ELICITATION TECHNIQUES IN QUESTIONING USED BY CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING CLASSROOM TEACHERS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE SHEET ...i

APPROVAL SHEET ...ii

DECLARATION ...iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...iv

ABSTRACT ...v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...vi

LIST OF TABLES ...vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ...1

1.2 Research Questions ...3

1.3 The Purpose of the Study ...3

1.4 Significance of the Study ...4

1.5 Organization of the Thesis ...4

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Elicitation ...6

2.1.1 Definition of Elicitation ...6

2.1.2 Types of Elicitation ...8

2.2 Directive ...19

2.2.1 Definition of Directive ...19

2.2.2 Types of Directive ...20

2.2.3 Types of Question ...21

2.3 Content and Language Integrated Learning Classroom and Elicitation ...28

2.3.1 Questioning in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classroom ...28

2.3.2 The Importance of Elicitation in the Content and Language Integrated Classroom ...30

2.4 Previous Studies on Questioning and Elicitation ...32

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Design ...35

3.2 The Participants ...37

3.3 The Research Setting...37

3.4 Data Collection Technique ...38

3.4.1 Observation ...38

3.4.2 Interview ...39

3.5 Technique of Analyzing Data ...40

3.6 Trustworthiness of the Data ...42

3.6.1 Credibility/Internal Validity ...42

3.6.2 Transferability/External Validity ...43

3.6.3 Dependability/Reliability ...43

3.6.4 Confirmability/Objectivity ...44

3.7 Concluding Remarks ...44

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Types of Elicitation ...46

4.1.1 Elicit:inform ...47

4.1.2 Elicit:confirm ...50

4.1.3 Elicit:agree ...52

4.1.4 Elicit:commit ...53

4.1.5 Elicit:repeat ...56

4.1.6 Elicit:clarify...57

4.1.7 Elicit:complete ...58

4.2 Types of Teacher Questions ...63

4.2.1 Skinny Question ...64

4.2.2 Fat Question ...66

4.2.3 High-Consensus Question ...70

4.2.4 Low-Consensus Question ...71

4.2.5 Review Question ...72

4.2.6 True Question ...75

4.3 Concluding Remarks ...79

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ...80

REFERENCES ...83 APPENDICES ...91

Permission letter from SMP N 1 Margahayu Interview guide

Transcript of observation data Transcript of interview data

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 The instances of Bloom’s taxonomy questions ... 22

2.2 Types of question by Kagan (1999)... 26

3.1 The class observation schedule ... 39

3.2 The interview schedule ... 40

4.1 Types and number of elicitations used by teacher A, B, C, and D ... 47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 The connection between directive, questions and elicitation ... 27 4.1 The hierarchy of the elicitation from the most frequently used to the least

one……… 62 4.2 The most frequently sequence of elicitation used by CLIL teacher ... 62

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This section covers the introductory part of the thesis. It covers the background, research questions, purposes of the study, significance of the study, and the organization of this thesis. Those introductory parts will be presented below respectively.

1.1Background of the Study

The effectiveness of directives in the teaching and learning process has been widely explored by some researchers, including its usage in the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom (Craven & Potter, 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2005). And one type of directives that is really constructive in building the students’ vigor is question and it can be used as help for the students (Brown, 2007). In CLIL classroom in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (Coyle at al., 2010), posing the questions will be one of good ways in eliciting the students to response. By using questions the teachers will lead their students to the way as it is recorded in the lesson plan. As it is said by Killen (1998: 11), ‘questioning can be used to keep the lesson on task and to encourage students to engage in learning’. To support this, Martin (1979) has explained that questioning can be a vehicle for introducing new lessons and as a means of enabling even slow learners to be successful in their learning. Thus, it can be said that questioning can bridge the lower learners to be at the higher level of understanding.

