TEACHER’S QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Andriyadi1, Dedi sofyan2, Azwandi3 English Education Postgraduate Program Bengkulu University, Indonesia E-mail : [email protected]

ABSTRACT The aim of this research was to investigate teacher’s questions based on the levels and functions of questions in English classrooms at Senior High Schools. The study was a descriptive qualitative. The subjects of this research were six English Senior High School teachers In Rejang Lebong Regency. For collecting the data tape recording, observation checklist and interview were employed. Result related to research questions showed that the teacher’s questions were categorized remembering, comprehending and applying and analyzing level. None of the teachers used questions in, evaluating and creating level of the Bloom’s Taxonomy. In the research only five function of questions were found namely: practicing skills, checking prior knowledge, recapping, and checking understanding. From the finding it can be concluded that The questions asked by the teachers in classrooms are in lower order cognitive level and not all function of questions (from eleven function of questions) were applied by the teachers. Keywords: Teacher’s Questions, English Classrooms, level and function of questions. Senior High Schools

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi pertanyaan guru berdasarkan level dan fungsi pertanyaan pada proses pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di dalam kelas Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA ). Jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif qualitatif. Subyek penelitian ini adalah enam orang guru Bahasa Inggris SMA di Rejang Lebong. Rekaman, observation checklist dan wawancara digunakan dalam pengambilan data. Hasil penelitian yang berhubungan dengan pertanyaan menunjukan bahwa pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang tanyakan oleh guru dikatagorikan pada level remembering (mengingat), comprehending (memahami), applying (menerapkan) dan analyzing (menganalisis). Tak satupun guru pertanyaan guru pada level level evaluting (evaluasi) dan creating yang merupan level tinggi pada taxonomy Bloom. Pada research ini ditemukan hanya lima fungsi penggunaan kalimat tanya yaitu : factual elicitation (pengulangan fakta), practicing skill (melatih keterampilan) checking prior knowledge (mengecek pengetahuan), recapping (menyusun ulang), dan checking understanding (memeriksa pemahaman). Berdasarakan penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ditanyakan guru di dalam kelas digolongkan pada level kognitif rendah dan tidak semua fungsi pertanyaan (dari sebelas fungsi pertanyaan) diterapkan oleh guru. Kata-kata Kunci: Pertanyaan guru, Pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, Level dan fungsi pertanyaan, Sekolah Menengah Atas INTRODUCTION stimulate students’ motivation, focus their attention, help students learn and think Indonesia applied the Curriculum 13 better, and also help the teacher know how (C-13) since 2014. the C-13 applies well a student’s learning is. In addition, Gall scientific approach as its ways of teaching (1984) argues that one manifestation of and learning activity. This approach has five teacher talk is teacher question. ways of thinking to arrive at the truth In teaching and learning process, (knowledge) namely observing, questioning, teacher usually ask some questions to experimenting, associating and networking student. Teacher’s question is crucial (Depdiknas, 2014). The C-13 covers broad factor to initiate student to talk in content and cognitive aspect, not on the classroom. Asking questions in teaching essental aspects that will enable students to and learning activity is a way to stimulate be critical and be able to participate in the students to participate and involve them in global world to support Indonesia in the language classroom activities. Asking upcoming years. Additionally, the new questions in classroom used to make curriculum also offers the building of students actively participate in language character to prepare the students to face classroom activities. Asking questions of various opportunities, which could bring this activities is known as teacher’s both positive and negative sides to students question. The teacher must simulate the and society in general. Character education students to thinks critically by answer the gives the students the knowledge they need teacher’ questions. to know especially concerning the negative According to Cotton (1988) teacher effects of the advancement of technology, questions are defined as instructional cues science, and art and how they could deal or stimuli that convey to students the with them properly. content elements to be learned and However, English teaching in Indonsia directions for what they are to do and how is still not successful. . This is can be seen they are to do it. from the result of English exam in National Clottu (2017) investigates the Examinations. complexity of the different contexts as well One of the possible factors that as the diversity of professionals’ questions. influence this is teacher’s teaching The result of this study found students technique. Teacher teaching technique speak diverse languages and attend the holds a very crucial role in teaching. courses of regular schools near their Teacher’s question is one of the aspect that homes, this original design takes place in an is very important. Dillon (1988) claims that inclusive context and aims at enabling the teacher’s questioning plays a very important teachers to develop reflective practice. role to initiate classroom talk. Questions can Tamas Kiss at all (2012) studied This primary questions adressed in Investigating Teacher Questions Within the this study are follows: Framework of Knowledge Building Pedagogy. The researcher found the 1. What level of questions do English implementation of Knowledge Building teachers ask in English classes at pedagogy has a positive impact on teacher Senior High Schools in Rejang questioning and contributes to creating an Lebong Regency? effective learning environment. 2. What are the functions of the Al-Zahrani (2017) studied the effect questions asked by the English of questions on fostering interaction in teacher in classroom? English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. It also seeks to determine the METHOD characteristics of questions that promote Corpus of the Study increased classroom interaction in Saudi This research investigated the Arabia. Results showed a correlation teacher’s question in classroom employed between the qu estions’ characteristics and by the teacher along with the English the creation of classroom interaction. In teacher’s. This research is a descriptive other words, some question types research. Descriptive research is used to significantly improved classroom interaction describe characteristics of a population or while others failed to do so. phenomenon being studied. It does not answer questions about how/when/why the Based on studies of teacher’s question characteristics occurred. Rather it by several investigator, such as Clottu addresses the "what" question (what are the (2017), Tamas at all (2012) and Al-Zahrani characteristics of Minnesota state (2017). They had concerned on topic population or situation being studied?). about: the form of questions, the (Shields, Patricia and Rangarajan, N. 2013). implementation of Knowledge Building Descriptive research is a study designed to pedagogy in questions and the effect of depict the participants in an accurate way. questions on fostering interaction in English More simply put, descriptive research is all as a Foreign Language (EFL). However, about describing people who take part in the The level of the teacher’s questions have study. It is considered suitable to present never been conducted. This motivation of the fact related to the problem which are the researcher to investigate the level of going to be discussed. Qualitative research the teacher’s questions and student’s is a broad methodological approach that respond of The Senior High School in encompasses many research methods, and Rejang Lebong. special education and education searchers. The research aims to analyze the teacher’s FINDING AND DISCUSSION question in classroom of Senior High This chapter present the result of the Schools in Rejang Lebong data collection through recording, classroom observation checklist and interview and for Data Analysis Procedures the teachers. The data analyzed in two main There were several steps parts which were the level of questions conducted in analyzing the data and the function of questions from the collected in this research since the data teacher’s questions in classroom. were also collected through several This chapter present the result of the data collection through recording, classroom instruments. The data had taken from observation checklist and interview and for the observation checklist, recording and the teachers. The data analyzed in two main interview. parts which were the level of questions and the function of questions from the The first data analysis conducted teacher’s questions in classroom. was data analysis from observation discussed based on each level of teacher’s checklist. The data collected from questions and function of questions in observation when the teachers were classroom. teaching in classroom. The observation checklist was used to classify the level 1. 1. The Level of Question of questions and function of questions. The data combined on one table. The result of observation and recording are

