THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS USED BY THE TEACHERS IN READING CLASS : A Case Study at MTs N Model Samarinda.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Approval ... i

Declaration ... ii

Acknowledgments ... iii

Dedication ………. v

Abstract ... vi

Table of Contents ... vii

List of Tables ……… viii

List of Figures ……….. ix

List of Appendices ... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The Study ……… 1

1.2 Statement of The Problem ………. 3

1.3 Purpose of The Study ……….. 4

1.4 Methodology ……….….. 4

1.5 Significance of The Study ……… 5

1.6 Definition of Key Terms ……… 5

1.7 Organization of The Thesis ……….. 6

1.8 Concluding Remarks ……… 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Reading Comprehension ………. 8

2.1.1 Definition of Reading Comprehension ……….. 8

2.1.2 Model of Reading Process ……….. 12

2.1.2.1 Bottom-up Model ……….. 12

2.1.2.2 Top-down Model ……….. 13

2.1.2.3 Interactive Model ……….. 14

2.1.3 Reading Comprehension Strategies ……… ... 15

2.1.4 Reading Activities at Madrasah Tsnawaiyah ……….. … 16

2.1.5 Related Research Studies ………... 17

2.2. Questioning ………. … 23

2.2.1 The Nature of Questioning…………..……… 26

2.2.2 The Stage of Questioning Process……….. 26

2.2.3 Types of Question ……….. 28

2.2.3.1. Literal Comprehension……… ……… 30

2.2.3.1.1 Recognition ……… 30

2.2.3.1.1.1 Recognition of Detail………. 31

2.2.3.1.1.2 Recognition of Main Ideas ……… 31

2.2.3.1.1.3 Recognition of Sequence ……. … 32

2.2.3.1.1.4 Recognition of Comparison …. … 32 2.2.3.1.1.5 Recognition of Cause and Effect Relationship ………. 32

2.2.3.1.1.6 Recognition of Character Traits…. 33

2.2.3.1.2 Recall ………. 33

2.2.3.1.1.1 Recall of Details ………... 33

2.2.3.1.1.2 Recall of Main Ideas ……… 34

2.2.3.1.1.3 Recall of Sequence………. 34

2.2.3.1.1.4 Recall of Comparison ………. 35

2.2.3.1.1.5 Recall of Cause and effect Relationships ………. 35

2.2.3.1.1.6 Recall of Character Traits ………… 35

2.2.3.2 Reorganization Comprehension……… 36

2.2.3.2.1 Classifying ……….. 36 2.2.3.2.2 Outlining ………. 37

2.2.3.2.3.Summarizing ………. 37

2.2.3.2.4.Synthesizing ……….. 37

2.2.3.3 Inferential Comprehension ……….. 38

2.2.3.3.1.Inferential Supporting Details……….………….. 39

2.2.3.3.2 Inferring Main Idea ……….. 39 2.2.3.3.2 Inferring Sequence ……….. 39 2.2.3.3.4 Inferring Comparison………. 40 2.2.3.3.5 Inferring Cause and Effect Relationship ……… 40

2.2.3.3.6 Inferring Character Traits ……….. 41

2.2.3.3.7 Predicting Outcomes ………. 41 2.2.3.3.8 Interpreting Figurative Language ……… 41

2.2.3.4 Evaluation Comprehension……… 42

2.2.3.4.1 Judgments of Reality or Fantasy ……….. 42

2.2.3.4.2 Judgments of Fact or Opinion ……….. 42

2.2.3.4.3 Judgments of Adequacy and Validity.. …………. 43 2.2.3.4.4 Judgments of Appropriateness ……… 43

2.2.3.3.5 Judgments of Worth, Desirability, and Acceptability ………..……… 43

2.2.3.5 Appreciation Comprehension…………. ………. 44 2.2.3.5.1 Emotional Response to the Content ……….. …… 44. . 2.2.3.5.2 Identification with Characters or Incidents …… 45

2.2.3.5.3 Reaction to the author’s use of Language ……… 45

2.2.3.5.4 Imagery ……… 45

2.2.4 Questioning Strategies ……….……… 49

2.2.5 Questioning Interaction in Reading Class ………. …… 51

2.2.6 Concluding Remarks ……….... 56

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ………. 57

3.2 Research Site and Participants ……….. 58

3.3 Data Collection Procedures ………. 60

3.4.1.1 Non Participant Observer ……… 61

3.4.1.2 Seating Arrangement ……….. 62

3.4.1.3 Recording ……… 63

3.4.2 Interview ………. 63

3.5 Data Analysis Method ………. 64

3.6 Validity ……… 66.

3.7 Concluding Remarks ……… 67

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Types of Questions ………. 69

4.1.1 Five Question Levels of Barrett Taxonomy ………. 69

4.1.1.1 Literal Comprehension Questions ………. 78

4.1.1.2 Reorganization Comprehension Questions ………. 83

4.1.1.3 Inferential Comprehension Questions ………. 86

4.1.1.4 Evaluation Comprehension Questions ………. 95

4.2 The Questioning Strategies ……… 99

4.3 The Influence of Question Types and Questioning Strategies Used by Teachers on Class Interaction in The Process of Teaching Reading ………... 110

4.4 Concluding Remarks ……….. 122

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusion ………... 125

5.2 Suggestion ……… 127

REFERENCES ……….… 130 APPENDICES ……… 138

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Level of Comprehension of Barrett’s Taxonomy ……… 47 Table 3.1 Teacher Profile ……….. 61 Table 3.2 Data Categorization ……… 67 Table 4.1 Number and Percentage of Question levels based on

Barrett’s Taxonomy ……….. 71 Table 4.2 Classifications and Percentage of Questioning Strategies ………… 99

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 : The Teachers’ Transcriptions ……….………. 130

Appendix 2 : The Analysis of Teacher A’s Questions ………... 156

Appendix 3 : The Analysis of Teacher B’s Questions ………... 168

Appendix 4 : The Analysis of Teacher C’s Questions ………. 179

Appendix 5 : The analysis of Teacher A’s Questioning Strategies ……….. 191

Appendix 6 : The analysis of Teachers B’s Questioning Strategies ……….. 190

Appendix 7 : The analysis of Teachers C’s Questioning Strategies ……….. 206

Appendix 9 : The Interview Transcription ..……….. 213

1 CHAPTER I

INRTODUCTION

This chapter discusses the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purposes of the study, the methodology, and the significance of the study. The organization of the study and the definition of key terms is also illustrated in this chapter.

1.1 Background of The Study

The English teaching policy in Indonesia has undergone significant changes in the last fifteen years. There have been reformation efforts in educational world, including reformation of the national curriculum. Since then the focus of the English language teaching is not only dominated on the teaching English for High School students but also it has been covered to the Elementary up to University level. It means that, all of Indonesian students have the great chance to access English nowadays.

