AN INVESTIGATION OF THE USE OF ENGLISH AS A MEAN OF COMMUNICATION IN SCIENCE AND MATH CLASSES OF PILOT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL (RSBI) :A case study at one public Islamic senior high school of pilot international standard school in Pekanbaru.

(1)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPROVAL OF EXAMINERS ... ii

DECLARATION ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iv

ABSTRACT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Research Questions ... 4

1.3 The Purpose of the study ... 5

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5

1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7

2.1 Definition of Question... 7

2.2 Types of Questions ... 8

2.3 Importance of Questioning in English Classroom ... 14

2.4 Functions of Questions ... 16

2.5 Questioning Strategy ... 18

2.6 Interaction and language Acquisition: input and output in second language acquisition... 22

2.7 Classroom Interaction and Questioning ... 24

2.8 Previous Study on Teacher’s Questioning ... 28

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEACRH ... 32

3.1 Research Design ... 32

3.2 Research Site ... 33

3.3 Research Participants ... 33

3.4 Data Collection Techniques ... 34

3.4.1 Class Observation ... 34

3.4.2 Questionnaire ... 36

3.5 Data Analysis ... 37

CHAPTER IV RESEACRH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 39

4.1 Data Presentation ... 39

4.1.1 Teachers’ understanding about questioning ... 40

4.1.2 Types of Teacher Questions ... 43

(2)

4.1.4 Kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond

to the teachers’ questions ... 65

4.2 Discussion ... 69

4.2.1 Teacher’s understanding about questioning ... 70

4.2.2 Types of teachers’ questions and students’ responses... 75

4.2.3 Questioning strategies ... 80

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 85

5.1 Research Findings ... 85

5.2 Conclusions ... 87

5.3 Some Implications ... 88

5.4 Limitations ... 89

5.5 Recommendations ... 90

REFERENCES ... 92

(3)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The number of questions used in each observation Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2 Frequency of display and referential questions and the percentage in the total sum ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3 Frequency of the questioning strategies used by the two teachers ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Input and output in interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2 The Role of Interaction (Van Lier,1988) . Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Clasroom observation transcriptions………...102

Appendix 2 Questionnaire……….……….….133

Appendix 3 Surat izin penelitian……….137

(4)

(5)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This section covers the introductory part of this thesis. It covers the background, research questions, purpose 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 role of questioning in teaching and learning process is very important for teachers and students. It is widely accepted that questioning is a basic skill that teachers are obliged to have in the classroom ( Gall, 1970; Suherdi, 2007; Fitriani, 2009; Sabeni, 2008; Winasaputra, 2008; Sofa, 2008). Regarding the importance of questioning for teachers, Suherdi (2007) states that teachers are often considered as “professional question-askers”. The skill for formulating questions, he adds, is an important strategy in conducting classroom teaching and learning process.

In classrooms, the questions used by teachers have many purposes. Through the questions, teachers can make students involved in learning activities and to stimulate the student to think critically and learning more efficiently (Gall, 1970; Kim & Kellough, 1978). Gall regards the belief that question plays a significant role in teaching as “a truism”. Teachers can also use questions in ongoing assessment to assess students’ understandings on the materials being learnt (Stiggins, 2006). Therefore teachers should have skills in questioning to maximize the advantages they contribute in the classroom. They need to plan the questions carefully by thinking through possible questions which would guide the

(6)

students toward further investigation and a deeper understanding of the concepts being stressed.

Effective questioning posed by the teachers is believed to be able to focus students’ attention to understand lesson content, arouse their curiosity, stimulate their imagination, and motivate them to seek out new knowledge (Ornstein, 1990). Besides, questioning is one of the best ways to develop teacher’s role as an initiator and sustainer of classroom interaction (Nunan, 2001). In short, questioning done skillfully would facilitate students’ language acquisition.

In reality, however, it seems that effective questioning does not always happen, even among teachers with considerable experience in teaching. Nunan and Lamb’s (1996) research on questioning in language education reveals that over the years, teachers still pose questions in much the same way as always, with most of the questions low-level, despite improvement in materials, curricula, and methods of teaching. Teachers tend to pose a series of specific, factual, and low- level questions that hardly challenge students to think of the answers as they can be readily lifted from text (Moore, 1995). This condition also happens in the teaching and learning process when the researcher conducted an informal observation in a Senior High School in Kendari. It seems that the teachers’ knowledge on how to pose questions effectively is still limited. On the other hand, the society at large assumes that teachers know how to pose questions effectively because they spend a large part of their time in class posing questions to their students.

