An analysis of interrogative sentences made by grade eleven students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta - USD Repository

AN MADE

INTERR EVEN STU YOGYAK

ROGATIV UDENTS KARTA

  E D FA N ANALY E BY GRA Present to ENGLISH L EPARTME ACULTY YSIS OF ADE ELE Y

  A SARJAN ted as Parti o Obtain th in Engli

  Yu Stude

  LANGUAG ENT OF L OF TEACH SANATA Y

  ial Fulfillm he SarjanaP ish Langua

  By ulius Andar ent Number:

  

2013

  ment of the R Pendidikan age Educat

  Prabowo : 071214050

GE EDUCA ANGUAGE HERS TRA DHARMA YOGYAKA

  ATION ST E AND AR AINING A A UNIVER ARTA

  3 VE SENTE S OF SMA HESIS Requireme Degree ion UDY PRO RTS EDUC ND EDUC RSITY ENCES A NEGER ents

  GRAM CATION ATION RI 7

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  First of all, I would like to give my greatest thanks to Lord Jesus and Mother Mary for the never ending guidance, bless, and love. Without them, it would have been impossible for me to finish this work.

  This great success would have never happened without a lot of help from great people around me. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge my deepest and sincere appreciation to my sponsor, Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. for every single assistance, guidance, suggestion, support, kindness, and patience during the process of accomplishing this thesis. My sincere gratitude also goes to all PBI lecturers, who are never tired of giving me many valuable lessons.

  I also express my gratitude to the headmaster of SMA Negeri 7

  

Yogyakarta , Dra. Reni Herawati, M.Pd.B.I. for giving me access to conduct the

  research and the English teacher of grade eleven, Dra. Rahaju Prihadaryati for giving me guidance and support. I would like to thank all students of both XI IPS 1 and XI IPS 2 academic year 2011/2012 for their help and kindness.

  Profound thankfulness is addressed to my beloved parents, my father

  

Bapak Ambrosius Sumantri Widodo and my mother Ibu Maria Sri Maryati. I

  thank them for every single prayer, love, trust, support, guidance, and patience they have given to me. I hope this thesis could answer some of their prayer for me and bring happiness in their heart.

  I would like to give my special thanks to my friends and family Angga,

  

Baruna, Adi, Reza, Hasbi, Dimas, and Alex for giving beautiful melody during my days. My gratitude is also expressed to my fellow PBI students, especially

  

Kanya, Clara “Umbel”, Wida “Wichan”, and Bezaliel Adit for their advice and

  support. My enormous acknowledgement goes to everybody whom I cannot mention one by one for lending me their power and courage.

  And finally, the last but not least, this thesis would not have been accomplished without an amazing person who always stands by my side even in my hardest moment, Lusia “Uci” Suwantari Nugraheni. Her love, patience, and support have converted me to be a much better person.

  Yulius Andar Prabowo

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TITLE PAGE.................................................................................................... i PAGE OF APPROVAL.................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY................................................. iv LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA

  ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS.......................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................... xii LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................... xiii ABSTRACT...................................................................................................... xiv

  

ABSTRAK .......................................................................................................... xv

  CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background.................................................................................

  1 B. Research Problems.....................................................................................

  3 C. Problem Limitation....................................................................................

  3 D. Research Objectives...................................................................................

  4 E. Research Benefits......................................................................................

  4 F. Definition of Terms....................................................................................

  5

  CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description..............................................................................

  23

  39

  35

  29

  27

  25

  25

  24

  24

  21

  1. Interrogative Question...........................................................................

  14

  11

  7

  7

  CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY A. Research Method........................................................................................ B. Research Setting......................................................................................... C. Research Participants/Subjects................................................................... D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique............................... E. Data Analysis Technique........................................................................... F. Research Procedure.................................................................................... CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Clasification of Questions’ Level............................................................... B. Students’ Answer to the Interrogative Sentence........................................ CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusions................................................................................................ B. Recommendation........................................................................................

  B. Theoretical Framework..............................................................................

  3. The Characteristics of Each Bloom’s Level of Learning......................

  2. Definition of Bloom’s Taxonomy.........................................................

  40

  REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 42

  

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. The Table of WH Question’s Function and Example......................