The above phenomenon is strongly positive and vital in increasing the educational quality because English functions not only as a language for science, and technology, but also as a means of communication in economy and trade, multilateral relationship, as well as career growth (Jafar, 2008:2). Meanwhile, ninety percents of all books from elementary libraries at school to university libraries are written in English (Sunggingwati, 2001:3). Therefore, the ability to grasp and extract that all information depends largely on the student’s proficiency on reading skill. In other words, reading skill plays an important role for the students who need to comprehend the whole information or the text themes.

2

Since reading is a very important skill for the students, great attention also should be paid to the teaching of reading, particularly to the teachers’ role in reading activities. It is due to the fact that a teacher has an important role in the teaching reading as what Sibarani (2001:2) states that teacher plays a very important role in the classroom teaching. A teacher is the most important person in the reading class deciding the kind of experience the children should have. More explicitly, Bond and Dykstra (1990, cited in Chandra 2005:4) confirm that teacher is a variable underlying students success in learning to read. It is an obligation for the teachers to stimulate students’ interest in reading, they must help the students to see that reading is a valuable skill for them. The students are able, of course, to do learning themselves, but the teacher has a major effect in reading activity, and can create materials appropriately in a sequence of increasing difficulty which leads to the students’ improvement in reading skill. As what Eskey (1983:4) states that to bring students and to give appropriate materials altogether are very large parts of the reading teacher’s job. Meanwhile, the teacher also must provide practice and introduce useful reading strategies, such as: SQ3R, scanning, skimming, inferential reading, and QAR (QuestionAnswer Relationship) questions, reciprocal teaching (http://fys.nd.edu/reading_learning.htm), in which these can be great ways for the teacher to consider what they will doin their classes to facilitate overall comprehension in reading (Anderson, 1999:39).

Regarding the reading strategies, questioning is one of the type commonly used by the English teachers in their reading EFL classes. In line with this, Carriane (1994) found out that teachers’ questions vary from 30 to 120 questions per hour. While, Borich (1992:19) states that 80% of classroom activities are devoted to asking, answering, and

3

reacting to questioning. Therefore, by conducting some questioning activities, it is expected to stimulate students’ asking questioning skill, to promote their thoughts and to understand the ideas, to be able to diagnoze and recall information, and to activate student’s knowledge background (Heilman and Blair, 1981:251). Moreover, based on the previous findings conducted by Talebinezand (2003:44) and Long and Sato (1983:4) that questions and answers are very common activities if they are exploited appropriately, they can help students and teachers to judge the usefulness of what they are doing. In line with this, Scales and Shen (2004:3) furthermore, state that questions play a central role in reading comprehension instruction because they can be used to develop concepts, build background, clarify reasoning process, and even to lead the students to the higher level of thinking. Therefore, posing questioning can be a useful tool for a skillful teacher to serve numerous useful learning purposes and encourage students’ level of thinking.

Since the teachers’ questions quality posed to the students at reading activity is important, this present study is therefore intended to investigate the types of questions at reading activity in MTs N Model Samarinda.

1.2 Statements of The Problem

Related to the background of the study mentioned above, the researcher conducts a study concerning the reading comprehension questions used by the teachers at Mts N Model Samarinda, and the problems are formulated as follows:

1. What types of questions do teachers ask during the process of teaching reading?

4

2. What questioning strategies do teachers use during the process of teaching reading?

3. What are the influence of question types and questioning strategies used by teachers in the class interaction during the process of teaching reading?

1.3 Purposes of The Study

In line with the research problems above, this study attempts to describe the process of reading comprehension questions used by the teachers at Mts N Model Samarinda. To be more specific, the purposes of the study are:

1. to observe types of questions used by the teachers during the process of teaching reading?

2. to identify questioning strategies used by the teachers during the process of teaching reading?

3. to know the influence of question types and questioning strategies used by teachers on class interaction during the process of teaching reading?

1.4 Methodology

In accordance with the problems of the study stated above, this study applies a descriptive method. The main focus of this study is to observe or to find out the teachers’ questions used in reading activities at Mts N Model Samarinda. In this study, the researcher took three teachers purposively to be oberved as samples, then the distribution of questions posed by the teachers was recorded and transcribed based

5

on the level of comprehension and some questioning theories related to this study can be covered through reading activities.

The data collection used in this study are the classroom observation and interview. In taking the data, the researcher used an observational qualitative design to know in details the process of the teachers’ questions given to the students during the reading activities. The data taken from the teachers’ questions were then analyzed by using types of level comprehensions and other theories supporting this study. Methodology is further elaborated in Chapter III.

1.5 Significance of The Study

The findings of this investigation illustrate types of questions and questions strategies used by the teachers to the students in reading activities. Overall findings are expected to give benefit to the teachers, mainly to the teacher at Mts N Model Samarinda, other teachers at different level of school grades, and other researchers who will take a study on the similar field, particularly how to pose or frame the types of questions to the students in teaching reading comprehension.

1.6 Definition of the Key Terms

To avoid misinterpretation of the terms used in this study, the definition of the key terms are provided as follows:

Reading class : a room students where learning reading skills in the classroom in conducted.

6

Types of teachers’ questions: the questions given to the students that consists of : (a). Literal, (b) reorganization, (c). Inferential, (d). Evaluation, (e). Appreciation (Barrett, 1968, cited in Clymer, 1968).

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter one illustrates the background of the study, the statements of the problems, the purposes of the study, reserach methodology, the significance of the study, and the definition of the key terms.

Chapter Two elaborates the review of related literatures about reading comprehension, types of questions, questioning strategies, and other supporting theories underpinning this thesis.

Chapter Three provides the methodology consists of research design, research site and participant, data collection methods, and data analysis method.

Chapter Four discusses research findings in connecting to teachers’ questions given to the students and question strategies used in reading activities, and the influences of the types of questions and questioning strategies in questioning interaction.

Chapter Five covers some important points of the findings, and the significances which are related to the quality of teachers’ questions posed to the students, mainly to the teachers at MTs N Model Samarinda. The suggestions are also given to the other researchers.

7 1.8 Concluding Remarks

This chapter has elaborated the background of the study, the statements of problem, the purposes of the study, methodology, significance of the study, the clarification of key terms, and organization of the thesis. In chapter two elaborates in details the literature review of related theories underpinning the types of teachers’ questions.

57 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter highlightes some important points of research methodology. The illustration of data gathered from the classroom observation is then discussed in detalis in this part. It consitsted of research design, research site and subjects, research instrument, data of collection procedure, data analyzes, and concluding remarks.