However, the questions given by the teacher do not always get responses from the students. It could be due to the lack of knowledge of the students related to the questions given or it might be due to the unclearness of the questions themselves. When this situation happens during the teaching and learning process, then the teachers should make them clearer (Hines, 1981) by some ways such as informing, confirming, agreeing, committing, repeating and clarifying (Tsui, 1975 cited in Coulthard, 2002). However, the most important thing to be realized on the first hand is that the teachers’ awareness of how they use the language affects the students’ responses (Davison & Dowson, 2002), whether they give response or they choose to keep quiet as the clue of their inability to grasp the meaning. They should be aware that good questions could foster interaction between teachers and students as such kind of interaction promotes student achievement (Rosenshine, 1971). Thus, one can surmise that good questions foster student understanding and good questions can be created using some elicitation techniques when the first utterance cannot be understood.

Furthermore, according to Vygotsky (1978 cited in Halpern, 2003: 22), ‘intelligence is best indexed by the way in which people learn, especially when they receive feedback about their learning, rather than in the level of learning they have achieved at some point in time’. Regarding this phenomenon, in terms of immediate oral feedback, Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Tedick (1998) share the same opinion that oral feedback can be divided into six types, namely recasts, elicitation, clarification requests, metalinguistic cues, explicit correction, and repetition. In other words, elicitation, as one of feedback, can increase the students’ intelligence.

From the brief explanation above, it is clear that the success of realizing English in CLIL classroom can be achieved by using some types of elicitation in posing questions as it is difficult to manage conversation without the use of question (Thornbury & Slade, 2007). When the conversation can be managed in CLIL classroom, in question and answer, it is one of the indications that the additional language has been succeeded used both for learning language and content. For this reason, this research will investigate the types of questions and elicitations used in the teaching and learning process in Mathematics and Science classes.

1.2Research Questions

Based on the issues of the use of questions stated in the background of the study, this research is intended to investigate the types of questions used in the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom. And to find out the data needed in this study, the answers of the following research questions will be found out.

1. What types of elicitation are applied by the teachers to pose questions? 2. To what extent do the elicitation techniques affect the students responses? 3. What types of questions do the teachers employ in the classroom?

1.3The purpose of the Study

There are two main purposes of conducting this research. The first purpose is to find out the types of questions used by the teachers in the teaching and learning process in CLIL classroom, Science and Mathematics. The second is to

explore the elicitation techniques applied by the teachers in using the questions to

elicit the students’ response.

1.4Significance of the Study

This research is significant as it attempts to reveal kinds of questions used by Science and Mathematics teachers throughout the teaching and learning process. This is very substantial as question is used as one tool to know the students understanding. Therefore, it is highly expected that this research will

increase the teachers’ awareness of the importance of using various questions in

the classroom and make them use appropriately whilst teaching. In terms of elicitation used in posing question, it is very important as it can realize the use of additional language in CLIL classroom for both learning language and content. Then, the results can support an existing theory on the use of elicitation techniques in posing questions in CLIL classroom.

1.5Organization of the Thesis

To make the readers easy in reading and understanding the content of this research, therefore, it is organized into five systematized chapters. Chapter One presents the introduction which covers the background of the study, the research questions, the purposes of the study and the significance of the study as the final part.

Chapter Two presents review of related literature relating with teacher questions. It will discuss the importance and the purpose of the use question in the teaching and learning process. Besides, it will particularize the types of question

used by the teachers. Afterward, chapter three will elaborate the methodology of the research which covers research design, research site, research participant, data collection and data analysis.

Chapter Four depicts the findings and discussion of the present study based on the two research questions. The analysis is presented in sequence starting from types of teacher questions followed by the types of elicitations applied by the teachers when the students do not understand the given questions.

Chapter Five draws the conclusion which is taken from the findings of the present study. At the end of this section, the researcher will elaborate some possible recommendations for further studies. Next is the discussion of the limitation of the present study and put forward some suggestions for the further study on teacher questions.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

The methodological aspects of this study will be elaborated in this section which include the research design, research method, the participants, the research setting, techniques of gathering data, technique of analyzing data, and trusworthiness of the data.