(7)

Based on that informal observation related to the way of the teacher poses the question in the teaching and learning process, teacher did not seem to apply many types of questions as well as appropriate questioning strategies in their teachings. They did not give any opportunity to the students to involve in the teaching and learning process. This has brought about a consequence that the teaching learning process in the classroom does not occur as what is expected. Therefore it is important to portray the teacher’s activities in the classroom to see whether the way s/he conducts the teaching and learning activity is worth applying in the teaching context.

As commonly known that in the classroom, the interaction between teacher and students are often initiated, controlled, and dominated by the teacher. Thomas (1987) and Van Lier (1988) describe that kind of classroom interaction as IRF pattern in which teacher Initiates the interaction by giving questions, gives Response, and provides Feedback to the students’ responses. From this, it is inferred that questioning plays a central role in classroom interaction.

Teachers’ questioning strategies have been the main concern in most investigation of classroom practice. Woods (1991) in her study reported that teacher frequently pose specific questions that demand a narrow range of possible right answer. As a result it no wonders that responses obtained from students are rather predictable. As well, Jan et. al. (1993) found the similar results in their study on teachers’ behaviors in using question.

As the students’ answers are much effected by the teachers’ questions, in the application of questioning strategy, teachers should consider the strategy in

(8)

posing questions in term of the level types of question and the questioning behaviors (Nunan, 1996). This is important to take into account because skillful questioning can arouse student’s curiosity and interest, stimulate their imagination, and motivate them to search out knowledge (Ornstein, 1987). In summary, good questions given by the teacher can challenge the students to think critically and help clarify concepts and problems related to the lesson (Paul and Elder, 2007).

Based on the description above, it is very important to investigate the teachers’ understandings about questioning, the types of questions, and the questioning strategies that the teachers use in eliciting student’s responses, and the kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond to the teachers’ questions.Therefore, the need of investigating the teacher’s questioning related to these phenomena has triggered the researcher to conduct this research.

1.2Research Questions

Based on the issues of questioning stated in the background, the researcher intends to carry out a research relating to teachers’ questions in English language classroom activities. This research attempts to find out the answers of the following research questions.

1. What are teachers’ understandings about questioning?

2. What types of questions are employed by the teachers in the classroom? 3. What questioning strategies do the teachers use in eliciting student’s responses

(9)

4. What kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond to the teachers’ questions?

1.3The Purpose of the Study

There are four main purposes of conducting this research. The first purpose is to find out the data about the teachers’ understandings on questioning in English teaching and learning process. The second objective is to find out the data about the types of questions employed by the teachers in the classroom. Those types of question will be classified into two main types; display and referential questions. The third purpose is to find out what questioning strategy used by the teachers in eliciting students’ responses when the questions are not understood. The main reason for identifying those strategies is the importance of them in overcoming the students’ absence in responding teachers’ questions. The forth objective is to identify the kinds of students’ responses elicited by different types of questions posed by the teachers.

1.4Significance of the Study

This research is significant in that 1) it attempts to investigate the teachers’ questioning in English language classroom. This research hopefully will enrich the teachers’ knowledge about many kinds of questionings as well as strategies on questioning so they can select and use appropriate questions in the classroom instruction, 2) it supports an existing theoy on questioning in teaching and learning process.

(10)

1.5Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One presents the introduction. It covers the background of the study, the research questions, and the purposes of the study as well as the significance of the study.

Chapter Two presents review of related literature relating to teacher questions. It will discuss the importance of questioning, the types of questions and the questioning strategy in teaching and learning. Chapter Three elaborates the mothodology of the research. It covers research design, research site, research participant, data collection and data analysis.

Chapter Four presents the data presentation and discussion of the research and Chapter Five draws the conclusion, some implications and limitations. It also offers some recommendations for further research.

(11)

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

This chapter describes the methodology of the study. It covers the research design, the research site, the research participants, and the data collection techniques. Data analysis is also presented.

3.1Research Design

This study employed a qualitative research design, embracing the characteristics of case study. A case study was chosen for several reasons. First, this design is usually used as an attempt to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and its meaning for those involved (Merriam, 1998). In this case the situation of teaching English in Madrasah Aliyah. Second, a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (here is the teacher questioning) within its real-life context, the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and multiples sources of evidence are used to enhance to construct validity of the study.