3.1 Research Design

As stated in the first chapter that the objectives of this study are to investigate the ways the teacher posed the questions types in reading class. To achieve those objectives, it is necessary to apply a suitable research design. In this study, the researcher used a descriptive research design to describe the phenomena occurred at the certain setting, e.g. a student, a class, a school, these are able to collect of very extensive data to produce understanding of the entity being studied (Fraeken-Wallen 1990:313). By doing this design, it is also to portray a comprehensive understanding of what the teacher posed or elicited the questions to the students in reading activities at MTs N Model Samarinda.

This study also belongs to an observational case study of a qualitative research. In this case, it concentrates on one setting and one particular person and event (Maleong,1988:175). As an observational case study, the main technique of collecting

58

the data is observation. The focus of observation is on the way the teacher distributed and elicited types of question to the students in reading activities.

Generally, in an observational case study, before conducting the actual observation. It can firstly be conducted by pre–observation phase. This is in line with Alwasilah’s view (2002:211) that observation is often followed by informal observation and impresionistic as a warming up before conducting a real observation. A preliminary research was done where for several weeks by observing the whole process of teaching – learning activities naturally, including the classroom condition, facilities, and others.

During the preliminary activities, the researcher then stated some research questions were to design research instruments. Note taking was used as an additional point to note down everything that appeared at the time of the teacher reciting the questions to the students. Then the last phase, the data gathered were categorized and interpreted to get the drawing conclusion.

3.2 Research Site and Participants

Research was conducted at MTs N Model Samarinda, in East Kalimantan. The school is located on Jln. Harmonika No. 100, Samarinda. The school has become one of the most favourite schools in Samarinda, particularly for Islamic Junior High Level. There are several reasons deciding that school to be the setting of this study. Firstly, MTs N Model is the only state MTs in Samarinda which is recognized as the most representative islamic school in the area. Secondly, that school are recognized well by

59

the researcher. This school has also a good quality of education, mainly, there are some “kelas unggulan” available there. More explicitly, in teaching learning objectives, particularly, for the second grade, the syllabus indicators mention that in terms of teaching reading, the students are expected to guess meaning or to get information from the reading text explicitly or implicitly. Based on the reason, it is then considered to take this school as the site of the study. Then, through discussing between the vice head master of curriculum division, the teachers and the researcher, then the three classes chosen was the second-grade.

Regarding the subject observed, the rich data was needed to be able to figure out how the real condition happened at this classroom. The data gathered was the types of teachers’ questions posed to, how effective the questions applied in teaching reading activities, and the influences would appear when the teachers distribute the questions to the students. For this reason, Fraenkel and Wallen (1994: 313, Merriam,1998) suggest that in a case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristic of real life events.

Meanwhile, participants in this study were the English teachers who have been teaching at the school for several years, three of them were taken from the second classess. Taking the participants to be observed-subjects was done by using the purposive sampling design (Alwasilah,2003;145). All of them have their own experiences in teaching English. They are non – native speakers but have completed their study at college of education, majoring English teacher training. Take, teacher A, for instance, she taught English in the second year, and has been teaching English

67

since 1993 and has been teaching English at MTs since 1996. Her career of teaching English has been started few senior high schools in other town before being a fully-public servant at Mts N Model Samarinda. For more complete profile of teachers respectively, it can be seen at the following Table. 3.1:

Table 3.1. Teachers’ Profile

No Participant Graduation Teaching

experiences

Grade

1 Teacher A S1, Faculty of Teacher, Training and Education of an Islamic State University, Majoring in English.

12 years 2 grade

2 Teacher B S1, Faculty of Teacher of Education of a State University Majoring in English.

7years 2 grade

3. Teacher C S1, Faculty of Teacher of Education of a State University Majoring in English.

5 years 2 grade

3.3 Data Collection Procedure

Before collecting the data, the researcher conducted a preliminary research to get the information regarding: the types of questions, the questioning strategies, and the influence of these questioning strategies toward students. In this study, the researcher used two kind of instruments namely: classroom observation and interview. Afterwards, the researcher went to the field to collect the data by using these instruments in order to get the rich data needed. Below are the techniques used in obtaining data which are taken from classroom observation.

61 3.4.1 Classroom Observation

As stated earlier, the focus of this study was observational case study, which aims to gather the rich data that can be collected through the observation in the classroom. As Bogdan &Biklen (1998:55) state that a researcher simply observes and records naturally in the classroom in which it is purposely to describe the setting that was observed, that took place in that setting, the people who participated in those activities, and the meanings of what was observed from the perspective of those observed. Therefore, toward an overall observation, several activities was done by the teachers, including the teaching and learning activities when s/he posed and elicited the questions and how the questioning interaction occurred among the teacher and the students. Taking the data were almost conducted in two months, started at the beginning on November 2008 up to February 2009. Classroom observations then were conducted for 9 meetings. Three meetings were conducted by the teachers in their teaching learning activities. Activities that were conducted during the observation will be presented below:

3.4.1.1 Non Participant Observation

In conducting this observation, the researcher was a non–participant observer in the teaching– learning activities. She came into the classroom to observe the classroom activities for several days, before data collection and while data collection. The researcher believes that it was an efficient way for her to get into the class. Before the real observation was conducted, this was done for the students to be familiar with the researcher. Therefore, during the data collection process, the students could express

62

their ideas freely although the researcher was in the class. During the observation process, there was no interaction happened between researcher, teacher and pupils. She paid much attention to the process of teacher-students activities in distributing and eliciting questions in classroom interaction.

Taking a seat at the back is also a way to see the interaction between teacher and students when the teacher distributes those questions. She also took a note for several things; recording teacher- students verbal interction, noting down what the teacher’s expression, impression or ideas that figured out the teacher’s performance, and talling the questions distributed on the students seating-chart. By taking a note, it is aimed to record the data of the teacher’s nonverbal behavior and expression, such as; nodding, raising eyebrow, smiling, or even giving appreciation to the students.

3.4.1.2. Seating- Arrangement

To collect the data of teacher distributing questions to the students, the researcher was equipped with the seating chart. A seating chart is a map of students’ position in the classroom when the data were being taken (see appendix. 9). According to Nunan (1989:94, Leng,1982), in particular seating chart will show the number and direction of questions by the teacher, whether these were directed to the class generally or specifically individuals, and learners response. Therefore, the researcher used the seating chart to record the questions posed by the teacher. In this seating chart, the researcher tallied the position of a student who posed the questions or who students responded the verbal questions.

63 3.4.1.3 Recording

The focus of this observation was the way of the teacherposed questions to the students. A cassette recorder was used to help the researcher to record all activities happened in the classroom. In the recording process, it recorded utterances verbally instructed by the teacher within interaction in the classroom. In other words, this study was equipped with tape recorder as one of the main techniques used, by utilizing the recorder, the obtained data would be more accurate. The recorded utterances in the class interaction particularly were considered as a raw data of this study. Those raw data were then transcribed, to seek types, strategies, and influences of these types of the questions provided for the students to answer the research problem. There were three classes of the second grades to be an observed – settings, and three meetings were recorded by the teachers respectively.

