A study on questioning in PBI micro teaching course at Sanata Dharma University.

84 

Full text

(1)

vi ABSTRACT

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.

There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’and Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.

The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of questioning used by students of micro teaching course. The highest frequency was remember level with 79 questions and the lowest was create level with 1 question.

(2)

vii ABSTRAK

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.

Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.

Penelitian ini menemukan sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79 pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.

(3)

i

A STUDY ON QUESTIONING IN PBI MICRO TEACHING COURSE

AT SANATA DHARMA UNIVERISTY

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Gregorius Julian Cahyadi

Student Number: 121214117

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

vi ABSTRACT

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A Study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching

Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: English Language Education

Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Becoming a teacher requires teaching skills that support teaching learning activity. One of the important skills that is needed is a questioning skill. Questioning is not only mentions questions but also how to transfer knowledge from a teacher to students and how to develop their critical thinking. The researcher conducts a study on students’ questioning in Micro Teaching course to by analyzing their levels of questioning. Furthermore, questions asked by students of PBI Micro Teaching course were also researched.

There are two research problems in this study, namely: what types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in Micro Teaching class D batch 2013? and what levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

This study used qualitative analysis and it belonged to content analysis. The data were gathered from video recording of students’ performance in Micro Teaching course. The data focused on students’ questioning and its questions. Then, the researcher transcribed it. Observation table was used to classify the data. In analyzing the data, the researcher used the revised theory of Bloom’s taxonomy by Anderson, et al. (2001) for levels of questioning. Meanwhile, Richards’ and Lockhart’s theory (1996) was used to identify types of questions.

The findings of this study showed that 262 questions related to students’ types of questions. In this case, students of Micro Teaching mostly used procedural questions in their performance and divergent questions were the lowest than the others. Meanwhile, the finding of second research problem showed 144 questions related to students’ levels of questioning. The researcher found six levels of questioning used by students of micro teaching course. The highest frequency was

remember level with 79 questions and the lowest was create level with 1 question.

(9)

vii ABSTRAK

Cahyadi, Gregorius Julian. (2017). A study on Questioning in PBI Micro Teaching

Course at Sanata Dharma University. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Menjadi seorang guru tentunya membutuhkan kemampuan mengajar yang baik untuk mendukung jalannya aktivitas belajar mengajar. Salah satu kemampuan mengajar yang penting untuk dimiliki adalah kemampuan bertanya. Bertanya bukan sekedar menyampaikan pertanyaan, melainkan cara mentransfer pengetahuan dari guru kepada murid-murid yang diajarkan dan juga membantu mengembangkan daya pikir siswa. Peneliti mengadakan sebuah penelitian mengenai bertanya yang disampaikan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching dengan menganalisis tingkatan bertanya tersebut. Selain itu, peneliti juga melakukan penelitian terhadap jenis-jenis pertanyaan yang merupakan bagian dari aktivitas bertanya.

Penelitian ini memuat dua pokok rumusan masalah yaitu jenis-jenis pertanyaan apa saya yang ditanyakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 ketika mengajar? dan tingkatan bertanya apa saja yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah Micro Teaching kelas D angkatan 2013 dalam simulasi mengajar yang mereka lakukan?

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan termasuk ke dalam analisis isi. Data yang digunakan diperoleh dari rekaman video ketika mahasiswa mengajar di mata kuliah Micro Teaching. Data difokuskan pada aktivitas bertanya yang memuat pertanyaan. Kemudian, peneliti mentranskripsikan data tersebut. Peneliti menggunakan tabel observasi untuk mengelompokkan data. Dalam melakukan analisis, peneliti menggunakan teori Bloom’s Taksonomi versi revisi dari Anderson dan kawan-kawan (2001) untuk mengetahui tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti juga menggunakan teori dari Richards dan Lockhart (1996) untuk mengidentifikasi jenis-jenis pertanyaan.

Penelitian ini menemukan sekitar 262 pertanyaan termasuk dalam jenis-jenis pertanyaan. Mahasiswa paling banyak menggunakan procedural questions, sedangkan pertanyaan yang paling sedikit digunakan adalah divergent questions dibandingkan yang lain. Sementara itu, penemuan terhadap rumusan masalah kedua menunjukkan 144 pertanyaan termasuk dalam tingkatan bertanya. Peneliti menemukan enam tingkatan bertanya yang digunakan oleh mahasiswa mata kuliah

Micro Teaching. Remember questions memiliki jumlah tertinggi dengan jumlah 79

pertanyaan dan yang terendah adalah create questions yang hanya memiliki 1 ucapan.

(10)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like thank The Almighty God for blessing my life. He

gives me strength, chance, good people, patience, and health in order to assist me

to finish my thesis.

