THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES ON TEACHERS’ QUESTIONS IN CLASSROOM LANGUAGE LEARNING :Case Study of Four Language Teachers at Two English Courses in Bandung, West Java.

(1)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

APPROVAL SHEET ……… i

DECLARATION ………... ii

PREFACE ………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….. iv

ABSTRACT ……….. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….. vi

LIST OF TABLES ……… ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ……….. x

LIST OF FIGURES ………... xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1.Background of The Study ………... 1

1.2.Research Questions ………... 3

1.3.The Objective of the Study ………. 4

1.4.The Significance of the Study ………. 4

1.5.The Definition of Terms ……….. 4

1.6.Thesis Organization ………... 5

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Classroom Activitie, Students’ Learning and Questioning ... 6

2.1.1 Types of Classroom Activities ... 7

2.1.2 From classroom Activities to Questioning ... 12

2.2 Questioning and Classroom Teaching……...…………... 14

2.2.1 Definition of Questioning ...……... 16

2.2.2 The Purpose of Questioning ...………... 17

2.2.3 The Function of Questioning ...………. 20

2.3 Teachers’ Questions and Classroom Second Language Learning…... 24

(2)

2.3.2 Output Hypothesis...……… 29

2.3.3 Interaction Hypothesis ...…... 31

2.3.4 Classroom Interaction and Questioning ...…. 34

2.4 MLUMeasurement ...………... 40

2.5 The Types of Teachers’ Questions ...………. 46

2.6 Studies on Questioning ... 50

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ………... 54

3.2 Research Method……….………... 55

3.3 Research Validity ...……….... 56

3.4 Participants ……….. 57

3.5 Research Setting ...………... 57

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques ...………... 58

3.6.1 Observation ... 58

3.6.2 Video Recording ... 59

3.6.3 Interview ... 60

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques ………... 62

3.7.1 Observation and Video Recording ... 62

3.7.2 Interview Data ... 64

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Classroom Activities and Types of Teachers’ Questions ....……... 65

4.1.1 Whole Class ...…... 72

4.1.2 Groupwork and Pairwork ... 75

4.1.3 Individualwork or Solowork ... 79

4.1.4 Games ... 82

4.1.5 TPR ... 85

4.1.6 Role-Play ... 86

4.2 Students’ Response on Teachers’ Questions………... 91

4.2.1 Students’ Response on Teachers’ Display Questions ...…... 93

(3)

4.2.3 Students’ Response on Teachers’ Clarification Request,

Comprehension Check and Confirmation Check ... 97

4.3 Teachers’ Questions and Classroom Language Learning ....……… 98

4.3.1 Teachers’ Questions and Language Input ... 101

4.3.2 Teachers’ Questions and Interaction ... 107

4.3.3 Teachers’ Questions and Students’ Output ... 115

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ……….. 121

5.2 Recommendations ……… 123

REFERENCES ……….. 124

(4)

LIST OF TABLES

Pages

Table 2.1 Mean Lenght of Utterance and Age ...… 41

Table 2.2 Bloom’s Question Taxonomy ...………... 47

Table 4.1 Kinds of Classroom Activity elaborated by Teachers ... 68

Table 4.2 Types and Numbers of Questions used by Teachers ... 70

Table 4.3 Students’ Language Learning on Diffeerent Types of Questions in the perspective of Input, Interaction, and output Hypothesis ... 99

Table 4.4 Students MLU on Teacher Display Questions ... 106

(5)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1 Observation Notes ... 121

Appendix 2 Observation Transcripts ... 126

Appendix 3 Interview Guidance for Teachers ... 139

Appendix 4 Interview Transcripts ... 140

(6)

LIST OF FIGURES

Pages

Figure 2.1 Input & Output through Teacher Questioning ... 19

Figure 2.2 The Input Hypothesis Model of L2 Learning and Production 21

Figure 2.3 Process of Classroom Interaction ... 28

(7)

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1Background of the Study

Classroom Management for ELT is one of the important aspects for

teacher of any respect should not only learn, but also master. It is important to

have an orderly and well-managed classroom for the teacher to be able to deliver

the lessons well and for the students to effectively understand what are being

taught to them. To support this, Watkins, Carnell & Lodge, (2007) say that

classroom activities are operated on simple view of learning (‘learning = being

taught’) with the idea that students receive in some simple way what the teacher

teaches. Hence, according to Starr (2004), every teacher should elaborate

excellent classroom management skill. As defined by Starr (2004):

“Classroom management refers to the procedures, strategies, and instructional techniques teachers use to manage student behavior and learning activities. When the students take control of the class, it often leads to un-orderly, chaotic classroom where learning is not anymore the priority of students” (Starr, 2004. P:1).