3.4.2. Interview

The second instrument is interview. Interview was conducted after the process of recording. It was used with the reason that the teachers would give the questions in different way, so this instrument was used to gain in-depth information about the teachers’ considerations or reason in giving or reciting the certain question items in classroom activities The semi- structure interview was used in this study because its questions have no choice from which the interviewee selects the answers (McMillan & Schumacher, 1990:176). Thus, the interviewee would feel free to answer the interview questions.

64 3.6 Data Analysis Method

In this phase, the researcher has collected the data needed, then it was soon analyzed in details. Bogdan and Biklen (1998:159) state that the more data you have on a given topic, setting, or objects, the easier it will be thought deeply when you attempt the final analysis. Morever, they confirmed that analyzing data, which involved working data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, synthesizing them, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what it is to be learned, deciding what you will tell others, and need to be done immediately. All collected data that was taken by observation form constitute the verbal transcription of the teacher’s utterances in giving questions to the students in the classroom. They consisted of teachers’ types questions based on Barrett’s Taxonomy and questioning strategies based on Jacobsen and Eggen’s theories. The data will then be broken down into their pattern to see the appropriateness between the patterns and questions types.

Partinent with the data collection method and the data needed to be analyzed further, Miles and Huberman (1994:9, see also,Maleong, 2002) point out that the procedure of data analysis in this study was conducted into several steps, namely: a) data collection, b) data reduction, c) data display, d) conclusion drawing.

Data collection on the observation process was the teacher’s verbal transcription, that was recorded on the tape recorder. The data reduction was carried out by sorting the relevant data from the transcribed utterances that contains the questions of the teacher.

65

Previously to the reduction of data needed, the recorded data was prior transcribed on the observation form, in order to make the whole process of data analysis easier. After the transcribed data was written down then sorted until those of teacher’s questions types were left, data were, then, codified and classified into the theories underpinning in this study. Meanwhile, the data were codified in accordance with determined codes. The example of code is TC/4/11/08, represented by TC= teacher C, while, 4/11/08 indicated the time recorded being taken, while 4/11/08 explained, date, month, and year respectively. Finally, the step was conclusion drawing to be carried out on the basis of data reduction and data display.

Moreover, in terms of types of question sorted before, each question is categorized based on the cognitive level of teacher’s questions of Barrett’s Taxonomy (Barrett, 1968, cited in Clymer,1968) and based on the reference theories adopted in this study. The second steps of this analysis, the selected data were classified based on the reference to questioning strategies consisting of redirection, prompting, and probing (Jacobsen, at.al,1982,142). The next step is to investigate the influences of the type of questions in classroom interaction. Then, the last step is to calculate the frequency and percentage of question items respectively. After the whole result of percentage of question items classified respectively, the research problems then were answered. The following is the data categorization:

66

Tabel 3.2. Data Categorization

Research Questions Categories Sub-Categories

What types of questions do teachers ask when

teaching reading

process?

Types of Questions 1. Literal

2. Reorganization 3. Inferential 4. Evaluative 5. Appreciative What questioning strategy

do teachers use?

Questioning Strategies 1. Redirection 2. Prompting 3. Probing What are the influence of

question types and

questioning strategy used by teachers toward the class interaction in

teaching reading

process?

The Influence 1. Good in developing

and posing types of questions.

2. Good in applying questioning

strategies.

3. Being able to

improve the

students’ response

in questioning

interaction.

3.6 Validity

The validity of data from observation was taken through member checking. After the researcher categorized the transcription of teachers’ questions and showed to the participants, the researcher asked for their comments whether these data are appropriate in terms of their ways of giving questions to the students in teaching reading process. The way is to verify the accurateness of data obtained and minimize bias happened during classroom observation when they are being observed. In line with this, Maxwell (1996:88) conforms that this is done to reduce a risk of the limitation at the certain method and certain sources of data.

67 3.7 Concluding Remarks

Having well-presented the data obtained which was designed in this study, is a way to figure out of what actual data look. A research design used in this study was a qualitative research design that applied a observational case study as a method that was used to process the data needed. The data collection of this study was observation. These data then, were broken down to their categorization based on the theories suggested in this study. In order to verify the data obtained and have a fuller understanding of the phenomenon happened at the setting subject, member checking is used to clarify the validity of the data obtained. More details and more comprehensive data analyses, was illustrated further in Chapter Four. The whole methodology is summarized in the following design.

68

Figures 3.1 Research Methodology

BACKGROUND

Theory Problems Fact

Types of Questions, Questioning Strategies, and Its Influence toward the Students

Research Questions

Validity Data Collection Observation

& interview

Data Analysis, Findings, & Discussions

126

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This previous chapter presents the findings and discussions of the presents study on the type of questions instructed by the teachers in teaching reading class at Mts N Model Samarinda. Based on the findings, in the present chapter, several conclusions are drawn and number of suggestions are put forward. The conclusion deals with the types of questions used by the teachers is based on Barrett taxonomy, type of questioning strategies used by the teachers is based on Jacobsen, at.al (1989:176), and the influence of question types used by teachers toward class interaction in teaching reading process. Then, the suggestions are drawn based on the research conclusions.

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the study and the discussion of the findings, It is concluded that generally, the three teachers applied well the types of questions in their class respectively. The first, based on Barrett’s Taxonomy as a basis in this study, it is identified that all teachers applied the question level of literal, reorganization, inferential, and evaluation of comprehension questions. However, appreciation level of comprehension is difficult to be constructed by the teachers. The reason underlying of this condition is related to the differences in teaching experiences and self development motivation among the teachers. These type of questions can be a very useful way to motivate the students to involve in the lesson, and motivate the students to comprehend the text well.

127

The second, in terms of question strategies based on Jacobsen,at.al (1989:176), it is identified that all teachers used redirection more than other two strategies. The reason underpinning this condition is related to its functions. Firstly, redirection is able to encourage the students’ motivation at the beginning and during the phase of reading activities. Secondly, redirection is also able to give information whether the students comprehend the text presented or not. Actually the second and the third parts, hence, prompting and probing are considered as supporting ways to make the students comprehending more the text well, so that they would be able to engaged the students better in improving their ability in acquiring the questions developed by the teachers.

The third, questioning and answering interaction in the classroom, the teachers actually were better in eliciting the questions to the students. Commonly, they pose the questions either based on the questions presented or explicitly stated in the text or questions made by themselves. But, in some meetings, they make the same questions, particularly for the first and the second teachers. Those questions are able to make the student active, however, the types of questions or questioning strategies used at each meetings do not make students’ improvement regarding their responses. More or less, questions used are mainly based on the text given. But, different way is conducted by the other teacher, the teacher seems successful to make his class more active and interacted well. The teacher enables to develop the types of questions and the students’ improvement regarding the form of questions.