My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Emanuel Sunarto, M.Hum., for his

guidance, motivation, time, and patience. He kindly helped me by giving support

and encouragement during thesis consultation. He had shown his quality as an

advisor by routinely monitored, giving useful feedback and solutions.

I would like to give my special thanks to my beloved parents, Yulianus

Gumpol and Cornelia Dewi Pramana, for their love, prayer, motivation, and

patience. I also would like to thank my brothers and sisters, Bang Alfon, Mas Edo,

Bagas, Nadia, Dea, Yeyes, and Agapitus for their support. They convinced me that

I could finish my thesis well no matter what happened.

I thank to Julyan Adhitama, who helped me to proofread my thesis.

Furthermore, I express my gratitude to the members of class D (Penguins), for

being best friends during my study in PBI. They taught me a lot of meaningful

things. My gratitude goes to members of Train8 (Thomas, Ajeng, Fira, Ave, and

Regin) who helped me to lead them by giving motivation and suggestion so that I

could my role and finish SPD class. I would not forget anyone who had given me

assistance that I cannot mention one by one.

(11)

ix

TABLE OF CONTENS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES ... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Problems ... 4

C. Problem Limitation ... 4

D. Research Objectives ... 5

E. Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 8

A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Types of Questions ... 8

a. Procedural Questions ... 9

b. Convergent Questions ... 9

c. Divergent Questions ... 10

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities ... 10

(12)

x

b. Understand ... 13

c. Apply ... 14

d. Analyze ... 16

e. Evaluate ... 17

f. Create ... 17

B. Theoretical Framework ... 18

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 20

A. Research Method ... 20

B. Research Setting ... 21

C. Research Participants ... 21

D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering techniques ... 21

1. Research Instruments ... 21

a) Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016 .. 21

b) Observation Table ... 22

2. Data Gathering Techniques ... 23

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 24

1. Data Reduction ... 24

2. Data Display ... 25

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification ... 25

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 27

A. Types of Question Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 27

1. Procedural Questions ... 28

2. Convergent Questions ... 29

3. Divergent Questions ... 30

B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course ... 31

1. Remember ... 32

2. Understand ... 34

3. Apply ... 36

(13)

xi

5. Evaluate ... 38

6. Create ... 39

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 40

A. Conclusions ... 40

B. Recommendations ... 41

1. For Students of PBI Micro Teaching Course ... 42

2. For Lecturers of Micro Teaching Course ... 42

3. For Future Researchers ... 42

REFERENCES ... 43

(14)

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions ... 22

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ... 23

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions ... 24

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questioning ... 25

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course ... 27

(15)

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: List of Participants’ Questions in Micro Teaching Course ...45

(16)

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an introductory part. It presents the research background,

research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and

definition of terms.

A.Research Background

Teaching is a process of how to make students particularly experience a

learning activity and motivate them to be good and useful people. In addition,

teaching also gives big responsibilities to teachers in leading and guiding students.

Therefore, teachers are determined to have certain good qualifications either in

knowledge, attitude, or even a teaching technique. By having such qualifications, it

is able to increase the quality of teaching learning process and give good impact to

students’ development.

One of the qualifications should be mastered as a teacher is questioning. It

is commonly used in a class activity. Gall (as cited in Richards and Lockhart, 1996)

says “in some classrooms over half class time is taken up with question and answer

exchanges.” Based on the statement, it shows that questioning plays a critical role

during the teaching-learning activity and it indicates that is an interaction between

a teacher and students. Additionally, a question also organizes the content of

learning and has deep implications in the way that students assimilate the

information that is presented and discussed in class (McComas and Rossier, n.d.).

(17)

diet of classroom interaction through which a variety of pedagogical and social

actions are carried out.”

There is saying “question is knowledge.” It means that the human curiosity

that comes from question will lead to knowledge. It seems simple but containing

useful things particularly for students’ development. Kerry (2002) in his book says

that “questioning transfers the emphasis in learning from the teacher to the student.

The teacher enquires, probes, challenges; the student is required to think speculate,

and contribute.” (p. 75). Thus, questioning is transfer knowledge from what

teachers have to students by processing it. Teacher needs to deliver critical

questions to encourage students thinking critically to find the answer. For instance,

high order questions require students to analyze, evaluate, and provide their own

opinion will help them to develop the way of thinking. However, questions are

given should notice what course is being taught because every subject has their own

needs. For instance, vocabulary class may determine students’ memorization more

than speaking class.