Starr (2004) continues that there are different classroom management

techniques that any teacher may use as appropriate. Some examples of these

techniques are: be consistent at all times, strictly follow the class schedule, set

clear expectations and level them off at the start of every class, be patient, provide

different activities to keep the class busy, encourage active participation of

(8)

Taking the learners as the center in conducting language learning in class

activity, Rogers (1961, 1971) believes that positive human relationship enable

people to growth, and therefore the instruction should be based on concepts of

human relations in contrast to concepts of subject matter. Moreover, he proposes

the nondirective teaching model where the teacher’s role as a facilitator who has a

counseling relationship with students and who guides their growth and

development. In this role, Rogers explains (1961) that the teacher helps students

to explore new ideas and opinions about their lives, discuss and decide the topics,

select what activity to do in class, and provide their relations with others. Thus, it

creates an environment where the students and the teachers are partners in

learning, share ideas openly, and communicate honestly with one another (Rogers,

1961).

Moreover, Allwright (1989) highlights that involving various forms of more

or less ‘realistic’ practice, learners can become skilled in doing the things they

have been taught. Furthermore, Gebhard (2000:69) emphasizes that classroom

activity refer to the way the teachers organize what goes on in the classroom. The

goal is to create classroom atmosphere conducive to interact in English in

meaningful ways. It is through meaningful interaction that students can make

progress in learning English (Gebhard, 2000).

There are some studies from Case (2009) and Gall (1970) which had

reported that in elaborating class activities such class discussion and class games

setting, types of questioning can be identified. For example in students’classroom

(9)

cards has addressed the type of display question. She then continues with

confirmation check and comprehension check in elaborating the games. Different

with Case, Gall (1970) in his class discussion activity in junior high school, states

that teacher mostly uses referential questions when she asked students’

clarification on the discussion topic. However, the study on this perspective is still

very limit to conduct, not many studies were reported what class activities which

can promote teacher’s questioning.

Thus, as the teaching and learning process happens during the students’

activity in the class, it builds communicative interaction among teacher-students

and student-themself. To do so, it is interesting to learn from the activity- itself the

way the teacher maintains, provides, and helps the students to achieve learning

goals in certain activity.

In connection with that, it is necessary to conduct the investigation to

reveal the issue of students’ activities that influence the teachers to address certain

types of questions in facilitating learning. It is hopefully from the investigation,

researcher will find (1) the contribution of classroom activity or students’ seating

arrangement to the different type of teachers’ questions, (2) students’ responses on

teachers’ questions during the classroom activity, and (3) teachers’ questions that

(10)

1.2 Research Questions

This study is conducted to find out the answers of the following research questions:

1. What kinds of classroom activities contribute to the teachers’ use of

different types of questions?

2. What sorts of students’ responses do the questions generate?

3. How can teacher questions facilitate language learning?

1.3 The objectives of the study

The main objectives of this study are as follows:

1. to identify kinds of classroom activities that can contribute to the teachers’

use of different types of questions.

2. to identify students’ reponses on the teachers’ questions.

3. to identify the teachers’ questions that can facilitate language learning.

1.4 The significant of the Study

In terms of theoretical contribution, this study is expected to enrich the

literature of classroom activity, questioning and its responses on language

learning process. Practically, it is to provide new insight into the use of those

development and contribution of question in classroom, to facilitate better

learning of English language, to encourage students in order to participate in

teaching-learning process, and to promote second language acquisition in

classroom activities. The finding is also expected to be another alternative effort

of improving students’ competence in learning English communicatively in the

(11)

1.5 The definition of key terms

a. The term classroom interaction in this study is defined as the interaction

between teacher and students, and among the students in the classroom.

b. Question is refer to teachers’ utterances that seeks information or any

statement intended to evoke a response.

c. Second language acquisition (SLA) is the process through which students acquire one or more second or foreign language in addition to their native

language. In this study, the term of SLA will be interchangeably used with

Second Language Learning (SLI).

d. Student Language Production refers to the answers or comments given by the students orally, in classroom during English teaching and learning

process which is generated from the teacher questions.

1.6 Thesis organization

This thesis will be organized into five chapters. The first chapter is

introduction which explains the basic concept of the study and the reason why this

study should be conducted. The second chapter will consist of theoretical frame-

work and reference of this study. It also contains the relation of these thories

which related to the study. The third chapter will present the methodology of the

study. It consists of research design, method, participants, site, data collection and

data analysis. The fourth chapter will describe the research discussion and

findings. The fifth chapter will present the conclusion of the study and some

(12)

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses aspects related to the research methodology. It begins

with a desription of research design and the method used in this study, and then

the research validity, the participant, the research setting of the study, data

collection techniques and the data of analysis.

3.1 Research Design

Yin (1984) says that research design is a plan to guide resarcher in the

process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data.This study was conducted by

applying qualitative research as the main instrument collected data by observing

the natural setting of classroom interaction. In this sense, this research is also

called “naturalistic inquiry” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nunan, 1992; Cohen &

Manion, 1994; Meriam, 1998; Silverman, 2005; Alwasilah, 2009). Naturalistic

inquiry refers to that the researcher tries not to intervene in the research setting

and does not try to control naturally occuring events, because the researcher

wishes to describe and understand the process rather than to test specific

hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, naturalistic inquiry is

holistic, heuristic and low in control (Hussin, 2006).