presented in table 4.1 bellow.

Table 1: The Level of Question NO Level of Question F (%)

A. Low Order Thinking

1 Remembering 11 ( 18,64 %)

2 Comprehending 32 (54, 24%) 3 Applying 8 (13,56%) B. High Order Thinking 4 Analyzing 8 (13,56%) 5 Evaluating - 6 Creating - Total Questions 59 (100%)

the table shows that there are 59 Teacher : Good. Thank you. questions from six level questions based Teacher : For to day before continue our on the Bloom’s taxonomy. 11 ( 18,64 %) lesson I want to ask you questions were categorized did you remember what remembering level. 32 (54, 24%) was our last material? (1) questions were categorized Students : Past tense.( Tense in past comprehending level. The use of form). applying level are 8 (13,56%) . that Teacher : What is our assignment? (2) there are not questions in level Students : No. evaluating and creating. 8 (13,56%) questions were categorized The question 1 on the dialogue analyzing level. “what was our last material?” show that The table shows The table shows the the teacher recalled or retrieved previous function of question. 59 question had learned information from the last days. categorized based on each function. 9 He recognized or recalled knowledge (15,25%) were Factual elicitation from the student’s memory. The question function. 14 (23,73%) were practicing was used to begin the lesson. It had skills function. 12 (20,34%) were function to recite previously learned checking prior knowledge, 11 (18,64 %) information. From the question the recapping function and 13 (22,03%) students remembered the previous checking understanding function material by giving respond “Past tense.”( All questions of the data above are Tense in past form). The question categorized based on their level connected to the last material and the questions and their functions The data of material was being studied at the time. the dialogue between the Question 2 “What is our assignment?” teachers and their students can be seen was used to explore the last information on the transcript bellow. from the previous activities in learning. 1.1. Remembering The student answered “No”, they The learner's ability to retain and remembered that the teacher did not give recall information. This usually comes in them assignment after discussing the the form of recognition, retrieving, or material. listing. Example: 1.2 . Comprehending Teacher : Good morning class. Requires that the learners explain the Students : Fine. situation or process in order to show that they have understood the materials. This Question 5 and 6 “what else?” usually involves summarizing, and “Do you have question?” show that the questions constructed meaning from paraphrasing or detailed descriptions. material. The teacher asked the students Example: to review the material. Teacher : Good morning class. The example shows that there are 3 Students : Fine. comprehending questions from the Teacher : Good. Thank you. teachers. Question 1, 2 and 3 are used Teacher : For today Before continue our to check the student’s comprehending. lesson I want to ask you did These questions focus on what did the you remember what was our student understand on the lesson. On the last material ? (1) What is our data shows that all students understand assignment? (2) all material. The student’s responds “No” Students : Past tense. indicated that they recognized the Teacher : OK about nominal sentence and material. verbal sentence, Do you have trouble? (3) 3. Applying Students : No. This asks learners to use Teacher : Any trouble? (4) information that they already have gained, Students : No. in order to solve a problem that may be Teacher : Ok, Is clear about past tense in similar in nature. This involves the sentence? Using verb two, implementation of prior knowledge and using this, and than what else? skills. (5) Example : Students : No. Teacher : Good morning class. Teacher : Do you have question?(6) Students: Good morning. Students : No. Teacher: How are you today ? Students: Fine thank you, and you? Question 3 and 4 “Do you have Teacher : What is a sentence?(1) Who trouble,?” and “Any trouble?” indicated want to try to answer?(2) that the teacher checked the student’s Students: - comprehending. The level of questions Teacher ; A sentence is a group of word were categorized comprehending which it has minimal has a level.The questions related to the subject and verb. Sentence. teacher’s explanation. The data show that Dived of two kind of sentence. the students understand the material. Nominal sentence and verbal. In what way we use of simple specific question about the using of simple past tense?