3.1 Research Design

This study was conducted by applying qualitative research design in which the researcher served as the primary instrument in collecting and analyzing the data. The main data was collected by observing the natural setting of CLIL classroom interaction. In other words, natural setting observation is called

“naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nunan, 1992; Cohen & Manion, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Silverman, 2005; Alwasilah, 2008; Nunan & Bailey, 2009) or “naturalistic observation” (Frankel & Wallen, 1990). Natural setting here means that the researcher did not manipulate every detail of the data. The entire data were taken in natural setting while the teaching and learning process were done in the classroom. As this study needs to analyze the natural setting happened in the classroom, then qualitative design was chosen.

In line with this, Merriam (1988: 16) mentions that „A qualitative data

consists of detailed description situations, events, people, attitudes, believes and thoughts, excerpts or entire passages from documents, correspondence, records

In the similar vein, Alwasilah (2008) states that some methods which are prevalent used are ethnography, phenomenology, rounded theory, and case study. Meanwhile, Heigham and Croker (2009) have another opinion based on the significancy of the study; they say that two methods, phenomenology and grounded theory, are the most frequent approaches to be found. However, the choice of the method used in the study is based on the purpose and the need to get the data. Therefore, this study used case study method as it was only conducted in one school and only researched the teachers who teach Mathematics and Science. In correspondence to this, Meriam (1998) mentions that „a case study presents that the case, then, could be person such as a teacher, a student, a principles, a program,

and so on‟.

In this study, the researcher analyzed abundant of data description obtained from four teachers who teach in Mathematics and Science classes. This is one advantage of using case study, the researcher could present detail data concerning to the types of questions and elicitation types used by the teachers in the teaching and learning process (Bodgan & Biklen, 1982). The second advantage proposed is that a case study can represent multiplicity of viewpoints and can offer support to alternative interpretation. The next advantage is if the result of a case study is presented properly, it may provide database which may be used and reinterpreted by the future researchers. And the last one is that the findings of case study can be beneficial for immediate practice.

1.2 The Participants

To get the data of elicitation types used by Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom teachers, this study involved four teachers in SMP N 1 Margahayu who teach Mathematics and Science, Biology and Physics. The four teachers were selected by the school committee to be the respondents as they have adequate experience in teaching Science and Mathematics using English as a means of communication and they were also selected based on accessibility (Kvale, 1996).

1.3 The Research Setting

The setting of the present study was conducted in SMP N 1 Margahayu, Bandung. This school was chosen because of the accessibility (Kvale, 1996) for the researcher to conduct the research there. Besides, it was chosen after the researcher did some observations to two SMP N RSBI in Bandung, and it was found that SMP N 1 Margahayu is the one in which English is used in teaching Math and Science throughout the classes. For this reason, this study was conducted there.

There were four teachers with six classes as the focus of observation. The first two classes were 8B and 8D with Math as the subject, the next were 8C and 8H with Biology, and 8G and 8I with Physics. The duration of each meeting was 75 minutes. However, the observation sometimes ended before the time up as the teacher had ended the lesson.

1.4 Data Collection Technique

The data were collected by observation and interview as they are dominant in collecting the data in qualitative research (Bashir et al., 2008: 38). The observation was done twice, in two meetings, for each teacher except the Biology teacher as there were two teachers chosen. It means that this study needs six meetings to observe in order to obtain adequate data to analyze.

1.4.1 Observation

To get the data from observation, the researcher used audio and video recording. Although in most circumstances, audio data were sufficient, the use of audio is highly recommended and needed as visual corroboration will increase the validity of the data (Wray et al., 2001:154). Besides, observation was done to gain the data which could not be elicited by questionnaire and interview (Maxwell, 1996) and it was intended to know the meanings, events, actions or processes being done by participants (Alwasilah, 2008). As this study needs natural data

from the teachers utterances as well as the students‟ responses, then non -participant observation was used. In this phase, the researcher was not involved in the classroom activities. She only gave the audio recorder to the teacher to use along the teaching and learning process and recorded the whole activities using video-recorder from the back of the class. Therefore, there was no intervention at all in the process of teaching and learning (Cohen & Manion, 1994).