  11 Table 2.2. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 1 and the Keywords.........

  14 Table 2.3. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 2 and the Keywords.........

  15 Table 2.4. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 3 and the Keywords.........

  16 Table 2.5. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 4 and the Keywords.........

  17 Table 2.6. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 5 and the Keywords.........

  18 Table 2.7. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 6 and the Keywords.........

  19 Table 2.8. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Each Level’s Characteristics....................................................................................................

  20 Table 4.1. The Classification of Question’s Level, the Example, and the Percentage...........................................................................................................

  30 Table 4.2. The Classification of Question and Answer’s Correlation...............

  36

  

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. The Comparison Between Yes/No Questions and W-H Questions............................................................................................................

  8 Figure 2.2. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Verb Be..............

  9 Figure 2.3. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using the Expression do what ...............................................................................................................

  9 Figure 2.4. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (1)...

  10 Figure 2.5. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (2)...

  10 Figure 2.6.Comparison Between the Old and the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy...........................................................................................................

  12 Figure 4.1. Classification of Students’ Level to Produce Interrogative Question..............................................................................................................

  34

  

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Letter of Permission......................................................................

  43 Appendix B List of Questions and The Classifications Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy..........................................................................................................

  46 Appendix C List of Matches Between Questions and Answers.......................

  51 Appendix D Samples of The Students’ Worksheets.........................................

  61

  

ABSTRACT

Prabowo, Yulius Andar. 2013. An Analysis of Interrogative Sentences Made By

Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English

Education Study Program. Sanata Dharma University.

  This study was intended to analyze the interrogative sentences and the responses produced by students of grade eleven of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. There are two objectives of this research. The first one is (1) to find out the levels of the interrogative questions produced by the students according to Anderson’s version of Bloom’s taxonomy on education. The second aim is (2) to examine the students’ answers to the interogative questions.

  This research uses a document analysis. It involves an element of analysis based on Bloom’s taxonomy and its version published by Anderson and Krathwohl. The question-verb functions are used to analyze the students’ replies to the questions.

  Having analyzed the data obtained, it can be concluded that the interrogative sentences made by the students whicharecategorized as level one, namely Remembering, are as many as sixty-three per cent (63%).In level two, namely Understanding, there are as many as fifteen point five per cent (15.7%).In level three, namely Applying, there are as many as eleven point five per cent (11.5%). In level four, namely Analyzing, there are as many as six per cent (6%). In level five, namely Evaluating, there are as many as one point three per cent (1.3%).In level six, namely Creating, there are as many as zero per cent (0%).Meanwhile, two point three per cent (2.3%)were categorized as non-WH questions because the questions were in Yes/No question form. As for the second objective, it can be pointed out that eighty-nine per cent (89%) of the answers to the questions can be categorized as matching with the question verb function. There werenine per cent (9%) of the answers that did not match with the questions. In the meantime, there were two per cent (2%) of the questions that were not answered by the students. Keywords: interrogative sentences, Bloom’s taxonomy, Grade Eleven Students of

  SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta

  

ABSTRAK

Prabowo, Yulius Andar. 2013. An Analysis of Interrogative Sentences Made By

Grade Eleven Students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Program Studi

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Sanata Dharma.

  Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kalimat interogatif dan respon yang

dihasilkan oleh siswa-siswa kelas sebelas di SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta.

Penelitian ini mempunyai dua tujuan. Tujuan pertama adalah (1) mencari tahu

level kemampuan siswa berdasarkan teori taksonomi pendidikan milik Bloom

versi Anderson. Tujuan kedua penelitian ini adalah (2) membahas jawaban siswa

terhadap kalimat interogatif.

  Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis dokumen. Metode ini

melibatkan elemen analisis berdasarkan taksonomi Bloom beserta versi yang

dipublikasikan oleh Anderson dan Krathwohl. Fungsi kata kerja kalimat tanya

digunakan untuk menganalisis jawaban siswa terhadap kalimat tanya.