The use of effective questions can lead students to become more curious

and active (Fusco, 2012). By possessing questioning skills, teachers immediately

notice a positive difference in their students. A smoother flow of interactions and

more dynamic relationships in the classroom even become conscious fewer

discipline problems (Pagliaro, 2011). Furthermore, a questioning activity shows

that there is a dynamic interaction between a teacher to students and students to

students. By having a well interaction, a teacher is able to check students’

(18)

when given questions. Considering how important questioning and its questions is,

experts believe that it is a tool that teachers have for helping students to build

understanding (Wiseman and Hunt, 2008). The researcher is in line with the

experts’ argument that asking questions gives positive impact to students’

development and make a teacher easier to adapt with the class situation. In order

to have qualified teachers in the future, the English Language Education Study

Program (ELESP) provides students with a course to facilitate what teacher

candidates’ need. The course is famously called Micro Teaching. The ELESP is a

department that is affiliated with the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education.

This course is given in accordance with the provision of the ELESP that is being a

study program that prepares and produces students to become English teachers who

are professional, intellectual, humanistic, dignified, and acquiring the characteristic

as educators.

The researcher observes that the students of Micro Teaching course who do

teaching simulation often ask some questions either in the pre-activity, main

activity, or closing activity. It is natural that questioning is one of the most familiar

forms of teacher talk in classrooms (Chafi and Elkhouzai, 2014). In addition, the

researcher also sees that the students of Micro Teaching might not realize when

asking questions. As teacher candidates, Micro Teaching students need to raise their

awareness of importance of asking questions’ purposes. The students should know

what they are looking for from proposing their questions. Considering the situation

(19)

questionings. Therefore, this research is expected to enrich knowledge particularly

for teacher candidates in having a good questioning skill.

B. Research Problems

Based on the research background above, there are two research problems

formulated in this study.

1. What types of questions are asked by students in their teaching practice in PBI

Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

2. What levels of questioning are used by students in their teaching practice in PBI

Micro Teaching class D batch 2013?

C. Problem Limitation

The study focuses on the analysis of questions by students when they have

teaching practice simulation in Micro Teaching course. Specifically, the focus is

questions in a verbal way produced during the simulation. The researcher employs

the theory of types of questions suggested by Richards and Lockhart (1996) to

analyze the first research problem which is types of questions. For the second

research problem, the researcher uses the theory of Anderson, et al. (2001) in

(20)

D. Research Objectives

Based on the research problems, the objectives of this study are as follows.

1. To find out the types of questions asked by students’ teaching practice in Micro

Teaching class D batch 2013

2. To analyze the levels of questioning used by students’ teaching practice in

Micro Teaching class D batch 2013

E. Research Benefits

By conducting this study, it is expected to give benefits especially in English

Language Teaching.

1. Micro Teaching Students

This study is able to enrich students’ knowledge on levels and types of

questions. It also helps students to reflect their questioning skills so that in the future

they are able to improve their performances and know how to ask questions

properly.

2. Micro Teaching Lecturers

Lecturers are expected to guide and take responsibility on students’ teaching

skills. Therefore, this study provides information needed for lecturers in giving

suggestion and feedback to students during the teaching practice especially levels

(21)

3. The ELESP Sanata Dharma University

The finding of this study is expected to raise awareness of English

Department on the issue of questioning especially in Micro Teaching course. In

addition, it helps the ELESP to make a good teaching material about questioning.

4. Future Researchers

Future researchers are expected to conduct more aspects of questionings

used in Micro Teaching course. In addition, future researchers may investigate

levels and types of questions based on subjects or courses taught in Micro Teaching

course, school, and campus particularly the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.

F. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding and to give better understanding of some terms,

the researcher provides their definitions.

1. Questioning

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone

questions (“Questioning”). Questioning is fundamental to good teaching and

learning (Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.1). In addition, it is one of

the skills and techniques in teaching. By questioning, it helps students to review,

check on comprehension, stimulate critical thinking and control classroom activities

(Blosser, 1991).

2. Micro Teaching

Singh and Sharma (2004) state that “microteaching is a training course,

(22)

to a small number of pupils in a short duration of time.” In this case, Micro Teaching

is a course offered in the sixth semester of the ELESP Sanata Dharma University.

This course provides teaching practice simulation with allocated time for students

to practice and to master teaching skills before experiencing Program Pengalaman

Lapangan (PPL) in junior or senior high schools.

3. Levels of Questioning

Levels of questioning is levels of asking questions in context of classroom

situation. The levels relate to the cognitive ability in the revised theory of Bloom’s

Taxonomy, namely: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. In

Indonesia curriculum, those levels are well known as C1 (cognitive 1), C2, C3 until

C6 which are used by teachers to plan their questions. Remember, understand, and

analyze are categorized as the low levels. Meanwhile, analyze, evaluate, and create

(23)

8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A.Theoretical Description

In this section, the researcher provides relevant theories and reviews similar

research studies. Thus, the researcher employs the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to

examine the levels of questioning and uses the theory of types of questions.