The observation itself was conducted in the classroom; there were six classes and four teachers observed for this study and it was done in May 2012. The detail schedule for observation is as follows:

Table 3.1 The class observation schedule

No. Subject Teacher Date Duration

1. Math Teacher A May 7th, 2012 59 minutes

2. Math Teacher A May 14th, 2012 72 minutes

3. Biology Teacher B May 14th, 2012 43 minutes 4. Biology Teacher C May 16th, 2012 73 minutes 5. Physics Teacher D May 22nd, 2012 48 minutes 6. Physics Teacher D May 24th, 2012 36 minutes

Total 331 minutes

1.4.2 Interview

The semistructured interview was done in this study to increase the validity of the data got from observation. In this study, semistructured interview was applied as by using this type of interview the possibility to get the data required was high as it did not limit the interviewees in giving their opinion (Heigham & Croker, 2009). Furthermore, they say that this type of interview

offers „sufficient flexibility to probe some aspects in depth and, where necessary, to let the respondent lead in much the same way as in open interview‟ (p. 186).

Regading this, Merriam (1998: 74) says that the use of less structured questions has made the semistructured interview more flexible. It makes the interviewer has big possibility to get deep data. In line with that, Gall et al. (2003: 240) states that

„the semistructured interview involves asking a series of structured questions and then probing more deeply using open-form questions to obtain additional

information‟.

The interview was scheduled after each teacher has been observed. Therefore, besides from the research question, the interview guide was also taken from the recorded data got from the observation (Heigham & Croker, 2009: 183). The detail schedule for the interview can be seen as follows:

Table 3.2 The interview schedule

No. Teacher/Subject Date Duration

1. Physics May 24nd, 2012 11 minutes

2. Mathematics May 26th, 2012 7 minutes

3. Biology (TC) May 26th, 2012 14 minutes 4. Biology (TB) May 27th, 2012 10 minutes

In each interview, the researcher used interview guide which contains „an outline of topics to be covered (Heigham & Croker, 2009: 186) with some suggested

questions‟ (Kvale, 1996: 129). Besides, some of types of interview questions suggested by Kvale (1996: 133-135) were used to gain more trustworthy data. In this study, the types of question used in interview were probing questions, direct questions, structuring questions, silence, and interpreting question.

In terms of the way of collecting the interview data, the researcher recorded the whole data by using MP3 as suggested by Silverman (2005), therefore, the recorded data could be replayed while they were being transcribed. Then, the interview data were interpreted to answer research questions and compared to the theory unperpinning the study (Emilia, 2007 in Emilia, 2008: 197).

1.5 Technique of Analyzing Data

There were some steps in the process of analyzing the data. First of all, the data from observation were transcribed based on those of Gail Jefferson (cited in Wray et al., 2001: 202-211). The key of the convention symbols used in this study are as follows:

T S Ss ((pause)) : : : : Teacher Student

More than one student speak

((gap)) : = (mekka bunit cor) // [[ Italic () - : : : : : : : : :

It is used if the pause occurs between different speakers‟ turns.

A colon will be used immediately after the lengthened sound (in certain syllable), the longer the sound, the more colons will be used.

This latching, equals sign, is used at the end of the first component and the beginning of the second one.

It is used when the writer can hear the sounds but cannot work out what the words are.

A double oblique line put into the established speaker‟s

line at the point of interruption, and start the new speaker on the next line.

A double opening square bracket is used when more than one speaker speak.

If the language used is not English, the transcription will be written in italic.

The bracket is used to give more explanation on what the students do in responding the questions (transcriber‟s comments), e.g. (nod).

A dash is used when the speaker has not finished the word uttered.

After having transcription and convention, the next step was classifying the utterances into questions and their responses. The questions were categorized based on Kagan‟s (1999) as they are based on Bloom taxonomy. However, they are more detail. Those types of questions are skinny question, fat question, high-consensus question, low-high-consensus question, true question and review question. Despite the similarity of some questions with some others from other authors, however this categorization was used as it was more representative used in RSBI class.

Meanwhile, the students‟ responses were classified to know the elicitation types used by the teachers based on the prospected responses (Tsui in Coulthard, 2002: 102). Those subcategories of elicitation are elicit:inform, elicit:confirm, elicit:agree, elicit:commit, elicit:repeat and elicit:clarify. However, as the

and Spada (2006: 127) was also used in this study. This type of elicitation is

completion. Therefore, there are seven elicitation types of teachers‟ utterances that

were analyzed in this study.