  Setelah menganalisis data yang telah diperoleh, dapat disimpulkan bahwa

kalimat interogatif yang dibuat oleh siswa dapat dikategorikan menjadi level satu,

Remembering, sebanyak enam puluh tiga persen (63%). Level dua,

Understanding, sebanyak lima belas koma tujuh persen (15,7%). Level tiga,

Applying, sebanyak sebelas koma lima persen (11,5%). Level empat, Analyzing,

sebanyak enam persen (6%).Level lima, Evaluating, sebanyak satu koma tiga

persen (1,3%).Level enam, Creating, sebanyak nol persen (0%).Sementara itu dua

koma tiga persen (2,3%) dikategorikan sebagai non WH question karena

pertanyaan tersebut ditulis dalam bentuk Yes/No question. Sementara itu untuk

tujuan kedua dari penelitian dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa delapan puluh

sembilan persen (89%) jawaban pertanyaan dapat dikategorikan sesuai dengan

fungsi kata kerja dari kalimat tanya. Sembilan persen (9%) dari total jawaban

tidak sesuai dengan pertanyaan. Dua persen (2%) dari total pertanyaan yang

tidak dijawab oleh siswa.

  

Kata kunci : interrogative sentences, Bloom’s taxonomy, Grade Eleven Students of

SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this study the writer would like to investigate interrogative sentences

  made by grade eleven students of SMA Negeri 7 Yogyakarta. This chapter presents six parts, namely Research Background, Research Problems, Problem Limitation, Research Objectives, Research Benefits, and Definition of Terms.

A. Research Background

  English has become an international language used by many countries in this world. English is used as a primary language in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia. There are also countries which use English as their second language, for example, Germany and France. In Indonesia, English is considered as an important language to learn because most books in universities are written in English. English facilitates people to acquire and master various subjects (Suhendro, 2006: 307).

  However, there are many English learners who still have problems to construct and produce clear and understandable English questions. This is exactly what this study is about. According to Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1972), there are three types of questions in English language. They are Yes/No questions, interrogative questions or simply known as WH-questions and alternative questions. Among those types of questions, interrogative sentences are the type of questions which have bigger opportunity to gather more information. It is due to the fact that the answers to this type of questions tend to be freer and opener compared to the other type of questions.

  By using interrogative sentences, one will have a bigger chance of gathering more information. Having the ability to produce WH-questions will also increase the possibilities to get more information rather than only using the simple Yes/No questions. Therefore, this research focuses on the WH-interrogative sentences.

  Mastering the usage of interrogative sentences to gather information is very important for everybody especially for those who are still studying in schools and universities. According to Neil Postman, an American author, a media theorist, and a cultural critic, questioning is the most important intellectual tool (Postman, 1979:154). Therefore, the ability to ask questions is very vital towards human knowledge’s development, especially during the learning period such as in high schools. In high schools, for example, the students are taught about the focused knowledge that will be used in their life. This educational process period is also important because the students are in the middle of their growing age from being a kid into an adult.

  To complete the research, the grade eleven students of SMA Negeri 7

  

Yogyakarta ’s were chosen as the research subjects. During the period of the

  teaching practice in the school, the researcher gave the students a task to produce WH-questions based on a written text. Basically, the students were asked to gather as much information as they could from the text using the WH-questions. The researcher then realized that the students used the questions in many varrious ways. Some students used very simple kinds of questions. Meanwhile, the other students used more complex questions. The answers to those questions were also varried. Some students gave very clear information, some others did not.

  Based on the fact above, the researcher decided to investigate students’ ability to make good and correct WH-questions or also known as interrogative sentences. The writer would investigate the current students’ level to make interrogative sentences using the theory of Bloom’s taxonomy. The research would also investigate the students’ replies to the interrogative sentences.

B. Research Problems

  Considering the situation explained in the research background, the problems of this research can be formulated as follows.

  1. What levels are the interrogative sentences made by students based on Bloom’s Taxonomy?

  2. How do students answer the produced interrogative sentences? C.

   Problem Limitation The scope of the study is to investigate students’ ability to make questions.

  This research tries to find out students’ level in making interrogative sentences in order to gather information. The levels are based on the theory of Anderson and Krathwohl’s on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Therefore, any grammatical errors in the questions made by the students are not going to be discussed in the study. This research also tries to discover how the students respond to the interrogative sentences.