The fourth, at very beginning a question is posed by the teachers, it would be set or framed purposefully to meet the text discussed further. The aim is to make the students challenge and involve in questioning interaction, so that the students are more

128

enthusiastic to be involved in their class interaction. Moreover, a teacher should also be able to process a text effectively and comprehensively. Because a variety of types of texts used by the teachers would make significantly effect in reading instruction, including on questioning process. So that, some of the types of questions used by the teachers could produce the quality of questions and the quality of students’ response, as well.

5.2 Suggestions

This part presents some suggestions based on the findings and the conclusions. The suggestions are devoted to the teachers and future researchers who are interested in conducting a similar research. More details are as follows:

Firstly, it would be wise if the teacher realizes that questioning is a means to help students develop and improve their reading comprehension in the classroom interactions. Through this study, using cognitive level of Barrett’s Taxonomy as a basis questions analyzes would be an appropriate way to eliminate the types of questions adopted by the teachers. Moreover, Barrett’s Taxonomy is also effective in promoting students’ reading question ability. Therefore, it is recommended for the teachers to study more about asking questions in order to develop their teaching competence.

Secondly, in terms of question strategies, the teacher should also use the combination of those strategies, for example, prompting and probing. Those ways are to elicit further output from the learners. Mainly, for probing, it is expected that the teachers use this strategy maximally in their class interaction, because this strategy

129

determines whether the students comprehend the text or not. Probing also encourages the students to produce more output.

Thirdly, the teachers must be sure that questioning can make the students develop and evaluate their level of thinking. The teachers are expected to train the students on how to respond toward those questions by encouraging and giving them some opportunities to practice questionings rather than to establish their own questions (based on literal, reorganization, inferential, evaluative , and appreciation) in the reading activities. To alleviate boredom and develop the students’ own strategy, the teacher are expected to develop various types of questions and their questioning skills. The teachers would be more stressed on the importance of the form of questions by maintaining the classroom interactions effectively. By posing questions to the whole class and individual student, the teacher can involve all the students in language learning.

Fourthly, at the time, questions were given by the teachers seemed not to be done purposefully. Basically, each teacher provided less than 3 seconds to 5 seconds for waiting the students’ response before s/he turns or changes to other questions. The waiting time of students’ responses are associated with their improvement or outcomes, and their creativity in responding the teachers’ questions. In short, based on their experience, longer time given does not make succeed in taking a time of any students to speak up or to elicit response. But since, the three teachers are graduated from English education program, they are supposed to be more creative to develop teacher made-questions, these are able to engage the students’ response or feedback better.

130

Fifthly, since this study is focused only on the three English teachers of junior high school, so the findings, generally, are not much pictured the real questioning interaction in reading activities, for future detailed and comprehensive study, therefore, it is expected to conduct the study with different focuses and design. Moreover, by taking larger samples is expected to get more generalization which can be expanded to reading comprehension questions applied at elementary school or senior high school.

131

Since the intended objects are to allow students to interact more frequently, questions should aim at providing more opportunities and motivation for students to interact in the target language. Teachers should try to improve their questioning skills through classroom practice and by observing students’ reactions to the questions. Meanwhile, teacher must adjust the student’s language output by giving comments on their answers and by helping them to produce answers of high quality. The four types of questions should be employed more properly and according to students’ response, especially where students may display their high-level of thinking.

The study provides some implication for future teacher questioning. First, more effective teacher questioning should be introduced according to specific language learning environment. The questions asked must base on the cognitive level of the learners, the purpose of the lessons, the learning materials used and so on. The teacher may pre-design the questions that will be asked in the class, to make the questions more relevant and meaningful, at the same time provide more chances for both the teacher and students to communicate (ibid: 27). Questions that can better suit

132

learners’ cognitive level should be encouraged. Those that require the higher level of thinking should.

4. Conclusion Miao.

In both the teachers’ lessons, a lot of time has been spent on closed questions when it may be better to spend on open or process questions.

5. Implication for Language Teaching

A Study of Teacher Questioning in Interactive English Classroom 37

also be welcomed so that learners can be exposed to more language input. Second, in SLL context, the teacher should try to get students more engaged in the second language learning through effective teacher questioning. Since the intended objects are to allow students to interact more frequently, questions should aim at providing

more opportunities and motivation for students to interact in the target language. Teachers should try to improve their questioning skills through classroom practice and by observing students’ reactions to the questions. Meanwhile, teacher must adjust the student’s language output by giving comments on their answers and by helping them to produce answers of high quality. The four types of questions should be employed more properly and according to students’ response, especially where students may display their high-level of thinking.

131 REFERENCES

Abbot, Gerry, Greenwood John, McKeating, Douglas, & Wingard, Peter. 1981. The

Teaching English of English as An International language: Practical Guide.

London: William Collins Sons and Co.Ltd

Abraham, Paul.2000. Skilled Reading Top Down Bottom-Up.

(http://sabes.org/resources/publications/fieldnotes/vol10/f02abrah.htm, accessed on April,,28th,,2010)

Alwasilah, Chaedar. 2002 Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar Merancang dan

Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Kiblat Buku Utama

Anderson, Neil, 1999. Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and Strategies. . London:.Heinle & Heinle Co.Ltd

Bader, A.Lois,1980. Reading Diagnosis and Remediation In Clinic, A Guide to

Becoming An Effective Diagnostic/Remedial Teacher of Reading and Language Skills. New York Macmillan Publishing Co, Ltd.

Bielby, Nicholas, 1994. Making Sense of Reading: The New Phonics and Its

Practical Implications. London: Scholastic Publications Ltd.

Bloom, Benjamin, 1956. Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains.

(http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html, accessed on June 8th

,2010)

Gambrell, B.Linda, .Block, C.Cath, and Pressley, Michael, 2002. Introduction:

Improving Comprehension Instruction: An Urgent Priority. In Block, C. Cathy,

Gambrell, B.Linda, and Pressley, Michael, (Eds) Improving Comprehension

Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Bogdan, C.Robert & Biklen,K. Sari. 1998. Qualitative Research in Education: An

Introduction to Theory and Methods.3rd Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn

&Bacon.

Boothe, Ken, Walter, Leah B., & Stringer, Mary D. 1999. What is a Bottom-up

Reading Model? LinguaLinks Library. SIL International,

(http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOfLiteracyTe rms/WhatIsABottomUpReadingModel.htm, accessed on April 26th, 2010).