(3) past tense. This question applied to relate Students : Untuk mengingat waktu. with the first and the second questions. Teacher : Yeah to show the incident activity The teacher gave the question after the which happen in past time. For students were able to answers the first nominal sentence. Who want to and the second questions. try to give the example about The fourth question “Who want to nominal in simple past sentence, try to give the example about nominal in please? (4) simple past sentence, please?” shows Students : OK Mom that the teacher asked the student to Teacher : Who want to try to change the apply in making a nominal in simple past sentence from present tense to sentence. It was an implementation of the past tense? for example they student’s ability. are my cats. Ok. Please change The fifth question " Who want to try into paste. Who want to try to to write on white board?(5), Indah please! write on white board?(5), Indah Indicates that the teacher asked the please! students to apply their ability to write a Student : OK. nominal in simple past sentence on white Teacher : Jadi yang ubah darin present ke board. From the sentence the teacher past adalah to be jika nominal. knew the student understood or not. Jika verbal yang diubah. Jadi yang are become were . OK. 4. Analyzing very good. In this process, learners will have The first question Who want to to break down the data that was provided try to answer?” was used to make the in order to fully grasp the content (as it is student’s respond. The teacher asked the now in more manageable parts). This students to apply their ability in giving the usually requires learners to use definition of a sentence based on their comparative and/or deconstruction skills. knowledge. Example The second Who want to try to Teacher : How about the second picture?(1) answer?” indicates that the teacher asked Students: Announcement menggunakan mix. the student to try to give their answer Teacher : Observe this! How do you thing about the meaning of a sentence or for this announcement? (2), Is announcement or written definition of a sentence. announcement? (3) The third question of the dialogue Students : Lisan. Teacher : What does the announcement In what way we use of simple past tense? talk about here? (4) indicates that the teacher gave more Tentangapa pengumuman itu. Students : Besok pagi siswa diharapkan the student’s respond. It means that bawa topi dan dasi. Teacher : And now please you observe they understood the teacher’s question announcement one and two! although the respond was in Bahasa Oral and written announcement. What is the Indonesia. different these The question 6 “What are the announcement here? (5) Students : Kalau tertulis ditulis lisan different these announcements here?” diucapkan. was the analyzing question where the Teacher : OK. for conclusion . What tense the writer use to write students gave respond by (7) the announcement? differentiating between two Students : Simple present tense. announcements. They compare that “How about the second announcements. Before giving their picture?” in question 1 was respond they observed, analyzed and categorized in analyzing level. The decided to what they would say. students must analyzed a picture What tense the writer use to before answering it. All facts of the write the announcement? In question picture were described by their own 7 shows the aim of teacher’s question words. On the data students answered was to test the student’s knowledge of the question by Indonesia and English. tense. The question was correlated to “How do you thing for this tense which used in the sentences of announcement? In question 2 announcement. indicates that the teacher asked the students to give their opinion in 2. The Function of Question responding the question. The student Myhill,D (2006) in which teacher’s responded by saying “Lisan” (oral question are categorized into 11 announcement). that the students functions namely; class management, need to analyzed the announcement practicing skills, checking prior before giving their They responded knowledge cued elicitation, developing based on their analyzed the picture. vocabulary, recapping, checking The question 5 “What does the understanding, building on content, announcement talk about here?” building on thinking, and developing shows responds. They must observe reflection, as shown in table . the announcement. “Besok pagi siswa diharapkan bawa topi dan dasi” was