Qualitative study attempted to identify unexpected phenomena and

influences as well as provided rich narrative description. It also attempted to

understand the process by which events and actions take place (Alwasilah, 2009:

(13)

The important reason of using qualitative design is that this design is an

appropriate way to explore everyday behavior, in this case the behavior of teacher

and students in classroom. For this, Silverman (2005) states that:

“if you want to discover how people intend to vote, then a quantitative method, like social survey, may be the most appropriate choice. On the other hand, if you are concerned with exploring people’s life histories or every day behavior, the qualitative methods may be favored” (Silverman, 2005. P: 6).

As this study requires the interpretation of researcher to understand the

process of classroom setting, it is used the interpretivism paradigm in which

qualitative design is suitable to use (Belbase, 2007; Connole, et.al,1990; Dash,

2005; Emilia, 2000; Gephart, 1999; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Williamson,

2006). In line with this, Meriam (1998) argues that education (classroom) is

considered to be a process and school is a lived experience. To understand the

meaning of the process and the experience, it must be interpreted then.

3.2 Research Method

There are several methods in qualitative research design which are prevalent

used such as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case study

(Alwasilah, 2009). In this investigation, the researcher used case study method.

This method was used because it has several advantages as what (Adelman et. Al,

1976 in Nunan, 1992: 78) proposed. The first is case study is strong in reality as it

can be used to identify and examine certain issues or concern in detail (Bogdan &

Biklen, 1982). Secondly, case study can represent multiplicity of viewpoints and

(14)

presented properly, it may provide database which may be used and reinterpreted

by the future researchers. The last one is that the findings of case study can be

beneficial for immediate practice.

Based on the characteristic of qualitative case study, it is reasonable for the

researcher to investigate kinds of classroom activities that contribute to teachers’

different type of questions in depth to understand the process of questioning in

classroom setting holistically, students’ responses on teachers’ questions, and

questions that can facilitate language learning. It also to give complete or “thick

description” on the issue of questioning in EFL classroom.

3.3 Research Validity

In this study, the validity was ensured through two lense of paradigm:

positivism and constructivism paradigm (Cresswell, 1998). From positivism

paradigm, the validity prosedure was conducted through member checking. In this

study, the researcher asked participants’ check in two stance; transcribing and

interpreting the video recorded data. In the stance of transcribing the video

recording data, four participants were asked to make sure that the transcription

was valid based on the recorded data. The interpeting stance, the participants were

asked to check whether the questions in transcription were questions or not. The

researcher and the participants had same perception on determining the utterances

into questions or not. From constructivism paradigm, this study was validated by

presenting thick description on the process and the setting of this study based on

(15)

All the important moments (questioning-answering activities) during the

observation were video recorded and the conversations were transcribed. The

video recording data and the transcription of the conversation were accesible for

necessary inspection.

3.4 Participants

This study involved four English teachers and four classes of students with

total 45 students in two different English courses. The teachers were coded as

Teacher A, Teacher B, Teacher C, and Teacher D. They had an English education

background and had long experience in teaching English. Their academic and

training were in English. They have graduated from a local university majoring in

English. Two teachers were male and two others were female. The students grade

were in intermediate class level where the age range from seven to nine.

3.5 Research Setting

This study was conducted in two popular English courses in Bandung where

those has been accredited by Non-Formal Educational Department of National

Accreditation. The reason of choosing those courses were the accessibility of the

researcher into those courses. But the most important reason and consideration of

choosing those English courses was that these courses are the most recommended

and favourite English courses in Bandung which had been established longer.

There were four classes as the focus of observation. Two classes from TBI

(16)

courses. The two classes in TBI were in intermediate level that consists of 16

students and 11 students. The students age are from 7 to 9. They had joined that

courses since they were in kindergarten, and now, mostly they are in Elementary

school of grade three to six.

In LIA, the level of students were also intermediate which consists of 8

students and 10 students. As same as TBI, the age range was also from 7 to 9

years old and now they are in elementary school of grade three to six.

3.6 Data Collecting Techniques

There were three main techniques used to collect the data in this study

namely observation, video recording and Interview. The observation was

conducted to identify classroom activity and materials used that contribute to the

type of questions and students’ responses. While video recording was utilized to

‘capture many details of lesson that cannot easily be observed such as the actual

language used by teachers or students during a lesson’ (Paton, 1987). Interview

was conducted to confirm and recheck the data from observation and video

recording and to find out teachers’ understanding of classroom activity,

questioning and students’ responses.

3.6.1 Observation

Lincoln and Guba (1985) said that one of the reasons for using observation

in qualitative research is to enable the researcher to see and observe by herself and

then jot down every activity in the real situation. Taking a role as non-participants

(17)

(Van lier, 1988) by the teacher and students in the classroom. The researcher used

video camera to record the process of teaching and learning in the classroom. It

produces the most comprehensive recording of teaching and learning process and

it gives a permanent record of what is said, and includes a record of body

language, facial expressions and interaction (Dawson, 2009: 67).