Qualitative study also attempts to identify unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generates new grounded theories about the latter. In other words, qualitative research provides rich narrative descriptions. It attempts to understand the process by which events and actions take place. Qualitative methods look for the process through which behavior (Alwasilah, 2002).

(12)

3.2Research Site

The research was conducted at Madrasah Aliyah Kendari. The reasons for choosing this school as a place of research were that of its practicality and accessibility (Kvale: 1996) and the researcher was familiar with the condition of the school since he had ever taught there for three years before. In addition, it was relatively easy to conduct the research because the researcher did not find any difficulties in getting permission from school on gaining the data needed.

3.3Research participants

The participants of the present study were two English teachers and 152 students of Madrasah Aliyah Kendari. The two teachers were chosen to be research participants based on accessibility (Kvale, 1996). They were recommended to participate in the study by the headmaster of the selected school. They were willing to participate in this research and to have their class observed. Both teachers graduated from strata 1 of English Department from a local university. They had been teaching English at that school for eight to fourteen years. Both teachers taught in grade ten and eleven. In the present study they were coded as Teacher A and Teacher B. Both teachers are female.

Characteristically, teacher A used more English in her classroom activities. In conducting teaching-learning process she frequently focused on the text book. For this, her class was textbook-centered. Teacher B, on the other hand, used more Bahasa Indonesia than English in her classroom teaching. Similarly with Teacher A, her classroom activities were textbook-centered as the material utilized were taken from the available textbooks.

(13)

The 152 students who participated in the present study were divided into four classes; grade eleven of Natural Science I and grade eleven of Natural Science II, grade eleven of Social Science I, and grade ten of X1. In this study, grade eleven of Natural Science I and grade eleven of Science II were taught by Teacher B, while grade eleven of Social Science I, and grade ten of X1 were taught by Teacher B. At the time of conducting this study those students were at the second semester of each grade. Generally, all the students participated in the present study never followed English course outside their schooling time. They got English lesson just whenever they went to school.

3.4Data Collection Techniques

There were two main techniques used to collect data. They were classroom observation and questionnaire. The following elaboration will present how those techniques applied to get the intended data.

3.4.1 Classroom Observation

Classroom observation is the main technique of collecting data for this study. It is intended to gain the data about the types of questions as well as the strategy used by teachers and also to gain the data about the students’ responses in the classroom on teachers’ questions. Three observation sessions were conducted for each teacher for a month. In this case, researcher acted as a non participant observer. The researcher used an audiotape to record what actually happened in the classroom concerning the teacher’s questions and the students’ responses and made field notes to gain unrecorded data.

(14)

The first session of observation was carried out in grade eleven of Natural Science I with the activity of listening skill. At the time of observation, the teacher read the material for three times, while listening students were asked to fill in the chart of the missing information stated in the text read by the teacher. All segments of the dialogue in the classroom were recorded and transcribed.

The second session of observation was conducted in grade eleven of Natural Science II with the material of “expressions of plan” taken from reading text. Here the students were asked to perform dialogue containing the material in pair in front of class. Data on teacher questioning were taken before and after the pairing-dialogue performed.

The third observation was in eleven of Natural Science II with the activity of reading comprehension. Here the activity was set into group discussion. The discussion was focused to answer the questions relating to the material of reading text. At the end of discussion, each group was asked to report the answers of questions to class. Data on teacher questioning were gained from the report session of the discussion.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth observations were conducted in Teacher B’s class. In the fourth observation, which was conducted in grade eleven of Social Science I, the activity was reading comprehension. Before doing that activity, however, the students were asked to perform a dialogue which was given at the previous meeting. The dialogue was done to introduce the material of the reading comprehension activity. The material of reading comprehension was narrative text “The Ants and the Grasshopper”. For this activity the students were grouped into

(15)

nine groups of five or four students each. The fifth observation was in eleven of Social Science I. At the time of observation, students were taught speaking skill using storytelling technique. The last observation, the sixth, was done in grade ten of X1. The class was reading comprehension with the material of “pollution”. Here the teacher asked students to work individually to answer the questions based on the reading text given.

After the three sessions of each teacher activities in teaching and learning process were recorded, researcher then transcribed the recorded data, made categorization, and analyzed all the collected data.