Table 2: The level of Function of Questions Function of Question F % Factual elicitation 9 (15,25%)

Class management - Practicing skills 14 (23,73%) Checking prior 12 (20,34%) knowledge Cued elicitation - Developing vocabulary - Recapping 11 (18,64 %) Checking 13 (22,03%) understanding Building on content - Building on thinking - Developing reflection - 59 (100%) Teacher : Good. Thank you. For today Before continue our 1. Factual elicitation

Factual elicitation is to structure a lesson I want to ask you did you remember what was our lesson by, so to speak, hopping from a last material?” (1) What is question to the next one, using the our assignment? ( 2), Students: Past tense.” learners‘ answers as point of departure for the next question. To Question 1 “what was our last follow his or her plan, the teacher can material?” and 2 What is our not proceed with the lesson until the assignment?” were elicitation function expected answer is given by a learner. The questions above were to recall This approach can be referred to as information about the last lesson. The elicitation method“ (Nunan 1991, 195). teachers asked the question before EXAMPLE giving the material. The questions Teacher : Good morning class. were as ways review the previous Students : Fine. material. It was used to begin the new Teacher : Who want to try to change material. the sentence from present Teacher : How are you this morning? tense to past tense? (2) for Students : Fine. example they are my cats. Teacher : OK. What was our lesson? (1) Students : Famous people. Ok. Please change into Teacher : Apa pelajaran terakhir paste. Who want to try to kemaren? What Chapter? (2) Famous people? (3) write on white board? (3) Students: Yes. Indah please. The teacher recalled students Students : OK. Mom about the previous material by Asking Teacher : who want to try to make student some question such as “What negative form from was our lesson?”, What Chapter?” and sentence I ate banana? “Famous people?” The questions were Students : I did not ate banana. used to remember the last material. Based on the recording were 2. Practicing skills found that the teacher who produced Students are expected to two practicing skills. The question are rehearse, repeat or practice a strategy 1. Who want to try to change this or understand something. Students sentence from present tense to past practice to express their idea or tense 2. who want to try to make comprehending by answering negative form? The data above shows questions. the teacher asked the students to try Example: to change the sentence from present Teacher : Who want to try to answer? tense to past tense (in question 1) and Students : - to try to make negative form (in Teacher : Yeah to show the incident question 2). All the questions indicate activity which happen in the students were expected to past time. For nominal rehearse, repeat or practice a strategy sentence. Who want to try or understand something. to give the example about

nominal in simple past 3. Checking prior knowledge (1) sentence, please?” Prior knowledge is an essential Students : - part of the meaning making negotiated between interlocutors. In classrooms, too, students' prior knowledge is a key Example factor in students overall achievement Teacher : How are you this morning? and performances. It related to check Students: Fine. Teacher : Do you still remember what knowledge and experience relevant to is biographical recount? (1) lesson. Students : Biographical belong to recount text.