  D. Research Objectives

  Related to the problem formulation, the two objectives that have to be accomplished in this study are as follows.

  1. To find out the levels of the interrogative sentences made by students based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

  2. To find out how students answer the interrogative sentences.

  E. Research Benefits

  This study is highly expected to give essential contributions to those who involved in this and future research. Those are as follows.

  1. The English Teacher of SMA N 7 Yogyakarta This study is expected to give contribution to English teachers especially those who teach English in the grade eleven of senior high schools. They can use this research result as background information to find out a solution to solve the problems faced by the students and increase their skill to produce questions.

  2. The Grade Eleven High School Studentsof SMA N 7 Yogyakarta This study is expected to give contribution to the students to find out their current skill to produce and respond to the interrogative sentences. Hopefully, the students will get some help from the teacher to solve their problems and increase the students’ ability in producing questions.

  3. Future Research This study is expected to give contribution to the future research. The findings of this research can be used as the background study for the future research. Hopefully, other researchers will find out a solution to solve student’s problems and increase the skill to produce questions by using this research as the background study.

F. Definition of Terms

  There are some terms mentioned in this study that need to be defined in order to avoid misunderstanding and to lead readers to a better understanding on the topic being discussed.

1. Interrogative Sentence

  Interrogative sentence is the main focus of the research. Interrogative sentence is a question which begins with an interrogative word or phrase (Greenbaum, 1989:153). Although interrogative sentence has been clearly defined, this kind of question can be used by many different people which may cause different purpose and function for this type of question. In this study, the interrogative sentences are questions which begin with an interrogative word or phrase made by the students of SMA Negeri 7 yogyakarta.

  2. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education

  According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), Bloom’s taxonomy is a classification of learning objectives and skills within education that educators set for students. Bloom’s taxonomy can be applied in many different kinds of study. In this study, the Bloom’s Taxonomy, a classification of learning objectives and skills, is used to determine the students’ level to produce interrogative sentences.

  3. Senior High School Students of SMA N 7 Yogyakarta

  Senior High School students are the students between the ages of 16-18 years old and belong to the three levels of Senior High School. SMA N 7

  

Yogyakarta is a senior high school located at Jl. M. T. Haryono 47, Yogyakarta.

  This study was conducted on the eleventh grade students of SMA N 7 Yogyakarta.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In this chapter, the writer discusses the related literature which becomes

  the basis of the study. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is Theoretical Description, which involves some important theories related to the research. The second part is Theoretical Framework, which provides the summary of the specific theories which are used as the guideline to answer the problems.

A. Theoretical Description

  There are three points to be discussed in the Theoretical Description. They are interrogative sentences, Bloom’s Taxonomy theories, and Bloom’s levels learning characteristics.

1. Interrogative Sentences

  In English language, there are two types of questions. The first is the Yes/No question. This question expects an answer which is Yes or No. The second is WH-questions which is also known as interrogative questions.

  According to Quirk (1972), interrogative questions are questions that contain question words (who, what, how, etc) and expect a reply supplying the missing information posited by the WH-questions.

  Besides those definitions, there are also differences between the Yes/No questions and the WH-interrogative questions. Krohn (1977) in English Structure

  

Sentence explained the comparison between Yes/No questions and WH-questions

by giving example as in figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. The Comparison between Yes/No Questions and W-H Questions STATEMENT: John likes coffee.

  YES/NO QUESTIONS: Does John like coffee? what W-H QUESTIONS: Does John like coffee?

  What does John like? As explained in the figure above, the biggest difference between Yes/No and WH-questions is the precence of a question word within the question. WH- questions always include a question word at the beginning of the question, while the Yes/No questions do not use any question word at the beginning of the question. The types of the question word used in the sentence are based on the purpose of the question.

  If the statement uses verb be, the pattern of Yes/No and WH-question becomes as in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Verb Be STATEMENT: John is in class.

  YES/NO QUESTIONS: Is John in class? where W-H QUESTIONS: Is John in class?

  Where is John? There is a change in the pattern of Yes/No when the statement uses verb

be. Compared to the previous pattern, the do/does is replaced with the verb be (is).

  In WH-question, the do/does is also replaced with the verb be. The question word is still used at the beginning of the question.