The observation was conducted by using the observation guidelines which has

been approved by the researcher advisor. For this study, the researcher conducted

six observations for each two classes in LIA and five observations for each two

classes in TBI English courses. The reason why in TBI only conducted 5

observations was the period of semester has ended for the classes where the

researcher conducted the observation. So the total observations that has been

conducted by researcher for two English courses is 22 observations.

During the observation, the researcher made field notes for all the classroom

activity to have description of context in which the teaching-learning process

happened. Description of each session can be seen at the appendix on this study.

These descriptions were used when analyzing and interpreting the data. To gain

data on kinds of classroom activities, types of questions, sudents’ responses and

questions that cacilitate language learning, in this study, the researcher used video

recording.

3.6.2 Video Recording

To get “the actual language used by the teachers and the students, as well as

(18)

79), video recording was used in each observation. The researcher recorded all of

the activity in the classrom from the beginning of the lesson. Researcher used one

assistant to help her to record all the activities done in the classroom, kinds of

classroom activities, teachers’ questions, students’ responses and questions that

facilitate language learning as the focus of this research.

3.6.3 Interview

To enhance the validity of the data obtained from other sources (observation

and video recording), interview is also used. Frankel and Wallen (1993) state that

interview is an important way for researcher to check the accuracy of – to verify

or refute – the impression he or she has gained through observation.

For further explanation, Kvale (1996: 101) states that there are many different

forms of interviews and interview subjects, requiring different approaches.

Individual interviews vary according to content, such as seeking factual

information, or opinions, attitudes, or narative and life history (Flick, at al.,

1991 cited in Kvale, 1996 pg. 101).

Group interviews today are often referred to as focus groups and are

frequently used in the market research. The interaction among the

interview subjects often lead to spontaneous and emotional statement

(19)

In line with Kvale, there are some types of interview pruposed by Richards &

Renandya, 2002. P: 184; Esterbrag, 2002 in Sugiyono, 2009; Dawson, 2009. p:

27.

Structure interview. It represents data collection in its most controlled form. In this type interview, the interviewer is seeking very specific

information and trying to collect it in a way that will allow as little

variation as possible, so the question are precisely formulated and

designed elicit responses that can be recorded exactly (often using the

scheme).

Semi-structure interview. In this type, the researcher knows that topics need to be covered and to a large extant what questions need to be asked

(though this does vary), so the degree of comparison is possible. The

interviewer has a clear picture of the topics that needed to be covered (and

perhaps even a preferred order for these) but it is prepared to allow the

interview to develop in unexpected directions where these open up

important new areas.

Open interview. The questions in open interview are not pre-determined. This form is also known as ‘in-depth’ and ‘unstructured’, although the

latter implies a lack of shape which is not always a fair reflection of

reality.

In this study, the researcher used semi-structured interview (Kvale, 1996: 5),

(20)

To enable the researcher to transcribe the data, the researcher used voice-recorder

to record all informations and feedbacks properly from interview process.

Moreover, Dawson (2009) explains, audio recording equipment is one of the

advantages in recording methods to have a complete record of interview for

analysis, including what is said and interaction between interviewer and

interviewee, able to maintain eye contact and have plenty of useful quotations

report. Beside that, the researcher used note-taking during the interview process.

3.7 Data Analyzing Techniques

Qulaitative data analysis is a search for general statements about

relationships and underlying themes; it builds grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin,

1997 cited in Marshall & Rossman, 2006). As described by Cresswell (1998),

description, analysis, and interpretation, three distinct activities, are often bundled

into the generic term analysis. While Richard & Renandya, (2002) explains that

analysis is neither a distinct nor a discrete process; it is something that is

happening in one form or another, through the whole research process. In relation,

the data of this study was analyzed through qualitative data analysis.

3.7.1 Observation and video recording Data

In analyzing the data from observation and video recording, the researcher

made description of each observation based on the notes taken during the

observation. The result of the description had used to provide more detail context

when classifiying kinds of classroom activity, types of questions, students’

(21)

description, the next step was transcribed the data from video-recording. In

making this transcription, several codes were used to indicate specific features of

the transcription. Those codes were T for teacher, S for one student, Ss for many

students, ...for pausing, * for no response, and () for non verbal response.

After having the transcription, then the researcher classified the utterances

into two categories, teacher questions category and student responses category.

After all the utterances have been categorized, then the researcher classified all the

teachers’ questions based the taxonomy of question which adapted from the frame

work of Long (1981). The category are display question, referential question,

comprehension check, clarification request, and confirmation check. In this step,

the researcher confirmed the participants whether their utterances belong to

question or not.

In term of classroom activities conducted during the observation, researcher

had identified some activities created by the teacher such as Whole-class,

Group-work and Pair-Group-work, Individual-Group-work, Games, TPR, Role-play. From each of

activities recognized in observation classroom, researcher then identified and

clasiffied teachers’ questions based on category adapted by by Long (1981). Then,

the activity class that teachers conducted had generated to the certain types of

question.

To analyze students response in answering second research questions, the

researcher categorized them into verbal response and non-verbal response. In

(22)

categorized the verbal responses into restricted category and elaboration category.