Teacher: What is the function of Example biographical recount? (2) Student : Biographical written by series Teacher : How are you this morning? of person life. Students: Fine. On the recording was found that Teacher: OK. What was our lesson? there a teacher who produced one Students: Famous people.” recapping . The question is do you Teacher: Have you heard about Louis remember what is biography recount? Pasteur? The question on the data was Students: Yes. recapping . The teacher tried to From the recording was refresh the student’s memory about found that there a teacher who the last lesson and to connect with the produced one checking prior lesson were being studied. knowledge.. The question was “have you learn about Louis Pasteur?” 5. Checking understanding Based on the data that the question Questioning is the predominant from the teachers was related to tool for determining what students checking knowledge and experience know. It is important to recognize that relevant to lesson. The teacher what is done with the question is connected the last lesson that have essential. It relate to check grasp of studied to the lesson at the time. ideas and concepts already covered Example: 4. Recapping Teacher : Find out what happen on Recapping means students the picture? Student : - repeat the main points of an Teacher : Is it clear? (1) explanation or description. Students Student : “Yes. Teacher : Do you have trouble? (2) recall prior lessons and work done in Students : No. this lesson. Teacher : any trouble? (3) Students : No. Teacher : Ok, Is clear about past tense Interviewer : Do you know the function in the sentence? (4)Using of questions? verb two, using this, and Interviewee : Yes. than what else? Interviewe : Do you consider the Students : No. function of questions Teacher : Do you have question? (5) before you ask students Students : No. some questions? Interviewee : Yes. I must correlate my Question 1, 2, 3 and 5 indicate questions with the student’s respond the teacher checked the student’s Interviewer : What are the function of understanding about the material of the your questions? Interviewee : to know the students lesson. Question 4 shows that the understand or not the teacher checked the student’s lesson. understanding by saying the material of The transcript above shows that the lesson. not all level of questions were applied by the teacher in classroom. The use 3. Result of Interview of level of question were not same to The result of the data collection all class. Evaluating level and creating through classroom interviews are level were difficult to apply in presented in the interview transcript classroom. It mean that the teacher bellow: did not use the levels. Example: The interview shows that the Interviewee did not know all function Interviewer : Do you know the Bloom’s taxonomy? of question. She only mention one Interviewe : Yes. function of her question as this Interviewer : In Bloom’s taxonomy there are five levels namely sentence “to know the students remembering, understand or not the lesson.” She did comprehending, applying, analyzing, evaluating not the other function of questions. and creating? According to you which levels are difficult to apply in asking 4. Result of Checklist Observation questions? The finding from checklist Interviewee: In my opinion, the difficulty of using level defends on Observation regarding teacher‘s the class of students. questions in classroom were presented Different class are not same in applying the level. in table 4.2. Overleaf Evaluating and creating Table. 4.2: Checklist Observation (Level are difficult level. of Question) Table4.3:ChecklistObservation( teacher did not applied it. All teachers All it. applied one not did teacher Only classrooms. in questions asking in level teachers remembering four applied that show table The 5 4 3 2 1 Data _ Remembering     2 1 5 4 3 DATA Comprehending          _ Factual elicitation ______Applying Class management        _ _ _ _

_ Analyzing

Practicing skills       _ FUNCTION OF QUESTION _ _ _ _

Checking prior knowledge _ Evaluating ______Cued elicitation _ Creating

_ _ _ _ _ Developing vocabulary Function ofQuestion)

    _ Recapping classroom. in questions some asking were they when levels creating and evaluating No it. applied not did questions teachers three and some some students ask questions to level applying asking their studentsinclassrooms.Two in levels analyzing applied teachers applied teachers Three classroom. in questions some students asking were they when levels remember applied    