1.6 Trusworthiness of the Data

The validity and reliability in qualitative research is important as well as in

quantitative research. It was done to reduce the researcher‟s biases, opinions, and

prejudices. In qualitative research the terms are different from the quantitative research; credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

1.6.1 Credibility/ Internal Validity

Credibility in qualitative research concerns the truthfulness of the inquiry‟s

findings. Credibility or truth value involves how well the researcher has established confidence in the findings based on the research design, participants, and context (Ary, 2002:452). This statement is supported by Krefting (1991: 215 in Ary, 2002: 452) that “a qualitative study is considered credible when it presents such accurate descriptions or interpretations of human experience that people who

also share that experience would immediately recognize the description”.

The researcher uses structural corroboration to enhance the credibility of the research. According to Ary (2002:452), “Structural corroboration uses different sources of data (data triangulation) and different methods (methods triangulation). When these different procedures or different data sources are in

agreement, there is corroboration”. Related to the term of structural corroboration, Eisner (1991:55) says that structural corroboration is the same as triangulation.

Meanwhile, to enhance the credibility, the researcher uses two methods in collecting the data, observation and interview. Besides, the credibility of the research is enhanced by spending a large amount of time in the field and using supported instrument to collect the data such as tape recorder (Usman et al., 2000:88-89). In this study, audio and video recorder were used to collect the data.

1.6.2 Transferability/ External Validity

Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings of a qualitative study can be applied or generalized to other contexts or to other groups (Ary, 2002:454). According to him, enhancing the transferability of qualitative research can be conducted by providing sufficiently rich, detailed, thick descriptions of the context. To get the rich data, the researcher recorded two meetings for every lesson, and by spending the amount of time, the data got have been saturated.

1.6.3 Dependability/ Reliability

In qualitative research, the dependability is seen as the extent to which variation can be tracked or explained (Ary, 2002:455). As proposed by Ary (2002:455), the researcher used audit trail and triangulation. In audit trail the researcher kept thorough notes and records of the entire activities, and kept the data well organized and in retrievable form. To conduct the audit trail, the researcher gave all of the raw data, the analysis result, and the synthesis result such as summary or conclusion to the advisor. As Usman and Akbar (2000: 89) propose that the audit trail was conducted by the advisor of the research. In conducting the audit trail, the advisor read the transcription, listen the audio

recording and watch the video recording, then he gave some suggestions concerning the data that should be transcribed and the symbols should be used in the transcription.

Meanwhile, triangulation was applied to crosscheck the data from observation and interview. In this study triangulation was applied as it was used to control the bias of the data and its analysis as it was proposed by Mathison (1988).

In accordance with Mathison‟s statement, some researchers such as McMillan & Schumacher, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001, just to mention few, also agree that triangulation is typically a strategy for improving the validity and reliability of research or evaluation of findings.

1.6.4 Confirmability/ Objectivity

Confirmability (neutrality) is the extent to which the research is free of bias in the procedures and the interpretation of result (Ary, 2002:456). To demonstrate the confirmability or objectivity, the researcher used audit trail and triangulation as it was done to enhance dependability.

1.7 Concluding Remarks

This chapter discusses the how-and-why the data were collected. The primary data were taken from the transcription of observation in the classroom which was done for six times/meetings, with two meetings in Physics class, two meetings in Mathematics class and two meetings in Biology class. Meanwhile, the secondary data were from the interview with the teachers. Then, the data gathered

from two sources were transcribed, identified, and classified using Tsui‟s classification of elicitation and Kagan‟s types of questions.

The research method used in this study was qualitative case study. It was applied as this study needed natural data which only can be gathered by applying qualitative design. And this study is a case study as it was done only in one school with certain teachers chosen based on the need of the study.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this part, the researcher will elaborate the conclusion drawn from the present study and some possible recommendations for conducting further related studies.

