic Reading
courses, especially the teacher questions and the student responses, to classify and to
analyze the questions asked by the teachers by classifying the questions and students‟
responses into types of questions in Bloom‟s taxonomy of educational objectives (1956), as
cited in Anderson & Krathwohl (2000). More specifically, this study attempted to answer
the following research questions: [1] What are the types of questions frequently asked by the
teacher? [2] What are the students’ responses toward teacher’s question?
The study is expected to be useful generally for English teachers and specifically for
teachers in reading classes. It is also expected that that this study can provide beneficial
information for the teachers about what types of questions that are responded well by their
students so that they can be more aware of selecting and in prioritizing types of questions to
be asked to the students. The study, eventually, hopes to help the teachers and students to
make a better classroom interaction that leads to a successful teaching and learning process.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher Questions
Commonly, questioning becomes a popular strategy for eliciting responses from
students during a teaching and learning process. Teachers have some purposes in asking
questions in a classroom. They are to test their students‟ previous knowledge, recall and
recognize something, to think and reason about something, to elicit something from their
students, to promote initiative and originality, to stimulate the interest and effort on the part
of their students to focus attention on a particular issue, to develop an active approach to
learning, and to keep children mentally alert (Raymond, 2004). Al-Aweiny (2002) states
that questioning might be used to stimulate the curiosity of their students, to revise a lesson
as well as to check whether their students are following the lesson or not, to link new
aspects of knowledge with the previous ones, to create a type of cooperation among
students, and to discover the weak points of their students. It would seem to indicate that
teacher questions play an important role in managing classroom routines.
Three question categories (Tsui, 1995 as cited by Yang, 2010) were used in this
study. They are [1] open and closed questions, [2] display and referential questions, and [3]
yes/no questions. Firstly, open and closed questions are classified according to the kind of
elicited responses. Open questions can have more than one acceptable answer. An example
of this type of question is “What do you think of?” Meanwhile, closed questions only accept
one possible answer. Secondly, display and referential questions are more on the nature of
conducted interaction. These types of questions emphasize more on their purpose. In the
display questions, teachers have already known the answer to their questions that aim to
check students understanding. On the other hand, in referential questions, teachers have not
known the answer to their questions.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
In analyzing the types of teacher questions and student responses, Bloom‟s (1956)
taxonomy of educational objectives, as cited in Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) was used.
According to Orlich (2004) as cited in Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2009), there are three
domains in the Bloom taxonomy, namely affective, psychomotor, and cognitive educational
learning objectives. However, due to the time limitation to conduct the study, this research
only concerned the cognitive domain, as it has the closest relation to teacher questions types
and students responses.
The Bloom‟s taxonomy components were arranged from the lowest to the highest
order. The levels of categorization of this cognitive domain are knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Knowledge is recalling facts.
Comprehension is describing in one‟s words. Application is applying information to produce
some results. Analysis is subdividing something to show how it is put together. Synthesis is
creating a unique, original product. Evaluation is making value decisions about issues. The
first three levels of this system deal with lower-order thinking skills that are essential in
laying the foundation for deeper understanding. The other last three levels employ higherorder thinking skills (Hopper, 2009).
Lower-order cognitive questions hold predominantly recall information,
comprehension, and application. Higher order questions, in contrast, involve analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Lower order questions tend to be closed or display questions
because a teacher has already known the answer. Higher order questions tend to be open or
referential questions, because the type of response is known but the actual response is not.
In that case, students are free to respond in their way. Lower order questions are knowledge,
comprehension and application based. They encourage lower levels of thinking. Higher
order questions develop students‟ ability to analyze and evaluate critically concepts and
ideas. Here, teacher question is very important to elicit students‟ level of thinking. The
higher the level of questions is asked, the higher the students‟ level of thinking will be. A
teacher must be able to frame questions that are challenging, structured open or referential
questions with some minor information, and supports higher order thinking.
THE STUDY
This study employed a mixed method: quantitative and qualitative. According to
Creswell (2003), researchers, for many years, have collected both quantitative and
qualitative data in the same studies, but to put both forms of data together as a distinct
research design or methodology is new. Other mixed methods writers emphasize the
techniques or methods of collecting and analyzing data (for example, Creswell;
Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003; Morse, 2003). Mixed method research involves both
collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data includes closedended information that, for instance, is found in attitude, behavior, or performance
instruments. In contrast, qualitative data consists of open-ended questions. In short, it is not
enough to simply collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data; they need to be
“mixed” in some way so that they form a more complete picture of a problem.