When categorizing the non-verbal responses, the framework of Lorscher (2003)

was implemented such nodding, smiling, laughing, surprising and hesitating.

3.7.2 Interview Data

Data from interview was transcripted and to be used to gain deeper

information about teachers’ experiences in managing classroom and

understanding of questions’ types. Moreover, some of classroom activities and

certain type of questions had been recognized during the obseravtion record.

Teacher’s experiences in encouraging students to interact or to response through

asking questions, selecting appropriate questions to asked, and how the responses

were given by students through verbal and non-verbal response. After that, the

transcript of interview was analyzed using thematic data analysis (Kvale, 1996)

and categorized based on research questions stated in this study that is to find out

kinds of classroom activities that contribute to types of questions, students’

responses on different questions, and students’ learning through teacher

questions. Similar to the previous data, the interview data was also analyzed and

(23)

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions of important phenomenon discussed in

previous analysis as the answers to the research questions and some possible

recomendations for conducting further related studies.

5.1 Conclusion

This study attempts to investigate the influence of student’s activities to

teachers’ questions in language learning classroom of four English teachers at two

English courses in Bandung. The purposes are to identify the kinds of classroom

activity that contribute to the different type of teachers’ questions, sorts of

students’ responses from teachers’ questions and questioning that facilitates

students in learning L2.

The finding shows that the four participants arranged kinds of classroom

activities during the teaching process. The four teachers mostly implemented

Groupwork and Pairwork activities as they realized that these activities can allow

students to work and interact independently without the necessary guidance of

teacher, thus promoting learner independence. This finding suports the previous

study conducted by Loughran & Northfield (1996).

As class activities had elaborated by the four teachers, types of teachers’

questions have been identified. The finding of the present study showed that the

four teachers had used different types of questions during the classroom activity.

From the six kinds of classroom activities (whole-class, groupwork or pairwork,

(24)

present study (Gebhard, 2000; Scott & Ytreberg, 1990; Harmer, 2007; Musthafa,

2008; Paul, 2003; Pinter, 2006; Phillips, 2008,), teacher A, teacher B, teacher C

and teacher D used more display questions in implementing their teaching

classroom. The data showed that, in every topic, task or lesson presented by the

teachers, students’ handbook had always been used as a source of material. This

finding supports the previous study of Wu (1993), Xiao-yan (2006), Hussin

(2006), Dash (2005), Tan (2007) and Chun-miao (2007). This mean that this study

gives additional support to the related previous study.

This study also reveals that students respond their teachers’ questions

verbally and non-verbally. The verbal responses are characteristically restricted to

display question and referential question. While the non-verbal response such as

nodding, laughing, smiling, acting, hesitating and surprising are used when

teacher addressed confirmation check, comprehension check and referential

question as well. To sum up, the students give various types of responses

depending on the type of questions given.

The last, types of teachers’ questions affected the way of teacher conducts

language learning in classroom. They can affect the amount of input, classroom

interaction, and the use of the target language. The MLU measurement result

showed that teachers’ referential questions could improve students ability to

acquire and to produce more utterances than other types of teachers’ questions.

However, whether the teachers’ display questions producing students less

utterances, the interaction between teachers and students showed most frequently.

(25)

understanding certain concept of materials. Students had given opportunities to

response by answering teachers’ questions. Reffering to this, teachers’ questions

facilitate students in learning L2 in term of providing input, building interaction,

and giving opportunity to use the L2.

5.2 The Recommenadtion for Further Research

For further investigation, the following aspects could be the focus to take

into consideration. The First, further study could be focused on the use of types of

teachers’ questions in classroom setting: 1) How to identify teachers’ effective

questions? and 2) How the use of teaching media expecially text book affect

teacher’s type of questions. The second, further study can be focused on how the

teachers’ questions can improve students language development. The studies

should be emphasized on how questioning can increase students communicative

(26)

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2003). “L2 Output, Reformulation and Noticing: Implications for IL Development”. Language Teaching Research, 7, (3), 347-376.

Akmaludin. (2009). Types of teacher questions and student responses in EFL classroom activities. Indonesian University of Education. (unpublished).

Alwasilah, A.C (2009). Pokoknya kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Allwright, D. (1983). Centered Research: State of the Art Classroom-Centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning A Brief Historical Overview. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2).

Allwright, D. (1989). Interaction and Negotiation in Classroom: Their Role in Learner Development. Available in

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile50allrigh.pdf. Retrieved on June 09 2011.

Asher, J.J. (1977). Learning Another Language Through Action: The Complete Teacher’s Guide Book. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Production.

Belbase, S. (2007). Research Paradigm Politics of Researchers. Available in

http://www.iltaonline.com/newsletter/01-2005may/latedialog-lynch.htm

Accessed on 22 June 2011.

Bishop, D. V. M. and Adams, C. (1990) ‘A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 31, 1027–1050.

(27)

Bitchener, J. (2004). The Relationship between the Negotiation of Meaning and Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study. LANGUAGE AWARNESS, 13, (2), 2004.

Bogdan, R. C. And Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Ally and Bacon, Inc.