  If the question uses the expression do what, the pattern becomes as in figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using the Expression do what STATEMENT: John studies English every day.

  YES/NO QUESTIONS: Does John study English every day? Do what

  W-H QUESTIONS: What does John do every day? If the question uses the expression do what, the pattern of Yes/No questions is preceded by the word do or does. It depends on the subject used in the question. While in the WH-questions, the verb is replaced with do or does based on the subject of the sentence. The questioned object is also replaced with a

  If there is a preposition in the statement, the pattern becomes as in figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (1) John studies at the library every day.

  Does John study at the library every day?

   Where

  Does John study at the library every day? Where does John study every day?

  When there is a preposition in the statement, the difference between the pattern of Yes/No questions and WH-questions lies on the existence of a question word in front of the sentence. The Yes/No questions do not have a question word preceding the sentence. While in WH-questions, the questioned subject is replaced with a question word used in front of the sentence. Another example of the pattern if there is a preposition in the statement can be seen in figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5. The Pattern of Yes/No and W-H Question Using Preposition (2) John looks at Mary every day.

  Does John look at Mary every day?

  Who

  Does John look at Mary every day? Who does John look at every day? This research focused on the use of interrogative questions. In interrogative questions, each question word has a specific function. The function and the example of interrogative questions are explained in table 2.1.

Table 2.1. The Table of WH Question’s Function and Example Question Word Function Example

  what asking for information about What is your name something asking for repetition or What? I can't hear you. confirmation You did what? what...for asking for a reason, asking why What did you do that for? when asking about time When did he leave? where asking in or at what place or Where do they live? position which asking about choice Which colour do you want? who asking what or which person or Who opened the door? people (subject) whom asking what or which person or Whom did you see? people (object) whose asking about ownership Whose keys are these?

  Whose turn is it? Why asking for reason, asking what...for Why do you say that? why don't making a suggestion Why don't I help you? How asking about manner How does this work? asking about condition or quality How was your exam? how + adj/adv asking about extent or degree see examples below how far Distance How far is Pattaya from

  Bangkok? how long length (time or space) How long will it take? how many quantity (countable) How many cars are there? how much quantity (uncountable) How much money do you have? how old Age How old are you? how come asking for reason, asking why How come I can't see

  (informal) her?

  Retrived from http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/wh-question-words.htm

2. Definition of Bloom’s Taxonomy

  According to Anderson &Krathwohl (2001) in The Taxonomy of

  

Educational Objective , Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification of the different

  objectives and skills that educators set for students. The theory was proposed by Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist at the University of Chicago in 1956. There are two versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy; the original one and the revised version. Both versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy can be seen in diagram 2.1. below.

Figure 2.6. Comparison between Old and New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy

  There are some changes in terms that occur between both versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The names of six major categories were changed from noun to verb forms. As the taxonomy reflects different forms of thinking and thinking is an active process, verbs were used rather than nouns. The subcategories of the six major categories were also replaced by verbs and some subcategories were reorganised. The knowledge category was renamed. Knowledge was an outcome or product of thinking not a form of thinking. Consequently, the word knowledge was inapropriate to subscribe a category of thinking and was replaced with the word remembering instead. Comprehension and synthesis were retitled to

  

understanding and creating respectively, in order to better reflect the nature of the

  thinking defined in each category. (retrieved from http://rite.ed.qut.edu.au/oz- teachernet/training/bloom.html) In 1990s, Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised by his former student, Lorin

  Anderson. According to Anderson & Krathwohl (2001), Bloom’s Taxonomy is the representatives of three groups: cognitive psychologist, curriculum theorist and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment specialists (p.xxviii). The new terms are defined as follows.

  a) Remembering This level is about retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge for long term memory. This level also exibits memory of previously learned material.

  b) Understanding This level is about constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. This level also demonstrates understanding of facts and idea by stating main idea. c) Applying This level is about carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. This level is also about solving problem to new situations by applying acquired knowledge.

  d) Analyzing This level is about breaking materials into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. This level is also about making inferences and finding evidence to suport generalizations.

  e) Evaluating This level is about making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. This level also presents and defends opinions using the judgement.

  f) Creating This level is about compiling elements together to form a coherent or functional whole. This level also reorganizes elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.