1. Types of Questions

There are several types of question suggested by experts. In this study, the

researcher employs theory suggested by Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart

(1996). Based on the theory, there are three types of questions, namely procedural,

convergent, and divergent. According to Qashoa (2013), the use of such

classifications is able to engage students’ participation and make them to take part

in classroom interaction. He also argues that the types are better used in

heterogeneous class since it makes students feel more successful and challenged

(p.54). However, the researcher elaborates the theories with some others in order to

support the study.

Sukur (2016), in her research about a teacher’s question in micro teaching

class, finds that the most type of question used by students in their teaching practice

simulation is a convergent question. In her cases, it is found when the teacher leads

the students to the topic of learning and function as introductory questions. The

(24)

activity and sometimes used for asking willingness. Meanwhile, the lowest type is

divergent questions.

a. Procedural Questions

Procedural questions have a relation with classroom procedures, routines,

and classroom management (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.186). It means that

this question has a function as opposed to the content of learning. As an illustration,

the following questions such as how are you? or have you done, class? contain

different meanings and they have their own purpose as complement of questions

relate to mastering content of a lesson. The first question is used in pre-activity. The

intention of the question is to ask about students’ condition and make them be ready

to follow activity. In the second question, the teacher asks for students’

confirmation in doing exercises or discussions. Based on the example above shows

that procedural questions have a different function from questions designed to help

students master the content of a lesson (Richards and Lockhart, 1996).

b. Convergent Questions

The second type is a convergent question. In short, Gallagher and Aschner

(as cited in Wilen, 1987) define convergent as a question that tends to demand a

students’ responses along a single direction which requires a single correct or best

answer. Wilen (1987) specifically adds that the form of convergent questions is

close-ended but more demanding than factual question (p.71). The explanation

provided by Richards and Lockhart (1996) say that convergent questions can be

known from several conditions. The first is focusing on a central theme. Next, it

(25)

Then, it does not need high order thinking. Furthermore, convergent questions focus

on the recall of previously presented information. The additional function of

convergent questions is to introduce the topic before the teacher begins lesson and

explains the content of learning.

c. Divergent Questions

The last is a divergent question. Wilen (1987) states that this question is less

predictable than the convergent question. The teacher may not expect and know the

response or answer given by students. Richards and Lockhart (1996) add that

divergent questions do not seek short answers and responses and they require

high-level thinking. Students should be able to provide their own information and to view

a topic from new perspectives. The examples of divergent questions are how have

computers had an economic impact on society? and how would business today

function without computers? The teacher can provide divergent questions after

asking convergent questions (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187)

2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Abilities

Questioning is defined as a situation in which people ask someone questions

(“Questioning”). In addition, people propose questioning in order to find out

answers and more information. In the context of classroom situation, questioning is

an activity which involves interaction between a teacher to students and students to

students. The questioning activity may happen when a teacher checks students’

understanding, tests students’ knowledge, or because of students’ curiosity. It

(26)

Levels of questioning vary from an expert to another. This study employs

levels of questioning based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Krathwohl (2001)

says that the taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying

statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction.

It means that the taxonomy provides an important framework focusing on higher

order thinking. By providing it, this taxonomy can assist teachers in designing

performance task, crafting questions, and giving feedback to students’ work.

Anderson et al. (2001) in their taxonomy divide the six categories of the

cognitive process dimension (p.31). They are remember, understand, apply,

analyze, evaluate, and create. Those levels are often used in the objective of

learning as well-known as C1 until C6 in Indonesia curriculum

a. Remember

Anderson, et al. (2001) say that remember is a process to retrieve relevant

knowledge from long-term memory. They add the scope of this level.

Remember knowledge is essential for meaningful learning and problem solving as that knowledge is used in more complex tasks. For example, knowledge of the correct spelling of common English words appropriate to a given grade level is necessary if the student is to master writing an essay (p.66).

Based on the explanation above, remember knowledge can be a meaningful

learning if the assignments or tasks integrated with comprehensive knowledge and

not isolated from their context. In addition, Price and Nelson (2010) call this level

as the lowest level of cognitive domains (p.22). In fact, the process that is needed

by students in answering remember questions is recalling knowledge and

(27)

In this level, there are two processes of cognitive: recognizing and recalling.

Anderson et al. (2001) says that recognizing involves retrieving relevant knowledge

from long-term memory in order to compare it with presented information. They

explain that in recognizing, the students recall for a piece of information that is

identical to the presented information. Then, they determine whether the

information matches with previously learned knowledge or not. Recognizing is used

when students are able to connect their memories with what they have experienced

or known before. As an illustration, Reeves (2011) gives a clear example of

recognizing. The question “which of these numbers is one thousand?” requires

student to recognize the correct answer in one possibility (p. 201).