3.4.2 Questionnaire

Questionnaire used in this research consisted of seven items containing close and open-ended questions (see appendix 2). This questionnaire was written in Bahasa Indonsesia in order to make the respondents understand. Therefore, the data which reflected the respondents’ understanding on questioning could be gained. Questionnaire was distributed after all of the three sessions of lesson finished.

Of the seven items, four items (1, 2, 3, and 6) were open-ended questions. These items were used to gain the information which reflects the teachers’ understandings on the importance of questioning in classroom teaching. Item 4 was a close question. It was used to gain the data on the frequency of using certain types of questions. Items 5 and 7 were open-ended and close question respectively. These items were used to get the data on what questioning strategies

(16)

used by the teachers whenever their questions were not understood by the students.

3.5Data Analysis

The process of data analysis comprises arranging, organizing, categorizing, and interpreting. The data analysis was conducted over the study. The analysis and interpretations were based on the data from questionnaire and observations.

Data from questionnaire was analyzed based on the responses given by the two teachers. This analysis was used to answer the first research question namely the question about what the teachers’ understandings on the issue of questioning.

Data from classroom observations were analyzed based on the transcription of each observation session and the field note of each. In each transcription there were three codes utilized. The three codes were T for teacher, S for student, SS for class. In addition, the teacher questions were identified by the existence of question mark (?)

In categorizing the types of questions used by the teachers, the researcher adopted the classification of questions proposed by Long and Sato (1983) cited in Ellis (1994). They were display questions and referential questions categories. This analysis was used to answer the second research questions concerning the type of questions used by teachers in teaching -learning process in the classroom.

To answer the third research question about questioning strategy used by the teachers when the questions are not understood by students, researcher also analyzed the transcription. Those strategies used were classified based on the

(17)

questioning strategies proposed by Wu (1993) namely rephrasing, simplification, repetition, or decomposition strategy.

To answer the forth research question relating to the students’ responses, researcher analyzed the responses provided by the students whenever question addressed to them. On the purpose of categorizing those responses, researcher adopted the classification of students’ responses proposed by Wu (1993) into two categories: (1) restricted and (2) elaborated. A restricted response consists of a word or a simple answer. In contrast, an elaborated response contains two or more sentences which are linked by various cohesive or coherence devices

(18)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section the researcher will elaborate the concluding remarks of this thesis. This chapter will include the summary of the research findings, the limitation of the present study, the implications of the findings into English language learning, and the recommendation for further research.

1.1Research Findings

This study is focused on investigating four research questions. They are 1) What are teachers’ understandings about questioning?, 2) What types of questions are employed by the teachers in the classroom?, 3) What questioning strategies do the teachers use in eliciting students’ responses when the questions are not understood?, and 4) What kinds of responses are elicited by the students to respond to the teachers’ questions?. The answer of each research question will be presented here respectively.

Based on research question one, the researcher found that the two teachers admitted that questioning was very important in classroom instruction. By questioning, they could test their students’ understanding on the material of lesson being taught. They also stated that questioning could be used to enhance students’ participation. For this reason, they understood that questioning can also play diagnostic, instructional, and motivational function.

Although they admitted that questioning was very important, they could not distinguish between display questions and comprehension checks. They

(19)

assumed that both types of questions were used to test students’ understanding on the material of lesson.

Concerning the research question two, the researcher found that those two teachers used more display questions than referential questions. They used display questions to recall students’ cognitive memory. They used them at the beginning of classroom activities to dig students’ prior knowledge, at the middle of activities to control students’ participation, and at the end of activities to test to what extent the materials being taught were understood by the students. The referential questions were used to conduct brainstorming activity at the beginning of classroom activities and to build interpersonal relationship between the teachers and the students.

Regarding the research question three, from this study was found that those two teachers applied three questioning strategies to elicit students’ verbal responses. Those strategies were repetition, rephrasing, and decomposition techniques. In using those three strategies the teachers were found to use translation techniques to make the questions more understandable for students to answer.

The salient use of display questions affected the responses generated by the students. From the study, it was revealed that the types of students’ responses generated from the teacher questions were closely related to the types of questions addressed by the teacher. As the types of questions used were display questions with short intended answers, the students responded in one word, phrase, and short simple sentences only. The longer and more complex responses could be

(20)

elicited by the two questions only when the teachers used text-based questions which were taken from the text being discussed.