5.1 Conclusions

This study investigates teachers’ directives that focused on CLIL classroom of four teachers, two Biology teachers, one Math and Physics teacher, in a Fledling International Standard School (RSBI) in Bandung. The purposes are to identify the types of questions used by science and math teachers in CLIL classroom and the types of elicitation used by the teachers to get the students’ responses.

The findings showed that elicit:inform was used more frequently than the other types of elicitations, and it confirms previous study conducted by Basturkmen (1992) and Thuy (2011). However, the difference between this study and Basturkmen’s was found in the focus of the respondent. In the present study, the researcher focused on the language used by the teachers in CLIL classroom, meanwhile Basturkmen focused on the language used by the students. Despite the different focus of the respondent, the result remained the same. Furthermore, the most frequently used of elicit:inform found in this study is in line with what Sinclair and Coulthard suggest (cited in Bissesar et al., 2008). They state that the most frequently used of elicitation in the classroom is elicit:inform.

Meanwhile, in the use of different elicitations in the teaching and learning process, the teacher had given different chances to the students. When the teacher posed the question in elicit:inform, for instance, and the students could not answer it, then when it was changed using elicit:confirm, it triggered the students to give responses. It means that the use of different types of elicitations would motivate the students to think in longer time which result in the used of English for both learning language and content.

Then, the third problem researched in this study was the question types used by the teachers in CLIL classroom. From this study, it was found that the most frequently used of question was skinny question. It was used by all teachers along the teaching and learning process; that was 54.6%, followed by high-consensus question and fat question which reached 41% and 2.8% respectively. Then review question placed at the fourth rank with 1% and low consensus question was at the fifth with 0.4%. Whereas, the least one was true question which only reached 0.1% of all. In this study, as the finding of the most frequently used of question was skinny question, the teachers still used low cognitive question. This study supported the previous research conducted by Tan (2007) and Rerung et al. (2012). Besides, in the use of question the three teachers, out of four, still used Indonesian in some cases. The use of code-switching in this finding was in accordance with the finding of Elridge (1996).

As this study only involved the small-scale of participant and it was only conducted in limited time, the holistic understanding of the questions and elicitations could not be revealed. In addition, this study only covered two aspects, they are the types of questions and elicitations used by the teachers in CLIL

classroom. To this end, further study was highly recommended to cover more complex aspect.

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

Some aspects that could be taken into consideration as the focus before conducting further investigation are (1) what makes the students do not answer the question straight away, then it falls to the question, ‘Why the students keep silent after the questions are posed by the teacher?’. And another one (2) is what the function of pauses in the process of questioning, then it can be focused on the range of students answer when the teacher pauses one question before the next one. For this, the research question could be ‘How effective is the ‘wait-time’ for the students in response an initial question that has been posed?’.

Meanwhile, to enhance the credibility, the researcher uses two methods in collecting the data, observation and interview. Besides, the credibility of the research is enhanced by spending a large amount of time in the field and using supported instrument to collect the data such as tape recorder (Usman et al., 2000:88-89). In this study, audio and video recorder were used to collect the data.

1.6.2 Transferability/ External Validity

Transferability refers to the degree to which the findings of a qualitative study can be applied or generalized to other contexts or to other groups (Ary, 2002:454). According to him, enhancing the transferability of qualitative research can be conducted by providing sufficiently rich, detailed, thick descriptions of the context. To get the rich data, the researcher recorded two meetings for every lesson, and by spending the amount of time, the data got have been saturated.

1.6.3 Dependability/ Reliability

In qualitative research, the dependability is seen as the extent to which variation can be tracked or explained (Ary, 2002:455). As proposed by Ary (2002:455), the researcher used audit trail and triangulation. In audit trail the researcher kept thorough notes and records of the entire activities, and kept the data well organized and in retrievable form. To conduct the audit trail, the researcher gave all of the raw data, the analysis result, and the synthesis result such as summary or conclusion to the advisor. As Usman and Akbar (2000: 89) propose that the audit trail was conducted by the advisor of the research. In conducting the audit trail, the advisor read the transcription, listen the audio

recording and watch the video recording, then he gave some suggestions concerning the data that should be transcribed and the symbols should be used in the transcription.