Actually, recalling has the same procedure as well as recognizing. Anderson

et al. (2001) specifically define its cognitive process as follows.

Recalling involves retrieving relevant from-long term memory when given

a prompt to do so and it is usually in form of question. In recalling, students search long-term memory for a piece information and brings that piece of information to working memory where it can be processed. For instance, in literature, an objective could be to recall the poets who wrote various poems. A corresponding test question is “Who wrote The Charge of the Light

Brigade?” (p.69).

From the explanation above, it can be said that there is a time limit for

students finding the poets who wrote the poems based on previously learned

knowledge. After obtaining the information needed, students have to quickly

answer it. An alternative for this cognitive process is retrieving. The following

question “what is this number?” or “what are the characteristics of mammals?”

may be quiet challenging for students since they need to recollect when there is no

(28)

b. Understand

Students are said understand when they are able to construct meaning from

instructional languages, including oral written, and graphic communications.

Besides, students understand when they build connections between the new

knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). In

this category, there are six cognitive processes like interpreting, exemplifying,

classifying, summarizing, inferring, and comparing.

Interpreting occurs when a student is able to convert information from one

representational form to another. It may involve converting words to words,

pictures to words, words to pictures, numbers to words, words to numbers, and the

like. Translating, paraphrasing, representing, and clarifying are alternative terms

for interpreting (Anderson et al, 2001. p.70). Exemplifying according to Anderson,

et al. (2001) occurs when a student gives a specific example or an instance of a

general concept or principle and it involves identifying the defining features of the

general concept or principle. For instance, a teacher gives four kind of texts (only

one of which is a descriptive text) and asks students to name the text that is

descriptive.

The third cognitive process is classifying. It begins with a specific instance

and requires the students to find a general concept or principle. Classifying involves

detecting relevant features that “fit” both the specific instance and the concept

(Anderson et al, 2001. p.72). The situation of this process is like a teacher displays

a video of conversation and then indicates the greeting. Next level is summarizing.

(29)

statement that represents presented information a general theme. Alternative terms

of summarizing are generalizing and abstracting.

The fifth is inferring. It occurs when a student is able to abstract a concept

or principle that accounts for a set example by encoding the relevant features of

each instance. Mayer (2002) says that inferring involves drawing a logical

conclusion from presented information. For instance, when learning Spanish as a

second language, the objective may be “Students will be able to infer grammatical

principles from examples.” Then, to assess the objective, students are given article

noun pairs “la casa, el muchacho, la senorita, el pero.” What they need to do is

formulating a principle when to use the article la and el (p.229)

Comparing usually involves making comparisons among instances within

the context of the entire set (Anderson et al. 2001). Furthermore, they say that

detecting things such as similarities and differences between two or more objects

are the part of comparing the cognitive process. The alternative terms for this

cognitive process are contrasted, mapping, or matching.

According to Anderson et al. (2001), explaining cognitive process happens

when a student is able to construct and use a cause-and-effect model of a system.

Reeves (2011) adds when people understand, they are able to express information

or concepts in their own words or explain a meaning of something to a new situation

and idea (p.202).

c. Apply

In applying, it contains procedures to perform exercises or solve problems

(30)

knowledge. In addition, it requires students to know (remember) and then

understand either knowledge or information (Reeves, 2011). When students are

given apply questions, they need to implement certain concepts or knowledge in

finding answers and solutions.

There are two cognitive processes in the applying level. They are executing

and implementing. Mayer (2002) says that executing requires students to apply a

procedure to a familiar task. In this type, students need to make a choice about what

steps are used and they are determined to modify it if the chosen procedure goes

wrong. To illustrate the situation, here is the example given by Mayer.

A sample objective in elementary level mathematics is learn to divide one whole number by another, both with multiple digits. Then, in order to assess the objective teacher gives worksheet to students containing 15 whole number division exercises and ask them to find the quotients (p.229).

The second cognitive process of apply is implementing. According to Mayer

(2002), implementing occurs when a student applies one or more procedures to an

unfamiliar task. Anderson et al. (2001) argues that since students need selection,

they must possess an understanding of the type of problem encountered as well as

the range of available procedures. It means that students need to know and

understand the problem then solve the problem using the selected procedures.

Implementing has correlation with understand and create levels. Here is the sample

objectives and corresponding assessments.

(31)

d. Analyze

Anderson et al. (2001) says that analyze involves breaking a material into

its constituent parts and determining how the parts are related to each other and to

an overall structure. Most of courses insist students to have a good analyze ability.