3. The Characteristics of Each Bloom’s Level of Learning

  In order to measure students’ skill to produce interrogative question using Bloom’s taxonomy, keywords of each level of learning are needed. The keywords as listed in the website www.edupressinc.com are as follows.

Table 2.2. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 1 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 1 – REMEMBERING

  

Exhibit memory of previously learned material by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts,

and answers. choose, define, find, how, label, list, match, name, omit, recall, relate,

  Key Words select, show, spell, tell, what, when, where, which, who, why What is …? Where is …? How did ___ happen? Why did …? When did …? How would you show …? Who were the main …? Which one …?

  Questions How is …? When did ___ happen? How would you explain …? How would you describe ..? Can you recall …? Can you select …? Can you list the three …? Who was …?

  The first level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy deals with recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers. Therefore, the first level’s keywords include simple verbs such as choose, define, recall, show, and tell. Simple interrogative questions such as what is ...?, where is ...?, who was ...?, and which one ...? are also categorized into this level. Therefore, any interrogative question which consists of those keywords or has similar meaning of those question examples is categorized into this first level.

Table 2.3. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 2 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 2 – UNDERSTANDING

  Demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas. classify, compare, contrast, demonstrate, explain, extend, illustrate,

  Key Words infer, interpret, outline, relate, rephrase, show, summarize, translate How would you classify the type of …?

How would you compare …? contrast …?

Will you state or interpret in your own words …?

How would you rephrase the meaning …?

What facts or ideas show …?

  Questions What is the main idea of …? Which statements support …? Can you explain what is happening …? what is meant …? What can you say about …? Which is the best answer …? How would you summarize …?

  Level 2 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas. The keywords of this Bloom’s taxonomy level includes explain, illustrate, classify, compare, summarize, and translate. Thus, any interrogative question which consists of those keywords or the similar meanings are categorized into the second level of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Table 2.4. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 3 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 3 – APPLYING

  Solve problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way. apply, build, choose, construct, develop, experiment with, identify, Key Words interview, make use of, model, organize, plan, select, solve, utilize How would you use …? What examples can you find to …? How would you solve ___ using what you’ve learned …?

How would you organize ___ to show …?

How would you show your understanding of …? What approach would you use to …?

  Questions How would you apply what you learned to develop …? What other way would you plan to …? What would result if …? Can you make use of the facts to …? What elements would you choose to change …? What facts would you select to show …? What questions would you ask in an interview with …?

  Level 3 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with applying acquired knowledges, facts, techniques and rules in a different way. The keywords include verbs such as apply, develop, plan, solve, and utilize. Those keywords show that in order to be categorized into this level, the interrogative question should be asking the answerers to act and do something to apply their knowledge.

Table 2.5. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 4 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 4 – ANALYZING

  Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make inferences and find evidence to support generalizations. analyze, assume, categorize, classify, compare, conclusion, contrast, discover, dissect, distinguish, divide, examine, function, inference,

  Key Words inspect, list, motive, relationships, simplify, survey, take part in, test, for, theme What are the parts or features of …?

  Questions

  How is ___ related to …? Why do you think …? What is the theme …? What motive is there …? Can you list the parts …? What inference can you make …? What conclusions can you draw …? How would you classify...? How would you categorize...? Can you identify the different parts …? What evidence can you find …? What is the relationship between …? Can you distinguish between …? What is the function of …? What ideas justify …?

  The fourth Bloom’s taxonomy deals with analyzing information by identifying motives or causes. Interrogative questions that are categorized into this level are those which contain the keywords as analyze, compare, simplify, assume, or words that have similar meaning with those keywords.

Table 2.6. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 5 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 5 – EVALUATING

  

Present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas, or

quality of work based on a set of criteria. agree, appraise, assess, award, choose, compare, conclude, criteria, criticize, decide, deduct, defend, determine, disprove, dispute,

  Key Words estimate, evaluate, explain, importance, influence, interpret, judge, justify, mark, measure, opinion, perceive, prioritize, prove, rate,

recommend, rule on, select, support, value

Do you agree with the actions…? with the outcome…?