_ Checking understanding one

_ _ _ _ _ Building on content teacher

_ _ _ _ _ Building on thinking

Developing reflection _ _ _ _ _ who applied The table show that factual used questions in comprehending elicitation function applied by four level at the classroom. teachers to asks students some Comprehending is the second level of questions in classroom. There were not low order thinking in the Bloom’s who applied class management level. taxonomy. Based on the theory at the Three teacher were applied Practicing level contents comprehending the skills level. Only one teacher did not meaning, translation, interpolation, and applied Checking prior knowledge level. interpretation of instructions and There were not teachers who applied problems. State a problem in one's Developing vocabulary, Building on own words. content, Building on thinking and The result show that the using Developing reflection level. Four question were majority in low level of teachers applied Recapping and one questions. The high levels of questions teacher did not applied it. Checking (evaluating and creating did not apply understanding was applied by four in teacher’s questions.From the table teachers and one teacher did not known 32 (54, 24%) questions were applied it. categorized comprehending level. It means that the teacher the using of

Discussion comprehending level were dominantly in asking question, in the other hand, 8 1. The Level of Teacher’s Question (13,56%) questions were categorized The first question in this research was analyzing level. It indicates that the what level of questions do English higher level were difficult to apply in teachers ask in English classes at classroom. Senior High Schools in Rejang Lebong The previous study was Regency. From the result above, the conducted by Jannah (2013) entitled teacher used 32 questions (54, 24%) An Analysis of Teacher’s Question In at comprehending level. 11 questions EFL Classroom. She found that only ( 18,64 %) are remembering level four of all cognitive domains of and 8 questions (13,56%) are Bloom’s question taxonomy were applying level. There were not asked by the teachers especially in teachers used questions in evaluating three lower cognitive level namely; and creating level of the Bloom’s remembering, comprehending and taxonomy. The majority of teachers applying or those are in some displays questions and one of three higher the students’ critical thinking. Based cognitive levels such as analysis. on the cognitive domain theory , the Furthermore, the study revealed that most important thing is that high the questions or cognitive levels would cognitive question (HCQ) can not make students produce longer promote students’ higher-order responses unless the teachers are thinking. HCQ can require students to able to encourage the students their engage in independent thinking such students to elaborate further rater that as problem solving, analyzing and just accepting responses brief or less evaluating information. Two previous complex responses. studies above had similarity with this The result was suitable with research where the teachers did not Ping Shen’s study. He found that the applied the high cognitive question . teachers asked more lower-cognitive Based on the result that the teachers questions (79.2%) than higher ones did not use evaluating and creating (20.8%). Based on the theory of the level when they were asking some cognitive domain, results revealed questions to students. There were not that excessive use of lower-cognitive teachers used the operational verbs of questions could not facilitate the evaluating and creating level. The development of students’ critical action verbs for evaluating level are thinking. Additionally, the misuse of namely: judge, select, decide, justify, higher-cognitive questions by the verify, argue, recommended, assess, teacher was also identified. The discuss, determine and choose. There previous research had the similarity were not the action verbs for creating with this research. The both level such as: change, estimate, make, researches show that the majority of compile and adapt in the research teachers asked more lower-cognitive .Evaluating involves making questions. The questions could not judgments based on criteria and facilitate the development of students’ standards through checking and critical thinking. The cognitive domain critiquing. Critiques, involves knowledge and the recommendations, and reports are development of intellectual skills some of the products that can be (Bloom, 1956). Based on the theory created to demonstrate the processes that the questions could not reach the of evaluation. In the newer taxonomy, high cognitive. They could not develop evaluating comes before creating as it is often a necessary part of the teacher’s questioning behavior was precursory behavior before one identified. A few of HCQ from the creates something. Creating are teacher, in lacking a chain of putting elements together to form a reasoning and explicit instruction, coherent or functional whole; could not prompt the development of reorganizing elements into a new CT either. The result of interview pattern or structure through shows that some teachers did not generating, planning, or apply the high cognitive level caused producing. Creating requires users to by several reasons such as the put parts together in a new way, or students had lack of vocabulary. Some synthesize parts into something new teachers felt that their student were and different creating a new form or anxious to answers the questions. product. This process is the most They thought that they useless asks difficult mental function in the new some questions using the evaluation taxonomy. and creating level so that the students did not have chance involves making The teacher’s questions were judgments based on criteria and not able to motivate students to reach standards through checking and the high order thinking, the teachers critiquing. Furthermore, the students did not use the level because the could not solve their our problem to students were lack of vocabularies. improve their weakness in speaking, They got difficulty to answer the they could not contribute too much to questions using the levels. The results run their lesson. The teacher did not showed that the teachers asked more encourage students to estimate, plan low cognitive questions related to and find the solution about the lesson. recalling facts or grasping main Therefore, The study recommends contents of materials, especially that teachers are expected to focus on knowledge, than high cognitive HCQ after asking a series of LCQ in questions. The results of this research order to give an environment rich in revealed the limited use of high opportunity for enabling CT. Moreover, cognitive questions would limit the teachers should be trained how to ask development of students’ CT. some questions appropriately and Furthermore, the weakness of effectively, especially HCQ. 2. The functions of Teacher’s questions The result shows that practicing