Therefore, this category is often used in teaching-learning activity and students are

hoped to be able to differentiate facts and opinions then make conclusions for

supportive information. In 2002, Mayer adds the objective of analyze learning is to

determine relevant or important pieces of a message (differentiating), the ways in

which pieces of a message are configured (organizing), and the underlying purpose

of the message (attributing).

Differentiating involves distinguishing the parts of a whole structure in

terms of their relevance or importance (Anderson et al. 2001). It means that

differentiating requires students to determine relevance or essential things with the

overall structure. Mayer (2002) adds that this cognitive process occurs when

students discriminate relevant from irrelevant parts or important from unimportant

parts of presented materials. For instance, in differentiating apples and oranges, the

relevant thing in the context of fruit is internal seeds, not colors or even shapes.

Discriminating, selecting, distinguishing, and focusing are alternative terms for

differentiating.

Mayer (2002) states that organizing involves determining how elements fit

or function within a structure. In this cognitive process, students need to identify

and recognize elements to form solid structure within which elements that fit. The

(32)

biases, values, or intention underlying communications (Anderson et al. 2001.

p.82). They add that attributing involves a process of deconstruction, in which

students determine the intentions of the author of the presented material.

e. Evaluate

Evaluate is defined as making judgments based on criteria and standards

(Mayer, 2002). There are a few criteria used in evaluating such as quality,

effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency and the use of those criteria are

determined by students or other factors. Anderson et al. (2001) state that not all

judgments are evaluative. Therefore, evaluating focuses on the criteria related to

effectiveness of a result then it is compared with planning and procedures which

are being used. The cognitive processes of this category are checking and critiquing.

In 2002, Mayer states that checking happens when students detect

inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product, determines whether those

things has internal consistency as it is being implemented (p.230). Anderson et al.

(2001) find that when checking is combined with planning and implementing, it

involves determining how well the plan is working. This cognitive process is

usually called as testing, detecting, monitoring, and coordinating. The second is

critiquing. Mayer (2002) argues that it requires students to find inconsistencies

among products, detect internal consistency, and even make judgment. When

making critique, students have to use external criteria and judge it.

f. Create

According to Anderson et al. (2001), create involves putting elements

(33)

product by organizing several elements into a different pattern or structure.

Similarly, Mayer (2002) says that students are determined to produce an original

product. Creating is connected with previously learned knowledge. There are three

cognitive processes in this category: generating, planning, and producing. The

process of generating represents the problem and arriving at alternatives or

hypotheses that meet certain criteria (Anderson, et al, 2001, p.68). Besides

convergent thinking, Mayer (2002) adds that generating also involves divergent

thinking and forms the core of what can be called creative thinking. It means that

create provides opportunities for students to assemble parts of knowledge into a

whole using creative thinking and problem solving.

The second is planning. It involves devising a solution method that meets a

problem’s criteria, that is developing a plan for solving the problem (Anderson et

al. 2001). In 2002, Mayer adds that in planning, students may establish a sub goal,

for instance breaking a task into subtasks to be performed when solving the

problem. The last is producing. Here, it carries out a plan for solving a given

problem that meets certain specification. It is not only producing but inventing a

product. He says that students are given a functional description of a goal and must

create a product that satisfies the description. The situation of this cognitive process

is like a teacher asks students to create or make a recount text based on their

experiences.

B. Theoretical Framework

Questioning becomes one of familiar forms in a teaching-learning activity

(34)

requires teachers to have a good questioning skill in order to support the

teaching-learning activity and develop students’ critical thinking. Before becoming teachers

in regularly school, teacher candidates need to be trained particularly their

questioning skill in Micro Teaching course as it plays an important role either for

them or students.

Addressing the first research problem about types of questions, the

researcher employs the theory of Wilen (1987), Richards and Lockhart (1996). The

use of the theory is intended to identify what types of questions asked by the

students of Micro Teaching course. Based on the theory, there are three levels of

questions, namely, procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent

questions.

Addressing the second research problem about levels of questioning, the

researcher employs the theory of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy by Anderson et

al. (2001). The theory talks about six levels of cognitive abilities, namely remember,

understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. This theory is used to assist the

researcher to identify what levels of questioning used by students in PBI Micro

(35)

20

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the discussion about the method employed in this

research. The detailed discussion includes the research method, research setting,

research participants, instrument and data gathering technique, and data analysis

technique.

A. Research Method

In conducting this study, the researcher implemented qualitative research.

Creswell (2014) states that qualitative research is an approach for exploring and

understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to social or human

problem. In addition, qualitative research focuses on reports of experience or on

data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically (Hancock, Ockleford, and

Windridge, 2009, p.6). The purpose of qualitative research is to give total picture

of the study in a detailed description so that readers have better understanding on

the phenomenon (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh, 2010). The researcher

employed qualitative research to understand and describe a phenomenon on

students of micro teaching questioning in their teaching practice.