Boothe, Ken, Walter, Leah B., and Stringer, Mary D. 1999. What is Interactive

Reading Model? LinguaLinks Library. SIL International,

(http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOfLiteracyTe rms/WhatIsInteractiveReadingModel.htm, accessed on April 26th, 2010).

Borich,G.D,1992. Effective Teaching Method, 2th Edition, Upper Saddle River, Nj:

132

that Minimize Classroom Management Problems.

(www.moeyc.gov.jm/projects/newhorizons/pdf/TeachersGuide.pdf, accessed on June15th,2008)

Brown 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach .to Language

Pedagogy. 2nd Eds. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Burns,C.Paul, Roe,D. Betty, and Ross, P. Ellinor, 1996. Teaching Reading in

Today’s Elementary Schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Callahan,F. Joseph,Clark,H.Leonard,and Richard,D.Kellough, 1992. Teaching in The

Middle And Secondary School. New York: McMillan Publishing Company.

Carriane, C.Bernadowski The effect of Middle Scholl Social Studies Teachers’

Questioning Patterns on The Leaners’ Outcomes.

(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=8151480597924724898&start=40&sa=N, accessed on October,7th ,2009)

Chandra, N.E. 2008. The Teaching of Reading at SMA Negeri 7 Banjarmasin. Unpublished thesis, State University Malang.

Clymer, 1968. The Barrette’s Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of

Reading Comprehension (http://joebyrne.net/Curriculum/barrett.pdf, accessed on June

15th, 2008)

Cohen, Louis, Manion, Lawrence, & Morrison Keith, 1997. A Guide to Teaching

Practice. Fifth Edition. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Cooper,James,M.1990. Classroom Teaching Skills: A Handbook and Classroom

Teaching Skills. Canada; D.C. Heath and Company.

Cotton, K. 1988. Classroom Questioning. Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory. (http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.html, accessed on October,28th,2009)

Depdiknas, 2007. Panduan Pengembangan Silabus Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris

Sekolah Menengah Pertama. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menegah

Pertama

Durkin, Dolores, 1978. Teaching Them to Read. Third Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, INC.

Ellery, Valerie.2005. Creating Strategies Reader. Boston:The International Reading Association,Inc.

Erten,H.Ismail & Karakas, Muge. 2007. Understanding the divergent Influence of

Reading Instruction on the Comprehension of Short Story. Reading Matrix.

Vol.7- December (3).

Eskey, R.1983. Learning to Read versus Reading to Learn: Resolving the

133

Faroog, M. Umar. 1998. Analyzing Teachers’ Questioning Strategies, Feedback, and

learners’ Outcomes.( www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/farooq1.pdf , accessed on

January,8th,2009)

Flamming, .E.Laraine, 2000. Reading for Thinking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Fraenkel, R. Jack & Norman, E. Wallen,1994. How Design and Evaluate Research

in Education. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Gambrell, B.Linda, .Block, C.Cath, and Pressley, Michael, 2002. Introduction:

Improving Comprehension Instruction: An Urgent Priority. In Block, C. Cathy,

Gambrell, B.Linda, and Pressley, Michael, (Eds) Improving Comprehension

Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Gaither, Jessica Fries, 2008. Questioning Techniques: Research-Based

Strategies

forTeacher

(http://beyondpenguins.nsdl.org/issue/column.php?date=October2008&departmentid=professio nal&columnid=professional!assessment accessed August 8th,2008)

Galda,G.L.& Graves, M. F. Teaching Comprehension And Sstudy Strategies. (Eds) In Reading and responding in the middle grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Good,L.Thomas & Brophy,E.Jere,1973. Looking in Classroom. New York: Herper & Row Publisher.

Guszak, F.J. Teacher Questioning and Reading.

(http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/33/c 6/c0.pdf, accessed on January 14th,2010)

Hammer, 1991.The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rh Eds. Completely

Revised and Update. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Hansen,Jane & Pearson, P.David. 1983. An instructional Study: Improving the

Inferential Comprehension of Good and poor Fourth-grade Readers.

(http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Angell/educ6390vaInstructionalStudyIm provingInferential.pdf, accessed on October,31st,2009)

Harris, J. Albert & Sipay,R., Edward, 1980. How to Increase Reading Ability: A Guide

to Development and Remedial. New York: Longman,Inc.

Harrison,Collin, 1998. What is reading comprehension, why is it so hard to develop,

and what do teachers need to know about it?

(www.york.ac.uk/res/crl/esrc/ESRCHarrisonYork2007.pdf. accessed on, November 11th,2008)

Harrop, A. & J. Swinson (2003). Teachers’ Questions In The Iinfant, Junior And

Secondary School. Educational Sudies 29 (1): 49-57. In (Eds) James, Loney &

Carter, S. Tyrette, 2006. Questioning and Informational Text: Scaffolding

134

(www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivesum07/james.rev.pdf 6, accessed on June 15th,2009)

Henson, M.T. 1979. Questioning as A Mode of Instruction. The Clearing House 53. (14-51) (www.sedl.org/secac/rsn/quest.pdf, accessed on July 10th,2009)

Hervey, Sheena. 1998. Who Ask The questions? ( http://www.teachingk-8.com/archives/articles/who_asks_the_questions_by_sheena_hervey.html, accessed January 8th,2009)

Heilman,W. Arthur, Blair,R. Timothy and Rupley,H. William,1981. Principles and

Practices of Teaching Reading. 5th Eds. London: Merrill Publishing Company.

Howards, Malvin,1999. Reading Diagnosis and Instruction; An integrated

Approach.New York: Northeastern University Press.

Ismini, 2000. The Effectiveness of Reading Strategy Training in developing

Students’ Reading Ability. Unpublished thesis, Indonesia University of

Education.

Iwan,S. 2007. Bahasa Inggris untuk SMP/MTs. Grand Star: Strategiy Tepat Anak

Pintar. Kediri: Tim Produksi Putra Kartonatan.

Jacobson, David, Eggen, Paul, and Kauchak, Donald,1989. Methods for Teaching: A skill Approach.3th Eds. London: Merrill Publishing Company.

Jafar, A. 2008. Improving the Reading Comprehension of The Second Year

Students of MTs N Model Samarinda Through Numbered Heads Together Techniques. Unpublished thesis, State University of Malang.

Joner, Elizabeth, 1984. That Elusive Discussion class: Some suggestion for The

Teacher. In Bouchard,L. Donald & Spaventa,J. Louis (Eds), A Anthology : Selected Articles from the English Teaching Forum 1973-1978. (103-109).

Washington, DC : United States Information Agency.

Keene & Zimmerman, 1997. Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Reading Comprehension

In a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth,NH: Hienemann

Lamb, Pose and Arnold, Richard,1986. Reading: Foundations and Instructional

Strategies. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Leng, Leng Koh, 1982. Teaching Strategies In Different Grade Classes. Studies in

Classroom Interaction. Studies Regional Language Centre. Singapore-

March.RelcP144-82.