Eleven functions of question skills function. 14 questions could be applied in the classroom. (23,73%). It means that the teachers They were factual elicitation, practicing majority used question as practicing skills, checking prior knowledge skills function in asking questions. 9 recapping, and checking (15,25%) were Factual elicitation understanding class management, function. The using of practicing practicing skills, checking prior skills function are suitable with knowledge, cued elicitation, curriculum 13 (C13) where students developing vocabulary, recapping and are dominantly active in all activities. checking understanding. In the Teachers are as facilitator. research only five questions were The result above was different applied when they were asking with Myhill D (2006). He found The questions in classroom, namely; dominant forms of statements were factual elicitation, practicing skills, informing and instructing, and the checking prior knowledge, recapping, dominant form of questions was and checking understanding. factual. This suggests a pattern of Not all functions of question teaching which is trans missive, with applied in the classroom. They were the teachers in this study imparting developing vocabulary, building on factual information, and asking content, building on thinking, cued factual questions. The teachers elicitation, building on content and appear to be the givers of developing reflection information, the children the Based on the data was found receivers. The differences were that the teachers did not apply all caused by the level of student’s. The function of the sentences. Almost the subject of Myhill D were students of teacher’s questions could be Elementary school and this subject responded by the students on the of this research were students of data. The student’s respond were Junior High School. The level of age suitable with the questions. student’s influenced the teachers in giving respond were spoken in English. questions. Several respond were spoken in One feature the analysis Bahasa Indonesia. highlights is the relatively low number of questions relate to higher-order thinking, those questions which answering. Developing vocabulary ‘promote reflection, analysis, self- meant the teacher’s question posed examination and enquiry’ (Wood, students to assess or clarify 1988). Based on the theory that understanding of vocabulary. Building building on thinking function and on content function made students to developing reflection were higher- put together information about the order thinking where students had topic of the lesson. Building on chance to move forward with thinking gave chance the students to students’ ideas and concepts and move forward with their ’ ideas and query how pupils are learning and the concept of leaning. Developing strategies they are using. From the reflection querying how pupils are result was found that the function of learning and the strategies they are teacher’s questions were categorized using. Developing reflection query in higher-order thinking. The result how pupils are of interview were relevant with the result of recording where not all CONCLUSION function of question were applied by Based on problems formulated in the teacher. Based on interviews only chapter 1, two things are concluded in five function question applied in this research. The first about the level of classroom namely; factual elicitation, teacher’s questions asked by the English practicing skills, checking prior knowledge, recapping and checking teachers in English classroom, the understanding. The teacher did not second about the function of teacher’s applied the other function of question in classroom. The conclusion questions such as: class are explained as follows: management, cued elicitation, Cued elicitation, building content, building 1. The level teacher’s questions. thinking and developing reflection. The majority of questions asked by

The teacher should applied them in the teachers were lower order cognitive asking some questions in classroom. thinking levels questions. There were Class management means the remembering, comprehending and teacher linked to management of student’s tasks/behavior. Cued applying. There were not teacher elicitation function gave them to cue applied evaluation and creating level implications (4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and when they were asking questions in Company.