  Questions What is your opinion of …?

  How would you prove …? Disprove…?

Can you assess the value or importance of …?

Would it be better if …? Why did they (the character) choose …? What would you recommend…? How would you rate the …?

What would you cite to defend the actions …?

How could you determine…? What choice would you have made …? How would you prioritize …?

What judgment would you make about …?

Based on what you know, how would you explain …? What information would you use to support the view…? How would you justify …? What data was used to make the conclusion…? What was it better that …? How would you compare the ideas …? people …?

  Level 5 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with evaluating information. This level includes present and defend opinion based on validity of ideas based on a set of criteria. Any interrogative questions which consist of keywords such as criticize, defend, judge, prove, or words with similar meaning are categorized into this level.

Table 2.7. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy Level 6 and the Keywords

  LEVEL 6 – CREATING

  

Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern

or proposing alternative solutions. adapt, build, change, choose, combine, compile, compose, construct,

  Key Words create, delete, design, develop, discuss, elaborate, estimate, formulate, happen, imagine, improve, invent, make up, maximize, minimize, modify, original, originate, plan, predict, propose, solution, solve, suppose, test, theory What changes would you make to solve …? How would you improve …? What would happen if …? Can you elaborate on the reason …? Can you propose an alternative…? Can you invent …? How would you adapt ___ to create a different …? How could you change (modify) the plot (plan) …?

What could be done to minimize (maximize) …?

  Questions What way would you design …? What could be combined to improve (change) …?

Suppose you could ___ what would you do …?

How would you test …? Can you formulate a theory for …? Can you predict the outcome if …? How would you estimate the results for …? What facts can you compile …? Can you construct a model that would change …?

Can you think of an original way for the …?

  Level 6 of Bloom’s taxonomy deals with compiling information and combining elements to create a new alternative solution. This highest level of Bloom’s taxonomy includes some keywords, such as formulate, elaborate, compose, construct, design, or any words which have similar meaning. Basically the purpose of this highest level is to create something new.

  The website ecampus.oregonstate.edu listed the characteristics of each level of learning. It describes each level using 4 keywords each.

Table 2.8. The Table of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Each Level’s Characteristics

  The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create Describe Interpret Experiment Explain Assess Plan Different

  Tabule Predict Calculate Conclude Compose iate Appropriate

  Execute Construct Achieve Action Actualize Use

  The table above explains the characteristic of each level of Bloom’s taxonomy with 4 main keywords. Those keywords will become the standard requirement in categorizing the level of every interrogative sentences. The interrogative sentences will be categorized in a level of Bloom’s taxonomy as long as it includes the keywords or words with similar meaning.

B. Theoretical Framework

  As the framework, some points can be summed up in order to make the analysis of the problems easier. The problems are students’ level on producing interrogative questions and how the students answer the questions. There are two points that are highlighted, namely the difinition of interrogative question, and The Bloom’s taxonomy.

  Interrogative question is a type of question that contains WH element (who, what, how, etc). This type of question expects a reply supplying the missing information posited by the WH-questions. Each WH element has a specific function which will determine the expected answer of each question. This theory is used to fulfill the second research objective, which is to find out how the other students answer the interrogative sentences. The theory is employed to find out whether the students respond to the question with a compatible answer or not. By comparing between the question’s function based on the theory and the students’ answer, the percentage of student’s questions and answers compatibility will be revealed.

  In relation to the first objective of the study, which is to find out the levels of the interrogative questions produced by students, the Bloom’s Taxonomy will be used as the measurement of student’s skill and learning process. Based on the cognitive aspect in Bloom’s Taxonomy, there are six levels of learning. Those six levels from the lowest to highest are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Each level has different keywords and characteristic. Employing this theory, the level of students’ skill to produce interrogative questions can be measured by categorizing the questions made by the students using the keywords and the characteristic of each level of learning. It will show in which level of learning the students are and eventually answer the first research problem.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter gives further information on how the study was conducted. It

  gives information on how the data were gathered and analyzed to answer the problems. This chapter consists of Research Method, Research Setting, Research Participants/Subjects, Research Instrument and Data Gathering Technique, Data Analysis Technique, and Research Procedure.