This study specifically belonged to content analysis. “Content analysis is

defined as a tool to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts

or sets of texts” (Writing@CSU, 2004). Similarly, Rose, Spinks, and Canhoto

(2015) mention that content analysis can be applied to all kinds of written text such

(36)

The data were collected from the video recording of students’ performance in Micro

Teaching course. The content that was analyzed is questioning part and its

questions. It was transcribed into the written form to assist the researcher in

identifying levels of questioning and types of questions.

B. Research Setting

This research was conducted in PBI Micro Teaching class D Batch 2013 at

Sanata Dharma University. There were 14 participants and each participant was

given one section and 25 minutes allocated time to have teaching practice.

C. Research Participants

The participants who were involved in this research were 14 students of

Micro Teaching class D batch 2013. They were in sixth semester of English

Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.

D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Techniques.

1. Research Instruments

In order to gather the data and answer the research problems, the researcher

used two instruments, namely video recording and observation table.

a. Video Recording of Micro Teaching 6th semester 2016

According to Smith (as cited in Bowman, 1994), the use of mechanical

recording devices usually gives greater flexibility than observation done by hand.

By using video, the researcher might have observation and research anywhere and

anytime. In 2012, Jewitt says that a video can be used in a number of ways for

research including participatory video, videography, the use of existing video data,

(37)

of videos. The videos were recorded during the teaching practice section based on

time allocation. The duration of teaching practice simulation for each participant

was maximum 25 minutes. Every participant taught different topic for levels of

junior and senior high schools and it was adapted based on curriculum 2006 and

2013. The researcher did the observation and note typing from the video of teaching

simulation to collect the data. Then, the collected data which were in form of

utterances or questions were analyzed using several techniques.

b. Observation Table

In order to support collected the data, the researcher used an instrument as

tool named observation table. This observation table was functioned to classify the

collected data. In gathering data for the research problems, the researcher used

observation table as follows.

Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions

Participant Number of

Case

Form of

Questions Time Context

Types of Questions

PC CV DV

P1

Notes:

PC: Procedural Questions CV: Convergent Questions DV: Divergent Questions

The table above shows the three types of questions. The column from participant

until context has the same function as shown in Table 3.1. Meanwhile, for the right

side of the table, it indicates types of questions used by students of Micro Teaching.

(38)

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning

Remember

Participant Number of Case Questions Time Context

P1

The table above shows how the data are classified into each category of level. The

top row of the table represents the levels of questioning. Every level is placed in a

separated table. The left side of the table marks every participant. The columns of

form of questions and time are used to record what participants asked and when it

happened in minutes and seconds. There is a column of number of case. Its function

is to give a call number for every question so that readers are easy to find examples

of levels of questioning. The context column is used to explain the situation and

purpose when the participants proposed questioning.

2. Data Gathering Techniques

The main source of this study is video recordings of students’ teaching

practice in Micro Teaching course. The videos were collected from Micro Teaching

Laboratory by contacting its staff. The researcher randomly chose the videos and

did not know the participants personally. Then, the researcher watched the videos

and transcribed them into written questionings. The videos were played by using

VLC media player. In playing the videos, the researcher used the observation table

to obtain the data as shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. The tables mainly consisted

of columns of levels of questioning and types of questions as the matters of this

(39)

In addition, the researcher also took notes if there were any levels and types besides

the observation table.

E. Data Analysis Techniques

This section presents how the data were analyzed. In this study, the

researcher used qualitative data analysis as suggested by Miles and Huberman

(1994) to analyze the data. There are three steps in analyzing, namely, data

reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification.

1. Data Reduction

Miles and Huberman (1994) state that data reduction refers to the process of

selecting, focusing, simplifying, and transforming the data based on field notes or

transcriptions (p.10). In this step, the researcher selected the relevant data and listed

question forms from the videos. Then, the collected data were classified based on

their levels and types. After collecting and classifying the data, the researcher

recorded them using a table. For the first problem, the form of the table is as

following.

Table 3.3 Quantity of Types of Questions

No Types of Questions Number of Questions Percentage

1 Procedural questions

2 Convergent questions

3 Divergent questions

(40)

Table 3.3 aimed to help the researcher analyzing the data of levels of

questioning. The table recorded the number of every type in form of number and

percentage.

For the second research problem, the researcher used Table 3.4 to record

and analyzed the data. The table had the same function as Table 3.3. Specifically,

it was used to record the number of every types of question.