Bosch, D. (2006). Effective Questioning in Classroom.

http://essaytree.com/tag/effective-questioning-in-classroom. Retrieved on September 29 2011.

Brewster, J.E and Girard, D. (2003). The primary english teacher’s guide. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Brock, C. (1986). The effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, (1), 47-59.

Brown, H.D. & Edmondson, R. (1984). Asking Question. Wragg. E.C.(Eds.) Calssroom Teaching Skill. Ontarion: Billing & Sons Limited, Worcester.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principle. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.

Brown, R. (1973) A First Language London: Allen and Unwin.

Busching, B and Slesinger, B. (1995). Authentic Questions: What do they look like? Where do they lead? Language Arts, 75, (5), 341-351.

Cabrera, M.P & Martinez, P.B. (2001). The Effect of Repetition, Comprehension Check, and Gestures on Primary School Children in EFL Situation. ELT Journal, 55, (3), 281-288.

Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Questioning in Classroom: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Review of Educational Research, 62, (2), 157-178.

(28)

http://edition.tefl.net/ideas/teaching/classifying-classroom-questions/ Retrieved on June 28, 2011.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classroom: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from the Modern Language Journal, 1916-2000. The Modern Language Journal, 81, (i), 57-76.

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.

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher Questioning and feedback to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (1), 1315-1346.

Chun-miao, X. (2007). A study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching, 4, (4), 29-37.

Clegg, A. (1987). Why Questions in Ed. Willen, William (1987) Questions, Questioning, and Effective Teaching. Washington: National Education Association of United States.

Clifton, J. (2006). Facilitator Talk. ELT Journal, 60, (2), 142-150.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.

Commeyras, M. (1995). What Can We Learn from Students’ Questions? Theory Into Practice, 34, (2), 101-106.

Connole, H. et al. (1990). Issues and Methods in Research. Study Guide. Adelaide: South Australian College Advance Education.

(29)

Cotton, K. (1988). Classroom Questioning. Portland,OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Cresswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publication, Inc.

Danelson, K. (2008). The art of asking questions: Two classes that change my teaching life. English Journal, 6, (97), 75-78.

Darn, S. (2008). Asking Questions. http:www//.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/article/

asking-questions Retrieved on June, 08 2011.

Dash, N. K. (2005). Research Paradigms in Education: Towards a Resolution. Journal of Indian Education, 19, (2), 1-6.

Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.

Day, R.R. (1984). Student Participation in the ESL Classroom or Some Imperfections in Practice. Language Learning, 34, (3), 69-98.

Dilon, J.T. (1981). “To Question and Not to Question During Discussion”. Journal of Teacher Education, XXXII, (6), 15-20.

Dolya, G. (2010). Vygotsky in Action in the Early Years: The Key to Learning Curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994a). The Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. Et al. (1994b). “Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings”. Language Learning, 44, (3), 449-491.

(30)

Emilia, E. (2000). Research Method in Education (Hasil Pemikiran). Diktat Kuliah Mata Kuliah Qualitative Research. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris.

Eng Ho, D.G. (2005). “Why Do Teachers Ask the Questions They Ask?”, RELC Journal, 36, 297-310.

Enright, D.S. & McCloskey, M.L. (1985). Yes, Talking!: Organizing the Classroom to Promote Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, (3), 431-453.

Farmer, L.S.J. (2007). What is the Question? IFLA Journal, 33, (41).

Fitriani (2009). Pentingnya Guru Menguasai Ketrampilan Mengajar. Jambi Express, Minggu, 24 Mei 2009. http://jambiekspress.co.id/new/index.php/guruku/2506-pentingnya-guru-menguasai-ketrampilan-mengajar. Retrieved on June 12, 2011.

Flammer, A. (1981). Towards a theory of Question Asking. Psychological Research, 43, 407-420.

Frankel, J. & Wallen, N. (1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Gabrielatos, C. (1997). A question of Function. Abstract of 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Greece, 12-13 April 1997.

Gall, M. (1970). The Use of Questions in Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, (5), 707-721.

Gall, J & Gall, M (1990). Outcomes of the discussion methods. In W. Wilen (Ed.), Teaching and learning through discussion: The theory, research, and practice of the discussion method (pp. 25-44). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Garton, S. (2002). Learner Initiative in the Language Classroom. ELT Journal, 56, 47-56.

Garton, A.F. and Pratt, C. (1998) Learning to be Literate (2nd edn) Oxford: Blackwell.

(31)

Gebhard, J. G. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods Research Method Forum, 4 (Summer 1999).

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English (New Edition). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching: Unity within Diversity. ELT Journal, 61, (3), 193-201.

Hussain, N. (2003). Helping ESL/EFL Students by Asking Quality Questions. The Internet TESL Journal. IX, (10), October 2003.

Hussin, H. (2006). Dimension of Questioning: A Qualitative Study of Current Classroom Practice in Malaysia. TESL-EJ. 10. (2).

Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and Production Process in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, (2), 168-196.

Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Edinburgh: Person Education Limited.