1.2Conclusions

There are four conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, in terms of teachers’ understandings about questioning, the teachers do not understand about the questioning comprehensively. Theoretically, their understandings are only in the case of the importance of questioning in teaching. Practically, however, they could not apply their understanding in real teaching. In this context, the two teachers cannot maximize the use of classroom questioning in facilitating their students to acquire more input (Krashen, 1982) and opportunity to practice using the language being learnt (Swain, 2007). Second, the use of certain type of questions in classroom teaching, especially referential questions, does not automatically elicit students’ elaborative responses as what has been suggested by Brock (1986). This might be caused by the quality of the referential questions used by the teachers. The two teachers as found during the observation, used referential questions to elicit students’ answer concerning the non-related materials at the beginning of the teaching and learning activities. Third, in terms of questioning strategies, the teachers have been successful to assist the students’ to elicit responses. The last, the students’ responses are eventually affected by the types of questions addressed by the teachers. If the teachers give display questions, the students will give short answers. Conversely, the elaborative response will be provided by the students if they are given referential questions by their teachers.

(21)

1.3Some Implications

Teachers’ understandings on the use of questioning in classroom teaching implies to the choice of types of questions and questioning strategies used during the classroom activities. As they understand that questions are frequently used to test students’ mastering on the lesson material, the teachers tend to use display questions and only certain questioning strategies applied. Since the display questions are closed questions and repetition strategy saliently used, the responses generated from them are short responses consists of one or two words only.

Although referential questions were open questions and have potential effect on triggering elaborative responses, they cannot automatically elicit students’ elaborative responses. The students’ responses generated from those types of questions are restricted consisting of yes or no response only. In summary, the types of students’ responses are interrelated and cannot be separated from teachers’ understandings, the types of questions used, and questioning strategy applied during the classroom activities.

In the context of EFL learning in classroom, the findings of this study can be taken into consideration in several implications. Firstly, the teachers of English should give maximal opportunities to students to speak as what revealed from this study the classroom communication was dominated by the teachers. Here the teachers not only talked more than the students, but they also controlled what to discuss and when to speak. To provide students with more opportunities to use their English in classroom, the use of questioning might be the helpful way of gaining that purpose.

(22)

Secondly, the use of display and referential questions in a proper way could facilitate the students to provide more elaborative verbal reposes. Because

“students are motivated to explore new ideas when they are constantly challenged

and forced to exert their thinking forward by the types of questions posed by their

teachers” ( Jan and Talif, 2005). For this regard, the teachers should select the

display or referential questions which require more challenging thought to apply. The text-based questions could be another choice. Therefore, the more elaborative and complex language production of the students can be triggered maxmally. “If the teachers are concerned with the quantity and quality of students’ output, it is not enough to focus on the types of questions only. Questioning strategies must be considered as well” (Wu, 1993).

Thirdly, questioning strategies which eventually, could promote negotiation of meaning and facilitate interaction could be beneficial to encourage students’ oral involvement in classroom. On the purpose of this, the teachers might therefore find out the practical way to utilize the questioning strategies in EFL classroom activities. In so doing, teachers must be trained to make them understand and realize on the importance of the strategies in facilitating oral communication in English language learning classroom.

1.4Limitations

This study involved very limited participants with only two English teachers selected and six observations carried out. As a result, the findings of this study cannot be used to generalize on the necessary contribution of teacher questions in second language learning. Additionally, the items of the

(23)

questionnaire used to reveal teachers understanding on the questioning need to be added with more items by which teachers’ understanding could be gained more comprehensively.

Although the participants of this study were limited and conducted in short time of investigation, and studied very limited aspects of teacher classroom questioning, the findings of this study, at least, have supported the previous research which have been conducted on the same concern, such as by Wu (1993) Ma (2006), Hussin (2006), David (2007), and Chun-miao (2007).

To get more comprehensive understanding on the teachers questioning, especially in EFL classroom teaching practices, more participants involved and longer time of investigation were recommended.