Meanwhile, triangulation was applied to crosscheck the data from observation and interview. In this study triangulation was applied as it was used to control the bias of the data and its analysis as it was proposed by Mathison (1988). In accordance with Mathison‟s statement, some researchers such as McMillan & Schumacher, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001, just to mention few, also agree that triangulation is typically a strategy for improving the validity and reliability of research or evaluation of findings.

1.6.4 Confirmability/ Objectivity

Confirmability (neutrality) is the extent to which the research is free of bias in the procedures and the interpretation of result (Ary, 2002:456). To demonstrate the confirmability or objectivity, the researcher used audit trail and triangulation as it was done to enhance dependability.

1.7 Concluding Remarks

This chapter discusses the how-and-why the data were collected. The primary data were taken from the transcription of observation in the classroom which was done for six times/meetings, with two meetings in Physics class, two meetings in Mathematics class and two meetings in Biology class. Meanwhile, the secondary data were from the interview with the teachers. Then, the data gathered from two sources were transcribed, identified, and classified using Tsui‟s classification of elicitation and Kagan‟s types of questions.

The research method used in this study was qualitative case study. It was applied as this study needed natural data which only can be gathered by applying qualitative design. And this study is a case study as it was done only in one school with certain teachers chosen based on the need of the study.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this part, the researcher will elaborate the conclusion drawn from the present study and some possible recommendations for conducting further related studies.

5.1 Conclusions

This study investigates teachers’ directives that focused on CLIL classroom of four teachers, two Biology teachers, one Math and Physics teacher, in a Fledling International Standard School (RSBI) in Bandung. The purposes are to identify the types of questions used by science and math teachers in CLIL classroom and the types of elicitation used by the teachers to get the students’ responses.

The findings showed that elicit:inform was used more frequently than the other types of elicitations, and it confirms previous study conducted by Basturkmen (1992) and Thuy (2011). However, the difference between this study and Basturkmen’s was found in the focus of the respondent. In the present study, the researcher focused on the language used by the teachers in CLIL classroom, meanwhile Basturkmen focused on the language used by the students. Despite the different focus of the respondent, the result remained the same. Furthermore, the most frequently used of elicit:inform found in this study is in line with what Sinclair and Coulthard suggest (cited in Bissesar et al., 2008). They state that the most frequently used of elicitation in the classroom is elicit:inform.

Meanwhile, in the use of different elicitations in the teaching and learning process, the teacher had given different chances to the students. When the teacher posed the question in elicit:inform, for instance, and the students could not answer it, then when it was changed using elicit:confirm, it triggered the students to give responses. It means that the use of different types of elicitations would motivate the students to think in longer time which result in the used of English for both learning language and content.

Then, the third problem researched in this study was the question types used by the teachers in CLIL classroom. From this study, it was found that the most frequently used of question was skinny question. It was used by all teachers along the teaching and learning process; that was 54.6%, followed by high-consensus question and fat question which reached 41% and 2.8% respectively. Then review question placed at the fourth rank with 1% and low consensus question was at the fifth with 0.4%. Whereas, the least one was true question which only reached 0.1% of all. In this study, as the finding of the most frequently used of question was skinny question, the teachers still used low cognitive question. This study supported the previous research conducted by Tan (2007) and Rerung et al. (2012). Besides, in the use of question the three teachers, out of four, still used Indonesian in some cases. The use of code-switching in this finding was in accordance with the finding of Elridge (1996).

As this study only involved the small-scale of participant and it was only conducted in limited time, the holistic understanding of the questions and elicitations could not be revealed. In addition, this study only covered two aspects, they are the types of questions and elicitations used by the teachers in CLIL

classroom. To this end, further study was highly recommended to cover more complex aspect.

5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

Some aspects that could be taken into consideration as the focus before conducting further investigation are (1) what makes the students do not answer the question straight away, then it falls to the question, ‘Why the students keep silent after the questions are posed by the teacher?’. And another one (2) is what the function of pauses in the process of questioning, then it can be focused on the range of students answer when the teacher pauses one question before the next one. For this, the research question could be ‘How effective is the ‘wait-time’ for the students in response an initial question that has been posed?’.