Johnson, R. (1997). Question Techniques to Use in Teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, (8), 45-49.

Johnson, B.W. (2005) Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) [WWW] http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bwjohn/4004/Materials/MLU.htm. Retrieved on August10, 2011.

(32)

Killen, R. (1998). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from esearch and Practice. Katoomba: Social Science Press.

Kinsella, G. (1991). Teaching Teachers to Ask Questions. ELT Journal 51/2.

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

Krashen, S.D. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present and Future. RELC Journal, 39, 178.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Lang, R.H. and Evans, N.D. (2006). Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effective Teaching. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lewis, G & Bedson, G. (1999). Games for children. Oxford university press.

Linse, C. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Lincoln, Y. S & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

Livingstone, C. (1983). Role Play in Language Learning. Burnt Mill, Harlow: Longman Group Limited.

Long, H.M (1981). Input, interaction, and second-Language Acquisition. Annals New York Academy of Science, 259-278.

Loughran, J. & Northfield, J. (1996). Opening the Classroom Door: Teacher Researcher Learner. Bristol: The Falmer Press.

Lorscher, W. (2003). Nonverbal Aspects of Teacher-pupil Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. KD2 Web Proceedings. July, 2003.

(33)

Lynch, T. (1991). Questioning Roles in Classroom. ELT Journal, 45, 201-210.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Mackenzie, M and Knipe, S. (2006). Research Dilemmas: Paradigms, Methods and Methodology Issues in Educational Research, 16, accessed on June, 22 2011.

McNeil, L.M. (1988). ‘Contradictions of control. Part 1: Administrators and teachers; Part 2: Teachers, students, and curriculum; Part 3: Contradictions of reform’, Phi Delta Kappan, 69: 333-9, 432-8, 478-85.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. California: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miller, J.F. (1981) ‘Eliciting procedures for language’ in Miller, J.F. (ed) Assessing Language Production in Children London: Edward Arnold.

Miller, J.F. and Chapman, R.S. (1981) ‘The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes’ Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24, 2, 154-161.

Musthafa, B. (2008). Teaching Language to Young Learners: Principles & Techniques. UPI, Bandung: UPI Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teachin Methodology A Textbook for Teacher. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambrdige of University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language Classrooms A Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. London Prentice Hall Group (UK) Ltd.

(34)

Ornstein, A.C. (1987). Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching. NASP Bulletin, 71; 71-79.

Ornstein, A.C. (1990). Strategies for Effective Teaching. Chicago: HerperCollinsPublisher, Inc.

Otero, J & Graesser, A.C. (2001). Elements of a Model of Question Asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, (2), 143-175.

Paton, M.Q (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: Sage Publication.

Paul, D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Hongkong: Pearson Longman.

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

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007b). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (2), 32-33.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007c). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (3), 34-35.

Paulos, A & Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of Feedback: The Students’ Perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, (2), 143-154.

Phillips, Sarah.(2008). Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. and Linnell, J. (1996). Language Learners’ Interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, (1), 59-84.

(35)

Richard, J.C & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, K & Lockhart, S (1997). Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as a Second Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc.

Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1971). Client Centered Theraphy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sabeni, M. (2008). Ketrampilan Bertanya Dasar dan Lanjutan. http://beni64.wordpress com/2008/10/30/ketrampilan-bertanya-dasar-dan-lanjut/ Retrieved on June, 12 2011.

Sadker, D and Sadker, L (1990). Questioning Skills in (Eds.) Cooper, J.M (1990) Classroom Teaching Class, Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath Company.

Schieltz, M. (1997). Classroom activity for high school. Retrieved on June 19, 2011.

http://www.ehow.com/list6374315classroo-activities-high-School.html#ixzz1RLPD3ezq.

Scott, W.A & Ytreberg, L.H. (1990). Teaching English to Children: Longman Keys to Language Teaching. New York: Longman.

Seedhose, P. (1996). Classroom Interaction: Possibilities and Impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50; 16-24, 1996.

Shannon, F. (2005). Interactionist Theory in SLA. Retrieved on June 23, 2011. From http://fredshannon.blogspot.com/2005/11/interactionist-theory-in-second.html.

Shomoossi, N. (2004). The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction: A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Marix, 4, (2).

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Sofa, P. (2008). Ketrampilan Menjelaskan dan Bertanya. http://massofa.wordpress. com/2008/01/11/ketrampilan-menjelaskan-dan-bertanya/ Retrieved on June, 15 2011.

(36)

Starr, K. (2004). Find the different types of questions a teacher can ask in ELT classroom. http://essaytree.com/education/find-the-different-types-of-questions-a-teacher-can-ask-in-elt-classroom/ Retrieved on September, 29 2011.

Sugita, Y. (2006). The Impact of Teacher’s Comment Types on Students’ Revision. ELT Journal, 60, 34-41.

Sugiyono. (2009). Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Suherdi, D. (2008). Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: UPI Press.

Suter, C. (2001). Exploring Teacher’s Questions and Feedback. Module One Assessment Task.