1.5Recommendations

For further investigation, with more participants and longer time, quantitative research design might be taken into consideration. By quantitative research design the emphasis of study can be specialized on the effect of those teacher questions on the students’ achievement in learning foreign language. This is recommended as the design can be used to make generalization on how questioning used in English language learning properly. Additionally, the further investigation can also be focused on the use of questioning strategies to explore to what extent of each strategy can provide more comprehensible input for the students to acquire. Furthuremore, the investigation can be carried out to reveal how questioning strategies can facilitate interaction through negotiation of meaning when the students and their teachers, involving in interaction during the

(24)

classroom lesson. By involving more participants and long term of study with more aspects of questioning, it is expected that the study can provide more comprehensive views into the effectiveness of questioning in EFL classroom learning. Finally, investigating what makes students cannot give responses is recommended. This is important because when students being addressed a question; many factors affect their ability to answer their teachers’ questions. Such aspects as shyness, learning style, learning strategy, and other environmental factors also determine the students’ self confidence in answering teachers’ questions.

(25)

References

Abarca, M.F. 2004. Interaction In The English Classroom; An Exploratory Study. Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 4, (1), p.1-24.

Allwright, D. 1986. Interaction and Negotiation in Classroom: Their Role in Learner Development. Available in

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

Allwright, D. & Bailey,K. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom. An Introduction to Classroom Research for language Teacher. New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Alexander, E.J. 1988. Teaching Reading: Third Edition United State of America: Foresman and Company

Bernadowski, C.C. 2006. The effects of middle school social studies teachers’ questioning patterns on learners’ outcomes. Available in

http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-10202006-230659/unrestricted/CapalongoBernadowskiCarianne2006.pdf

Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mc Kay Co.,Inc.

Brock, C. A. 1986. The Effect of Referencial Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly. Vol.20 No.1 Maret 1986

Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language Pedagogy. Second edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall-Inc

Chavez, M. 2006. Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and

teachers' self-perceive... International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, (1), 49-102.

Chun-Miao XIE. 2007. A Study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching Journal. Vol 4, No.4. April 2007. Dalton,P.C. 2006. Questions as strategies to encourage speaking in

(26)

content-and-2006. (editors). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Mouton de Gruyter: New York

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

David, F. 2007. Teacher’s Questioning Behaviour and ESL Classroom Interaction Patter. Humanity & Social Science Journal 2.(2):127-131.2007

Elliot, S. N. 2000. Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching. Effective Learning. Third Edition. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Emilia, E. 2000. Research Method in Education (Hasil Pemikiran). Bandung:

FPBS UPI.

Emilia, E. 2008. Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: CV.Alfabeta Farmer, L. S.J. 2007. What is the Question. IFLA Journal. 33;44

Fitriani (2009). Pentingnya Guru Menguasai Keterampilan Mengajar. Jambi Express, Minggu, 24 Mei 2009. Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from http://jambiekspres.co.id/new/index.php/guruku/2506-pentingnya-guru-mengusai-keterampilan-mengajar.

Gall, M. D. 1970. The Use of Questions in Teaching. Review of Educational research Journal. 40;707-721.

Gall, M. D.et al. 1978. Effect of Questioning Technique and Recitation on Students Learning. American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 15, No. 2, (Spring, 1978), pp. 175-199

Godfrey, K. A. (2001) Teacher Questioning Techniques, Students’ Responses and Critical Thinking. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Groisser, P. L. 1964. How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning. Teachers practical Press. Inc.

Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching, Forth Edition. UK: Pearson Education Limited.

(27)

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

Hootstein, ED & D. Alexandria. 2002. The Art of Questioning. Available on: http://proquest.umi.com

Jariah Mohd Jan. 1993. Basic Skill and Question Types in Reading and Interpreting Literature. Journal of Southeast Asia Review of English (SARE)

Jarolimek, John & Clifford D.F. 1976. Teaching and Learning in the Elementary School. USA: Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc.

Joan, K.H.2006. Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: London

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

Johnson, R. 1997. Questioning techniques to use in teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance; Oct 1997; 68, 8; Academic Research Library

Johnson, B. E. 2002. Contextual Teaching and Learning. California: Corwin Press. Inc.

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

Kim, C. E. & Kellough,D. R. 1978. Resource Guide for Secondary School teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing co.,Inc.

Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research interviewing. London: SAGE Publication, Ltd.

Lang, H. R. & David N. E. 2006. Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effectives Teaching. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Lewis, G. K. Developing Questioning Skills. Available on: http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cte/sourcebook/questioning.pdf

Linch, T. 1991. Qestioning Roles in the Classroom. ELT Journal 45:201-210. Ma, Xiaoyan. 2008. The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes.