Lin, Zheng, 2007. Setting EFL Reading Comprehension Questions in Learners’ L1? (http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_07_zl.php, accessed, on October 3rd,2008)

Long, M.H. and Sato, C.J. 1983. Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Form and

135

Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp.263-285).

London: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Lowry,Lois & Cormier, Robert,1999. Questioning Strategies on Reading Process. (http://www.literacymatters.org/adlit/questioning/before.htm,accessed,on

December,30th,2009)

Ma, Xiayoyan, , 2008, The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. Vol. 1, No. 4 International Education Studies School of Foreign Languages Yangtze Normal University 98 Julong Road, Lidu, Fuling Chongqing 408100, China E-mail: eileen1860@msn.com. accessed,on November, 8th,2008)

Maleong, Lexy,J.1993. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Maxwell, J.Joseph,1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. London: Sage Publications.

McMillan,J.H. and Schumacher, S. (1990).Research in Education: A Conceptual

introduction. Boston: Harper Collins Publishers.

Meriam, S.B. 1988. Case Study Research in Education: Qualitative Approach. California: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miles,M.B & Huberman, A.M.,1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of

New Methods. California: SAGE Publishing, Inc

Myres, S. Samuel & Harris-Brent, Laurent, 2004. Teacher’s Guide Manual For

Formulating Reading Comprehension Question, Grade 1-6.

(www.moeyc.gov.jm/projects/newhorizons/pdf/Teachers_{Guide.pdf, accessed on June} 15th,2008)

Nunan, David,1989. Understanding Language Classroom. London: Prentice Hall Nuttal, Christine, 1992. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London:

Heinemann Educational Books.

Orstein, A.C. 1988.Questioning: The Essence of Good Teaching-Part II, NAASP Bulletin 72-80. (www.sedl.org/secac/rsn/quest.pdf, accessed on October 6th,2008)

Pearson.P. David & Johnson, D. Dale,1972. Teaching Reading Comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Petty, Geoff. 2004. Teaching Today. 3rd Edition. London: Nelson Thornes, Ltd. Pike, R. 1999 Read About All Reading to Inform The Profession. 2 Edition

California: Reading initiative

136

(http://www.teachervision.fen.com/skill-builder/reading-comprehension/48617.html, accessed December.30th,2008)

Reading Assessment Snapshot, Teacher Questioning As Assessment: Chapter 3,

(www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/0872075856.3&F= bk585-3-Afflerbach.pdf, accessed, on January, 6th,2009).

Reading in EFL Context,

(http://www.monografias.com/trabajos68/readins-comprehension-teaching-english/readins-comprehension-teaching-english2.shtml, accessed on May, 25th,2009)

Reading & Learning,(http://fys.nd.edu/reading_learning.htm, accessed, on June,3rd,2008) Reading Questioning (http://www.literacymatters.org/content/readandwrite/question.htm,

accessed on March 23rd,2010)

Reech,Lam, & Walner, Stephen, 1997 Teaching and Training and Learning, a

Practical Guide Great Britain: Published in by Business Education Publishers

Limited

Richard,J & Lockhart,C.1996. Reflective Teaching In Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, Dorothy,1982. Diagnosis And Correction In Reading Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Rumelhart, D.E.1985. Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. In H. Singer and R.B. Ruddell (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading,(3rd Eds). Newark, Del: International Reading Association.

Scales M. Alice & Shen, Li-Bi, 2004. An Investigation of Questions in McGuffey’s

Second Eclectic Readers (http://www.readingonline.org/articles/scales/, accessed on

June,1st,2009)

Seliger. W. Herbert, & Long.H. Michael, 1981. Classroom oriented Research in

Second language Acquisition. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Sibarani, Berlin, 2001. Classroom Interaction in the Teaching Reading

Comprehension. Unpublished dissertation. State University of Malang.

Silver.F.Harvey &, Richard, W. Strong, Parini,J. Mathhew (2007) The Strategies

Teacher: Selecting the Right Research Based Strategy For Every Lesson. New

York: Thoughtful Educational Press.

Sivadge,J.Laura.1990. The effect of Question-Generation Techniques in Reading Comprehension. (http://www.lib.drake.edu:8080/dspace/handle/2092/35, accessed on January 8th ,2009)

137

Slack,Jill.B.Questioning Strategies to Improve Student Thinking and Comprehension (www.sedl.org/secac/rsn/quest.pdf, accessed, November,14th, 2009)

Smith,N.B & Robinson,H.A.1980. Reading Instruction for Today’s Children. 2nd Ed. London: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Smith, Ricahard & Johnson,D.Dale,1980. Teaching Them To Read. New York: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company.

Sunggingwati, D. 2001. Reading Questions of English Reading Text of SLTP. Unpublished thesis, State University of Malang

Surjososeno,T.Thingastuti. 1991. The Effect of Different of Questions on Reading

Ability of Students at Widya Mandala Catholic University In Surabaya.

Unpublished thesis, State University of Malang.

Sweet, Anne & Snow, Cathrine,2002. Re-conceptualizing Reading Comprehension .In Block, C. Cathy, Gambrell, B.Linda, and Pressley, Michael, (Eds)

Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Talebinezand, M.R,2003. Effective Questioning. English Teaching Forum. Vol.41-March, p-4.

Texas Education Agency, 2002. Comprehension Instruction, Revised Edition. Texas Reading Initiative. (Online)

(www.outreach.utk.edu/urban/urban_specialist/PDF/Texas_Reading /V%20Pyles%20AR.pdf – accessed on January4th,2009)

Tinker, A. Miles & McCollough, .M.C.1975. Teaching Elementary Reading. 4th Eds. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Tunner, T.N. 1988. Comprehension: Reading for Meaning. In Alexander, J. Estill, (Eds), Teaching Reading. 3rd Edition. Boston: Scott , Foresman and Company. Usman Uzhier. 2002. Menjadi Guru Prefessional. Edisi Kedua. Bandung: PT.

Remaja Rosdakarya.

Vacca, R.T & Vacca, J.A.L.1986. Content Area Reading. Boston: Little- Brown Company.

Weaver, Constance. 1994. Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth: Heineman. Wilen, William,W. 1982. Questioning Skills for Teachers, What Research Says About

The Teachers.

(http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/ 80/22/f8/e1.pdf, accessed on September 2nd,2009)

138

Woolover,.M. Roberta & Scott,P. Kathryn.1988. Active Learning in Social Studies:

Promoting Cognitive and Social Growth. Boston: Scptt, Foresman/Little, Brown

College dvision

Yamazaki, Fumiko, 1998. An Interaction Analysis: A Teacher’s Question, Feedback,

and Students’ Production Through Classroom Observation. Unpublished

Thesis, University of Birmingham, Open Learning Program.