Swain, M. (1985). “Communicative Competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.” In Gass and Maden (eds): Input in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, Mass, Newbury House, 235-267. Swain, M. (2007). The Output Hypothesis: Its History and Its Future. A Seminar

Handout. http://www.celea.org.cn/2007/keynote/ppt/Merrill%20Swain.pdf. Retrieved on June 24, 2011.

Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese University EL Classroom. Regional Language Centre (RELC) Journal, 38, (1), 87-102.

The Teaching Center, (2009). Asking Questions to Improve Learning. http://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/asking-questions-improve-learning. Retrieved on June, 29 2011.

Thomas, M. (1987). Classroom interaction. Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (1996). Teacher Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal, 50, 279-289.

Tollefson, J. (1997). A System for Improving Teachers’ Questions. In Ed. Kral, Thomas (1997) Teacher Development Making the Right Moves, Selected Articles from English Teaching Forum 1989-1993.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2001). Classroom Interaction in (Eds) Carter, R and Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speaker of other Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(37)

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of Negotiation on Language Learner’s Output. Language Learning, 47, (4), 589-636.

Van lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New Jersey: Longman press.

Varlander (2008). The Role of Students’ Emotions in Formal Feedback Situation. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, (2), 145-156.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, (1), 3-23.

Watkins, C., Carnell, E. & Lodge, C. (2007). Effective Learning in Classrooms. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Wehmeier S. (2003). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, G (2009). Mean Lenght of Utterances. http://www.speech-therapy-information-and-resources.com/mean-length-of-utterance.html Retrieved on August, 10 2011.

Winataputra, U.S. (2008). Ketrampilan Dasar Mengajar. http://solselku.wordpress. com/2008/05/04/ketrampilan-dasar-mengajar/ Retrieved on June, 15 2011.

Wu, K. (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisted. RELC Journal, (24), (22), 49-68. Retrieved on June 16, 2011.

Xiao-yan, M.A. (2006). Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classroom. A Dissertation Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of M.A. In English Language Literature.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 5, 1984. California; Sage Publication Inc.

(38)

Zee, E.V. & Minstrell (1997). Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking. The Journal of the Learning Science, 6, (2), 227-269.

(1)

Lynch, T. (1991). Questioning Roles in Classroom. ELT Journal, 45, 201-210.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Mackenzie, M and Knipe, S. (2006). Research Dilemmas: Paradigms, Methods and Methodology Issues in Educational Research, 16, accessed on June, 22 2011. McNeil, L.M. (1988). ‘Contradictions of control. Part 1: Administrators and teachers;

Part 2: Teachers, students, and curriculum; Part 3: Contradictions of reform’, Phi Delta Kappan, 69: 333-9, 432-8, 478-85.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. California: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miller, J.F. (1981) ‘Eliciting procedures for language’ in Miller, J.F. (ed) Assessing Language Production in Children London: Edward Arnold.

Miller, J.F. and Chapman, R.S. (1981) ‘The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes’ Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24, 2, 154-161.

Musthafa, B. (2008). Teaching Language to Young Learners: Principles & Techniques. UPI, Bandung: UPI Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teachin Methodology A Textbook for Teacher. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambrdige of University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language Classrooms A Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. London Prentice Hall Group (UK) Ltd.

(2)

Ornstein, A.C. (1987). Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching. NASP Bulletin, 71; 71-79.

Ornstein, A.C. (1990). Strategies for Effective Teaching. Chicago: HerperCollinsPublisher, Inc.

Otero, J & Graesser, A.C. (2001). Elements of a Model of Question Asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, (2), 143-175.

Paton, M.Q (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: Sage Publication.

Paul, D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Hongkong: Pearson Longman. Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007a). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning.

Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (1), 36-37.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007b). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (2), 32-33.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007c). Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, (3), 34-35.

Paulos, A & Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of Feedback: The Students’ Perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, (2), 143-154. Phillips, Sarah.(2008). Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

(3)

Richard, J.C & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, K & Lockhart, S (1997). Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as a Second Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc.

Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. (1971). Client Centered Theraphy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sabeni, M. (2008). Ketrampilan Bertanya Dasar dan Lanjutan. http://beni64.wordpress com/2008/10/30/ketrampilan-bertanya-dasar-dan-lanjut/ Retrieved on June, 12 2011.

Sadker, D and Sadker, L (1990). Questioning Skills in (Eds.) Cooper, J.M (1990) Classroom Teaching Class, Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath Company.

Schieltz, M. (1997). Classroom activity for high school. Retrieved on June 19, 2011.

http://www.ehow.com/list6374315classroo-activities-high-School.html#ixzz1RLPD3ezq.

Scott, W.A & Ytreberg, L.H. (1990). Teaching English to Children: Longman Keys to Language Teaching. New York: Longman.

Seedhose, P. (1996). Classroom Interaction: Possibilities and Impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50; 16-24, 1996.

Shannon, F. (2005). Interactionist Theory in SLA. Retrieved on June 23, 2011. From http://fredshannon.blogspot.com/2005/11/interactionist-theory-in-second.html. Shomoossi, N. (2004). The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL

Classroom Interaction: A Classroom Research Study. The Reading Marix, 4, (2). Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.