Context of the Study
Due to the time limitation to conduct the study, the study was only focused on English
teaching-learning processes in a classroom, Academic Reading, at English Language
Education Program at Satya Wacana Christian University (ED-SWCU). The class is the last
advanced level of reading courses in ED-SWCU. This course focuses on how to give critical
responses to an academic journal articles. In the class, students need to have a deep critical
thinking, since they have to give their opinions on a particular topic.
Research Participants
This study involved three English teachers from three different Academic Reading
courses at ED-SWCU. Besides, all students in those three classes also participated in this
study.
Instrument of data collection
In conducting this research, primary data were used in a form of transcriptions that
were obtained from a video recording. The recording device helped us recording all
questions uttered by the teachers during the whole teaching-learning process in the
classrooms completely. A manual field note taking was also done during the observation in
the classroom as a non-participant observer.
Data Collection Procedure
Firstly, A meeting was held with the observed teachers to discuss the observation time
and to ask their permissions to video-record their teaching. After obtaining the permissions,
the observations were started, we took a field note on the students‟ responses, and recorded
the verbally spoken data both from the teachers and from students who gave responses. The
researchers are non-participant observers during the teaching learning process that means
that we did not take any in-class participation to make the classroom run naturally.
The observations were conducted once for each teacher. Each observation took 2
hours as equal as one teaching learning process. Then the recordings were transcribed, only
on the teacher question sections. After that, the teacher question transcriptions were
gathered with the field note taken on the student responses. We categorized them according
to Bloom‟s taxonomy categories for question and responses.
Procedure of Data Analysis
Teacher questions
First, after the primary data were obtained on transcription of the teacher questions
and students‟ responses, we categorized them into the types of questions categories (Tsui,
1995 as cited by Yang, 2010). Some examples of procedural questions in the data were
“Open up your handout at page 4 and read it please?”. Then, some rhetorical questions were
“That was tasty, wasn„t it?” were not analyzed. In analysing and calculating the data,
symbols: “1)” for yes/no questions, “2)” for closed or display questions and “3)” were used
for open or referential questions. Second, using Bloom‟s taxonomy, the teacher questions
were categorized again to determine the level of thinking. The categorization of Bloom‟s
taxonomy of teacher questions helped me more to decide whether the observed classes have
high-level thinking or low-level thinking.
Effects of teacher questions on students’ responses
To analyze the students‟ responses, the lesson transcripts of students‟ responses were
analyzed quantitatively. In this case, the average length or the number of words of the
students‟ responses on the questions categories were calculated using Yang‟s (2010) method
in counting the length of students‟ responses.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Types of Teachers’ Questions in Academic Reading Classes at ED-SWCU Based on a
Study Done by Tsui (1995) as cited by Yang (2010)
The lesson transcripts of the present study show that in three observations done in the
classes, except for the lesson in first observation, open and referential questions were
frequently asked. Meanwhile, yes/no questions, and closed and display questions were asked
less frequently. Table 1 details the findings.
Table 1. The Types of Questions Used by the Teachers in Each Observation
Type of question asked
1st Observation
2nd Observation
3rd Observation
Yes/No questions
11 (24%)
14 (20%)
8 (27%)
Closed and display questions
29 (63%)
20 (29%)
5 (16%)
Open and referential questions
6 (13%)
37 (52%)
17 (57%)
Total no. of questions asked
46
71
30
In the first observation, the type of questions asked most frequently by the teacher was
closed and display questions (63%). Mainly, the teachers asked them to check their students
understanding about a particular text:
(1) “How big is the Walt Disney influence to the world?”
(2) “What is the topic of the second essay?”
The teachers had already known the answer, but they wanted to check their students
understanding. There were 29 closed and display questions, followed by 11 yes/no questions
and 6 open and referential questions. Some examples of yes/no questions are:
(3) “Have you ever had fruit smoothie?”
(4) “Can you see the fruit after mixing?”
(5) “Can you still taste the fruit when it is mixed”
Importantly, questions (3), (4), and (5) possibly trigger students‟ critical thinking that can
get them to be more interested in the discussion. For the open and referential questions, they
were asked mainly at the beginning of the lesson. For example, the teacher asked open
question:
(6) “After looking at the picture, what comes to your mind about synthesizing?”