classroom. Answerbaghttp://www.answerbag.com/q _view/2442807#ixzz30XJX34 2. The function of teacher’s questions. cf English teachers applied five Bloom, Benjamin (ed). Taxonomy of function of questions when they were Educational Objectives. Vol. asking questions namely: factual 1: Cognitive Domain. New elicitation, practicing skills, checking prior York: McKay, 1956. knowledge recapping, checking Boas, Franz (1943). "Recent understanding class management, anthropology". Science. 98: 311–314, 334–337. practicing skills, and checking prior doi:10.1126/science.98.2546. knowledge, 334

REFERENCES Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Alison, K. (1994). Guiding knowledge Oxford University Press. construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by how to question and how to Principles: An interactive explain. American Educational approach to language Research Journal, 31(2), pedagogy. New York: Addison 338 368. Wesley Longman, Inc. doi:10.2307/1163313 ‐ Brown, H. (2006). Teaching by Almeida, P. A. (2010). Questioning Principles: An interactive patterns, questioning profiles approach to language and teaching strategies in pedagogy. New Jersy: secondary education. Prentice Hall Regents. In W. International Journal of C. Wu (Ed.). Chaiklin Learning, 17(1), 587-600 Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. Andrews, J. D. W. (1980). The verbal L. (2005). Teaching science structure of teacher questions: as inquiry (10th ed.). Upper Its impact on class Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice- discussion. POD Quarterly: Hall. The Journal of the Professional and Clottu Régine (2017) Training design Organizational Development conception and reflexive Network in Higher Education. practice: how to answer Paper 32. teachers' questions? Universal Journal of Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive Educational Research 5(3): psychology and its 386-395, 2017 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: Quarterly, 50, 111–138. 10.13189/ujer.2017.050311 Google Scholar, Crossref, ISI

Cotton, K (1988) Monitoring student Richards, J. et.al. (1996). Longman learning in the classroom. dictionary of language Portland, OR: Northwest teaching and applied Regional Educational linguistics. Essex: Longman Laboratory, Shields, Patricia and Rangarajan, N. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, 2013. A playbook for research M. B. (2012). Impact of cold- methods: integrating calling on student voluntary conceptual frameworks and participation. Journal of project management. Management Education, Stillwater, OK: New Forums 37(3). Press.

Eka Raudhatul Jannah (2013). An Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Analysis of A Teacher’s Factors affecting the Questions in EFL Classroom. implementation of argument in Universitas Pendidikan the elementary science Indonesia classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Gamoran, A, and Nystrand, M. (1997) Science Education, 39(1), 17– Opening dialogue: 38. understanding the dynamic of language and learning in the Massey, S. L., Pence, K. L., Justice, L. English classroom. New York: M., & Bowles, R. P. (2008). Teacher Collage Press. Educators’ use of cognitively challengingquestions in Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early economically disadvantaged teacher-child relationships preschool classroom contexts. and the trajectory of children’s Early Education and school outcomes through Development, 19(2), 340– eighth grade. Child 360. Development, 72, 625–638. Google Scholar, Crossref, Michael Beaney (Summer Medline, ISI 2012). "Analysis". The stanford encyclopedia of Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2004). The philosophy. Michael Beaney. teaching of science in primary Retrieved 23 May2012. schools (4th ed.). London: David Fulton Publishers. Myhill,D. Jones,S & Rosemary Hopper,R. (2006).Talking, Learning Effective Talk in the Henricsson, L., Rydell, A. (2004). Primary Classroom. Open Elementary school children University Press: Berkshire. with behavior problems: Teacher-child relations and Mohr, K.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007). self-perception. a prospective Extending English-language study. Merrill-Palmer learners' classroom interactions using the Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2005). response protocol. The Quality questioning: research- Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440- based practice to engage 450. every learner. London: Corwin Press. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2000). Good practice in science Wilen, William. 1987. Questions, teaching: what research has questioning techniques, and to say. Buckingham: Open effective University Press. teaching. Washington, DC: National Education Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Association. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Wragg, E. C., & Brown, G. (2001). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Questioning in the primary

Ogu, U., & Schmidt, S. R. (2009). school. London: Routledge Investigating rocks and sand. Young Children, 64(1), 12–18. Falmer.

Ping Shen, (2012). A case study of teacher’s questioning and students’ critical thinking in college EFL reading classroom, International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 2, No. 1; February 2012 van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271– 296.