(28)

McComas, W. F. & Abraham L.. Asking More Effective Questions. Available on: www.usc.edu./programs/cet/private/pdfs/Asking_Better_Questions.pdf. Merriam, S.B. 1998. Qualitative Research And Case Study Applications in

Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Mohd Jan & Talif. 2005. Questioning Strategies and the Construction of Context in Classroom Talk. The English Teacher Vol. XXXIV, 76-89

Morgan, A. M. 2008. The importance of questioning & questions for considerations in programming for intercultural language learning .(Report). Babel. 43.1 (Nov 2008): 13(6). InfoTrac Humanities & Education Collection. Gale. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. 19 June

2009 Available on

<http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS>.

M. Tsui. 2005. ESL Teachers’ Questions and Corpus Evidence. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005, pp. 335-356

Nunan, D. 1987.Communicative Language Teaching: Making It Work. ELT Journal 41:2 136-145.

__________1989. Understanding Language Classroom. New York: Prentice Hall. ________ _1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teacher.

Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D & lamb. 1996. The Self-Directed Teacher, managing the learning process. USA: Cambridge University Press.

Nuttal, Christine. 1996. Teaching Reading Skill in a Foreign language. New edition. Great Britain: Reed Educational and professional Publishing Ltd.

Nunn, R. 1999. The Purposes of Language Teachers’ Questions. Available in http://iii.cc.kochi-u.ac.jp/~nunn/IRAL1.pdf

Ornstein, A. C. 1987. Qustioning: The Essence of Good Teaching- Part I. NASSP Buletin. 1987;71;72

______________. 1988. Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching- Part II. NASSP Buletin. 1988; 72;72

______________. 1990. Strategies for Effective Teaching. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.

(29)

Orr, Janet K. 1999. Growing up with English. Washington: office of language programme.

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

Pica, T. et al. 1987. The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL QURTERLY, 21, (4).

Richards, Jack, et al. 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex England: Longman Group Ltd.

Richards,J.C. & Lockhart. 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Riegle, R. P. 1976. Classifying Classroom Questions." Journal of Teacher Education. 1976; 27 ;156

Rowe. W. D. 1986. Does Research Support The Use of “Purpose Questions” on Reading Comprehension Tests? Journal of Educational Measurement Volume 23, No. 1 Spring, 1986. pp. 43-55

Rowe, M.B. 1986. Wait time: Slowing Down may Be a Way of Speeding Up. Journal of Teacher Education, January-February.

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

Shomoossi, N. 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction : A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Matrix Vol. 4, No.2 September 2004

Siposova, M. 2007. The Effects of referential Questions in the EFL Classroom. Communications, 4, p. 33- 37.

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

Stiggins, R. 2006. Assessment for Learning: A Key to Motivation and Achivement. Edge, 2, (2), 1-20.

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

(30)

Suherdi, D. 2007. Menakar Kualitas Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Press.

Suherdi, D 2008. Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Press.

Snell, 1999. Improving Teacher-Student Interaction in the EFL Classroom: An Action Research Report. The Internet TESL Journal, V, (4).

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 2000 Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 2000; 4; 251

Swain, M. 2007. The Output Hypothesis: Its history and Its Future. A seminar handout. Retrieved on April 23, 2009. From

http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf. Thomas, M. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. 1996. Teacher Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal 50/4: 279287 Vogler, K. E. 2005. Improve Your Verbal Questioning. Available on:

http://proquest.umi.com

Van Der meij, H. 1993. A Case Study of Questioning in Reading. www.literacymatters.org/content/read/write/question.htm

van Lier, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner : Ethnography and Second Language Classsroom. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publisher (Ltd)

Wei Liu. 2005. Design of Text-based Questions from the Study of Typology of Questions. Sino-US English Teaching. May 2005, Volume 2, No.5 (Serial No.17), pp. 16-24

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

Willen, W. 2001. Exploring myths about teacher questioning in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies; Jan/Feb 2001; 92, 1; Academic Research Library

(31)

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

Woods, D. 1991. Aspect of Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge Falmer. Wragg, E.C. 1984. Classroom Teaching Skills. New York: Nichols Publishing

Company

Wragg, E.C. & Brown, G. 2001. Questioning in the Secondary School. London: Routledge Falmer.

Wu, Kam-Yin. 1993. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC Journal. Vol. 24 No. 2 Desember 1993.

Yamazaki, F. 1998. An Interaction Analysis: A Teacher’s Questions, Feedback, and Students’ Production Through Classroom Observation.

(1)

93 2006. (editors). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Mouton de Gruyter: New York