Here, the open question accepts more than one answer. Question (6) was followed by
another question:
(7) “Any other point or thought?”
This incompletely structured question was effective to trigger another different answer from
the students and to trigger more participation. Some referential questions related to
reasoning were also asked. One example is:
(8) “Why do you make it as fact?”
In the second observation, more than half of questions (37 out of 71 questions) were
open and referential questions, which indicated that the students had more chances to deliver
their personal thought. From the beginning, open and referential questions (9-12) were
asked to make different students came up with their critical thinking even questions.
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
“What kind of question would we ask?”
“Why no why yes?”
“What would you need to know?”
“Why do you think it is random?”
Here, the teacher was likely to become a facilitator who helped the students learned by their
various opinions. Besides, a simple form of questions asked just after the open, and
referential questions were also considered as open and referential questions:
(13) “Any other thought of the overall text whether it is convincing or less convincing?”
(14) “Other reason?”
(15) “Any Other?”
Closed and display questions were in the second place with 29% of responses. The
questions (16-17) mainly focused on the students‟ knowledge about the journal text that was
being discussed.
(16) “What are some other experts who are quoted?”
(17) “What are some samples or evidence used?”
Here, the teacher has already known the answer but s/he wants to check whether the
students can find any correct information from the journal text or not. The third type, yes/no
questions, covered only 14 questions (20%). The questions in this lesson were asked to
attract students‟ attention. For example:
(18)
“So, let‟s see on the first statistic. Is it convincing or less convincing?”
In that case, the teacher also provided some examples of imaginary cases (see examples 1920) to grab students‟ attention by the yes/no responses.
(19) “So, for example, let I say that all students in UKSW want to volunteer, but I only interviewed
people of FBS. Would that be representative of the whole campus?”
(20) “What if I said that I only interviewed only female students, Would it be representative?”
Finally, in the third observation, open and referential questions were dominant (57%).
Contrary, closed and display questions were low, only 5 questions (16%), even lower than
yes/no questions that covered 8 questions (27%). Here, just from the beginning of the
lesson, the teacher asked open and referential questions as a discussion opener to check the
level of students‟ familiarity with a concept of a topic. Some questions (21-23) that led
students to share their opinion or thought were dominant.
(21) “After you read, what comes to your mind?”
(22) “Murti, want to share?”
(23) “Why does the writer start the essay with some chained questions?”
The closed and display questions were aimed to draw students‟ attention back to the
knowledge of the discussed essay text. For example:
(24) “What does in paragraph 7 tell us about?”
(25) “So, the hypothetical technique is stated in a paragraph?”
Yes/no questions sometimes asked about factual cases that were close to the students‟
experience in their daily life. Questions 26 and 27 illustrate the idea.
(26) “If I say that Fatiah is such a feminine lady because she likes to wear jasmine perfume. Is that
stereotyping?”
(27) “Do you believe that Martin is more handsome than Bejo?”
To sum up, in three observed classrooms, open and referential questions were
frequently asked. Moreover, open and referential questions were being used as a classroom
interaction opener (asked at the beginning of the lessons). Hence, the teachers expected that,
from the beginning, opinions or thought from the students would dominate the classroom
interaction. Also, such type of questions would make the discussion alive. Then, the rest
types of questions; closed and display questions and yes/no questions, were asked to help
teachers check their students‟ understanding and getting their attention.
Types of Teachers’ Questions in Academic Reading Classes at ED-SWCU Based on
Bloom’s Taxonomy
In the first observations, teacher questions were absolutely in the level of lower-order
thinking skill, since the questions were only knowledge, comprehension, and application
based (see Table 2).
Table 2. The Number and Percentage of the Types Teacher Question
in the First Observation
No. of
questions
46
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
25
19
2
54,3%
41,3%
4,4%
100%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
0%
This finding was quite reasonable since there were only 4 (9%) open and referential
questions asked by the teacher. The knowledge and comprehension base mainly could be
found in the yes /no questions, closed, and display questions. Therefore, in this observation,
students were not critically enough in responding teacher questions.
Table 3. The Number and Percentage of the Types Teacher Question
in the Second Observation
No. of
questions
71
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
13
16
11
18,3%
22,5%
15,5%
56,3%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
15
16
21,2%
22,5%
43,7%
In this second observation, questions asked by the teacher was the highest in numbers
among other observations. Different from the first observation, the second observation was
quite balanced between lower-order and high-order thinking skill, although the lower-order
thinking skill was higher (56%). However, in this observed lesson, the teachers could reach
a high number of evaluation based (22,5%), which was the highest level of thinking skill.