Yuwono,Topo. 2008.PASTI: Panduan Siswa Berprestasi Bahasa Inggris Untuk SMP/MTs. Kelaten: Penerbit PUTRA ANGKASA.

139

Appendix. 8. The Detailed-distribution of Teachers’ Types Questions

no Level of comprehension The

teachers

TA TB TC

1 Literal 1 51 50 50

Literal 2 6 2 14

Literal 3 Literal 4

Literal 5 9 4 7

Literal 6

TOTAL 66 56 64

2 Reorganisation1 14 2 7

Reorganisation2 Reorganisation3 Reorganisation4

TOTAL 14 2 7

3 Inferential1 36 55 46

Inferential2 5

Inferential3 Inferential4

Inferential5 2 15 9

Inferential6 Inferential7 Inferential8

140

no Level of comprehension The

teachers

TA TB TC

3 Evaluation1 12 20 17

Evaluation2 Evaluation3 Evaluation4

TOTAL 12 20 17

4 Appreciation1 Appreciation2 Appreciation3 Appreciation4

141 .

136

(http://www.teachervision.fen.com/skill-builder/reading-comprehension/48617.html, accessed December.30th,2008)

Reading Assessment Snapshot, Teacher Questioning As Assessment: Chapter 3, (www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/0872075856.3&F= bk585-3-Afflerbach.pdf, accessed, on January, 6th,2009).

Reading in EFL Context,

(http://www.monografias.com/trabajos68/readins-comprehension-teaching-english/readins-comprehension-teaching-english2.shtml, accessed on May, 25th,2009)

Reading & Learning,(http://fys.nd.edu/reading_learning.htm, accessed, on June,3rd,2008) Reading Questioning (http://www.literacymatters.org/content/readandwrite/question.htm,

accessed on March 23rd,2010)

Reech,Lam, & Walner, Stephen, 1997 Teaching and Training and Learning, a Practical Guide Great Britain: Published in by Business Education Publishers Limited

Richard,J & Lockhart,C.1996. Reflective Teaching In Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, Dorothy,1982. Diagnosis And Correction In Reading Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Rumelhart, D.E.1985. Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. In H. Singer and R.B. Ruddell (Eds), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading,(3rd Eds). Newark, Del: International Reading Association.

Scales M. Alice & Shen, Li-Bi, 2004. An Investigation of Questions in McGuffey’s Second Eclectic Readers (http://www.readingonline.org/articles/scales/, accessed on June,1st,2009)

Seliger. W. Herbert, & Long.H. Michael, 1981. Classroom oriented Research in Second language Acquisition. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Sibarani, Berlin, 2001. Classroom Interaction in the Teaching Reading

Comprehension. Unpublished dissertation. State University of Malang.

Silver.F.Harvey &, Richard, W. Strong, Parini,J. Mathhew (2007) The Strategies Teacher: Selecting the Right Research Based Strategy For Every Lesson. New York: Thoughtful Educational Press.

Sivadge,J.Laura.1990. The effect of Question-Generation Techniques in Reading Comprehension. (http://www.lib.drake.edu:8080/dspace/handle/2092/35, accessed on January 8th ,2009)

137

Slack,Jill.B.Questioning Strategies to Improve Student Thinking and Comprehension (www.sedl.org/secac/rsn/quest.pdf, accessed, November,14th, 2009)

Smith,N.B & Robinson,H.A.1980. Reading Instruction for Today’s Children. 2nd Ed. London: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Smith, Ricahard & Johnson,D.Dale,1980. Teaching Them To Read. New York: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company.

Sunggingwati, D. 2001. Reading Questions of English Reading Text of SLTP. Unpublished thesis, State University of Malang

Surjososeno,T.Thingastuti. 1991. The Effect of Different of Questions on Reading Ability of Students at Widya Mandala Catholic University In Surabaya. Unpublished thesis, State University of Malang.

Sweet, Anne & Snow, Cathrine,2002. Re-conceptualizing Reading Comprehension .In Block, C. Cathy, Gambrell, B.Linda, and Pressley, Michael, (Eds) Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Talebinezand, M.R,2003. Effective Questioning. English Teaching Forum. Vol.41-March, p-4.

Texas Education Agency, 2002. Comprehension Instruction, Revised Edition. Texas Reading Initiative. (Online)

(www.outreach.utk.edu/urban/urban_specialist/PDF/Texas_Reading /V%20Pyles%20AR.pdf – accessed on January4th,2009)

Tinker, A. Miles & McCollough, .M.C.1975. Teaching Elementary Reading. 4th Eds. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Tunner, T.N. 1988. Comprehension: Reading for Meaning. In Alexander, J. Estill, (Eds), Teaching Reading. 3rd Edition. Boston: Scott , Foresman and Company. Usman Uzhier. 2002. Menjadi Guru Prefessional. Edisi Kedua. Bandung: PT.

Remaja Rosdakarya.

Vacca, R.T & Vacca, J.A.L.1986. Content Area Reading. Boston: Little- Brown Company.

Weaver, Constance. 1994. Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth: Heineman. Wilen, William,W. 1982. Questioning Skills for Teachers, What Research Says About

The Teachers.

(http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/

80/22/f8/e1.pdf, accessed on September 2nd,2009)

138

Woolover,.M. Roberta & Scott,P. Kathryn.1988. Active Learning in Social Studies: Promoting Cognitive and Social Growth. Boston: Scptt, Foresman/Little, Brown College dvision

Yamazaki, Fumiko, 1998. An Interaction Analysis: A Teacher’s Question, Feedback, and Students’ Production Through Classroom Observation. Unpublished Thesis, University of Birmingham, Open Learning Program.

Yuwono,Topo. 2008.PASTI: Panduan Siswa Berprestasi Bahasa Inggris Untuk SMP/MTs. Kelaten: Penerbit PUTRA ANGKASA.

139

Appendix. 8. The Detailed-distribution of Teachers’ Types Questions

no Level of comprehension The

teachers

TA TB TC

1 Literal 1 51 50 50

Literal 2 6 2 14

Literal 3

Literal 4

Literal 5 9 4 7

Literal 6

TOTAL 66 56 64

2 Reorganisation1 14 2 7

Reorganisation2

Reorganisation3

Reorganisation4

TOTAL 14 2 7

3 Inferential1 36 55 46

Inferential2 5

Inferential3

Inferential4

Inferential5 2 15 9

Inferential6

Inferential7

Inferential8

140

no Level of comprehension The

teachers

TA TB TC

3 Evaluation1 12 20 17

Evaluation2

Evaluation3

Evaluation4

TOTAL 12 20 17

4 Appreciation1

Appreciation2

Appreciation3

Appreciation4

141 .