Although there was no synthesis based found, the number of analysis and evaluation based
could determine that the teacher questions could develop students‟ ability to analyze
critically and evaluate the concepts and ideas.
Table 4. The Number and Percentage of the Types of Teacher Question
in the Third Observation
No. of
questions
30
Total
Lower-order thinking skill
Knowledge Comprehension Application
3
9
6
10%
30%
20%
60%
High-order thinking skill
Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
8
4
26,7%
13,3%
40%
The third observation also indicated that the teacher questions were lower-order
thinking skill. However, the high-order thinking skill still had a quite big portion (40%).
Moreover, the teacher questions in this observation could reach 13,3% of evaluation based
which was the highest level of thinking skill.
Effects of teacher questions on students’ responses
Yang (2010) has shown positive correlation between asking referential questions and
students‟ production of the target language. Nevertheless, Yang‟s study states a negative
correlation between asking display questions and the length of students‟ responses. The
result of the present study shows a similar pattern. The effects of different types of questions
asked by the teachers in the Academic Reading classes on the length of students‟ responses
are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. The Length of Students‟ Responses for Different Types of Questions
Asked in Each Lesson
Length of students‟ responses for
different types of questions asked
Yes/No questions
One word
Two to three words
Four to six words
Closed and display questions
Three words or less
Four to twelve words
Open and referential questions
Three words or less
Four to nine words
1st Observation
2nd Observation
3rd Observation
7 (64%)
1 (9%)
3 (27%)
8 (57%)
1 (7%)
5 (36%)
5 (62,5%)
1 (12,5%)
2 (25%)
15 (52%)
14 (48%)
2 (11%)
17 (89%)
2 (40%)
3 (60%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
8 (22%)
29 (78%)
2 (12%)
15 (88%)
Table 5 shows that students‟ responses were brief when teachers asked yes/no
questions. In the first observation, more than half of the yes/no questions (64%) elicited oneword responses only, that is either “Yes” or “No”. However, a long answer from four to six
words only indicated 3 questions, which students didn‟t answer directly using yes/no. They
added some explanations found in the text.
In the second observation, still one-word responses led the numbers although two to
three words even four to six words long were quite high. The same as the first observation,
the students seemed not to feel satisfied with only yes/no response on yes/no types of
questions, they added more explanation. Question 28 shows the teacher‟s yes/no question.
(28) “How If I choose female only, is it representative?”
was followed by the students four to six words response,
(29) “No, because there are not only just females but also males”
Moreover, longer responses with more than six words on the yes/no questions can also be
found:
(30) “Does this example help to convince?”
The response was followed by a student‟s long response:
(31) “Less convincing. There is no quantity of the students. So, there is no percentage of how many
people in a specific sample. We don‟t know how many people involved.”
Then in the last observation, the yes/no questions still dominantly response with a
one-word response. For the other long response, only because the students preferred to give
complete grammar answer, such as for the teacher yes/no question,
(32) “If a child has a best friend, and the best friend told the child about „ such and such‟, will the
child believe to his/her best friend?”
was followed by student‟s response,
(33) “Yes, usually the child will believe.”
The closed and display questions asked by the teachers during their classroom also
generally elicited long responses. In the first observation itself, the number of long
responses reached 48%. Mainly, the long responses occurred by reading sentences in the
text that students thought it as a correct response. Question 34 provides an example.
(34) “What does Kamisar suggest about Euthanasia?”
Then, a student responded the question:
(35) “The active participation of physicians in active euthanasia violates the code of medical
ethics.”
This finding was also similar to the second and third observation. Moreover, in the second
(89%) and the third (60%) observation, such long responses were dominant. Besides, few
short responses were also found in the second and third observations. Question 36 was an
example of short responses in third observation.
(36) “So, the hypothetical technique is stated in a paragraph?”
It was followed by a student‟s response:
(37) “Nine.”
When the open and referential questions were asked, the students‟ responses tended to be
longer. Moreover, Table 5 showed that the four to nine words responses were higher than
the three words or less response in all three observations. Open and referential questions
elicited original responses as the product of students‟ critical thinking. One of the examples
that I took from the third observation is:
(38) “And why are those comment sections not good enough?”
It was followed by a student‟s response:
(39) “I think it is not clear enough because the writer doesn‟t mention the statistic. So, how can we
measure it? And he/she write most but most from what? It is unclear.”
Moreover, there was another student who responded the same question with his/her long
answer:
(40)
“Because how people commenting in Jakarta post reader forum is are representing people
awareness of whole Indonesia, and people have a positive attitude toward English.”
Surely, there is no doubt that the open and referential questions that are dominant in the
three observations elicited long and complex critical thinking of students‟ responses.
Based on the analysis of all three observations, students were able to elicit long
responses to teachers‟ questions, especially for open and referential questions even they
sometimes gave long responses for only yes/no questions. By that finding, It can be
interpreted that the students in Academic Reading courses were ready for the more
dominant high-order level of thinking, as Table 2 – 4 obviously showed that high-order
thinking skill was quite comparable with the lower-order thinking skill.
CONCLUSION
The study concluded that in all the classes, open and referential questions were
frequently asked by the teachers, followed by closed and display questions and yes/no
questions. Moreover, although low-level cognitive questions were higher than high-level
cognitive questions, they did not so contrast like the one stated by previous research.
Besides, most of the students in all classes produced long responses.
The result of this study showed a different result with the previous related studies
(Ruby, 2010; Khan & Inamullah, 2011). It could be different due to the subjects of the
research. In this study, the subjects were well-educated lecturers and high level of university
students. That fact was different with the study done by Chi Cheung Ruby who took the
subjects of research from a secondary school. Therefore, this kind of research may result
differently if it is conducted with different subjects. The education background of the
subject is the most significance factor that determines the result.
To maintain a balance classroom interaction between the teacher‟s questions and
students‟ responses, It is suggested that a teacher has to apply open and referential
questions. The long responses indicate that students understand better and have big interests
in following the classroom interaction. Also, the other two types of questions still need to be
applied to attract students‟ attention on their learning materials.
REFERENCES
Al-Aweiny, B. (2002). Insights into Pencil and Paper English Language Tests and Their
Alternatives.Forum, 6. Sultan Qaboos University. Oman.
Anderson, L., &Krathwohl, D.R. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition
(paperback). Allyn& Bacon 2nd Edition.
Beyazkurk, D. &Kesner, J. E. (2005) „Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United
States schools: a cross-cultural study‟, International Education Journal, 6, 547–554.
Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Chi Cheung Ruby, Y. (2010). Teacher Questions in Second Language Classrooms: An
Investigation of Three Case Studies. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 181-201. Retrieved
April 20, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed meth-ods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dobinson, T. (2001). Do Learners Learn From Classroom Interaction and Does the Teacher
Have a Role to Play? Language Teaching Research, 5 (3). 189-211. Retrieved April
4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hall, J.K. (2002). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of
learners in the classroom .New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.
Hanaas, K. (2009). Decision-making Tasks in Computer-mediated Communication (CMC),
in Teaching English with Technology:A Journal for Teachers of English . (1), 1642.
Retrieved April 5, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers perceptions of their interactions with
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (8), 811–826. Retrieved April 5, 2012
from www.ebscohost.com
Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional Language
Centre Journal, 36(3), 297-310. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Hopper, C.H. (2009). Practicing College Learning Strategies.(5thEd). Cengage Learning,
Inc.
Khan, W., & Inamullah, H. (2011).A Study of Lower-order and Higher-order Questions at
Secondary Level. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 149-157. Retrieved April 3, 2012 from
www.ebscohost.com
Liu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2010). A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English
Classes.Chinese Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 76-86. Retrieved April 6,
2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Moguel, D. (2004) „What does it mean to participate inclass?: integrity and inconsistency in
classroominteraction‟, Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39 (1),19–29. Retrieved
April 7, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Raymond, E. (2004). Questioning Skills: Asking Questions in the Classroom. On Line
Article Retrieved April 6, 2012 from the World http//www.Catb.org/
Tsui, A (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin Group
Turner, J.C., and H. Patrick. 2004. Motivational influences on student participation in
classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record 106, no. 9: 1759–85.
Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com
Qu, Y. (2011). The Influence of Communicative Teacher Talk on College Students
Interlanguage. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(9), 572-612. Retrieved April 4, 2012
from www.ebscohost.com
Xu, X. (2010).Analysis of Teacher Talk on the Basis of Relevance Theory. Canadian Social
Science, 6(3), 45-50. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from www.ebscohost.com