Table 3.4 Quantity of Levels of Questionings

No Levels of Questioning Number Percentage

1 Remember

2 Understand

3 Apply

4 Analyze

5 Evaluate

6 Create

2. Data Display

The second step was data display. A display is an organized, compressed

assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action (Miles and

Huberman, 1994, p.11). At this stage, the researcher provided how the result of data

was displayed. The researcher used a form of text to display the data. Specifically,

the text was used for explanation was narrative text.

3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification

In this section, the researcher drew conclusion based on the result of study.

(41)

did verification through the existing field, using further data collection, and

reviewing among colleagues. However, the conclusion was verified during research

(42)

27

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the researcher presents the results and discussion of the data

to answer the research questions as stated in chapter I. There are (1) what types of

questions Micro Teaching students occur when performing teaching simulation and

(2) what levels of questioning are asked by students of Micro Teaching in their

teaching practice simulation.

A. Types of Questions found in Micro Teaching Course

In this part, the researcher presents the data of the second research problem.

There are 262 questions asked by the participants. Based on the findings, the

researcher finds that there are three types of questions during the teaching practice

simulation. They are procedural questions, convergent questions, and divergent

questions. The details of the findings are showed in the table as follows.

Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course

The table above indicates that all types of questions occur during students’

performance. Besides, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ capacity in asking

questions. The total number of questions relate to the types of questions are 262.

No Types of Question Number Percentage

1 Procedural Questions 123 47 %

2 Convergent Questions 118 45 %

(43)

1. Procedural Questions

Richard and Lockhart (1996) state that procedural questions only relate to

classroom procedures, routines, and classroom management. It means that this type

does not have any relation with the content of learning (p.186).

Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows

that procedural is the number one type of question used in the teaching practice

simulation. Most of the participants state this question to open the class at the

beginning. Here are some examples of procedural.

[145] How are you today? [297] How was your holiday?

For case [145], most of the participants state the question to open the class

and only few say [297] because the schedule when having teaching practice is

different. Case [145] is classified as a classroom procedure and routine so that it is

a part of procedural question. The participant uses the question to check students’

condition and make sure if they are ready to join the class. Case [297] is also stated

to open the class. It is like a chit-chat or informal conversation in order to attract

students’ attention.

Procedural questions can be used when the participant asks for students’

willingness such as the following cases.

[163] Can anyone help me? [208] Mario, can you read?

[213] Anyone who want to lead the prayer?

Several participants conduct those questions to ask for students’ help doing

(44)

are grouped as classroom procedures and routines and have no relation with the

topic of the day.

Another function of procedural questions is asking for students’

confirmation. It is delivered after the participant has finished explaining the main

topic, giving instructions or commands, and checking assignments. Here are the

following examples.

[209] Is it understood or not? [235] Have you finished, guys? [257] Anyone get this sheet?

2. Convergent Questions

This type seeks for similar students’ responses and focuses on a central

theme (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p. 186). Besides, convergent questions require

short answers and statements so that they do not need high level of thinking. Based

on the Table 4.2, 45% type of question belongs to convergent.

Before starting the lesson, some participants propose questions to lead the

students to the topic. They ask various convergent questions such as the following

cases.

[146] What do you do before the class?

[218] Did you know how to make your breakfast or your indomie maybe?

Question [146] is used as an introductory part of the topic being taught. The

participant states the question related to the lesson and it is daily activities. This

question requires student to recall a specific moment of their habit before joining

the class. Therefore, case [146] is categorized as a convergent question. Case [218]

has the same function as [146] but with the different situation. In case [218], the

(45)

students’ favorite food. Then, the participant chooses one of students to explain the

steps of making his breakfast, in this case is indomie. The researcher sees the both

case [146] and [218] may engage students’ participation in the teaching-learning

activity.

The data findings show that convergent questions are also stated in the end

of the class. Most of the participants restate questions that are delivered in the

beginning of the lesson. The function of these questions is to review materials that

have been learned. Here are the following questions.

[292] What have we learned today? [405] What is the generic structure?

In case [292], the participant states the question to make a conclusion of the

lesson. Then, students respond by giving an answer about the topic of the day. For

instance, if in the beginning the participant says the class would learn a report text,

students give the same words. The same case happens to [405]. In the beginning,

the participant provides information about the generic structure of a text. Then, in

the end, the participant proposes the same question to review and recall students’

knowledge on the materials. Therefore, the functions of questions [292] and [405]

are to review the lesson and make a conclusion by recalling previously learned

knowledge.

3. Divergent Questions

Divergent questions require students to provide their own information and

need a higher level of thinking. This type does not seek a short response and recall

previously learned knowledge (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p.187). Table 4.2

(46)

others. This finding has the same result as Gallagher and Aschner’s (as cited in

Wilen, 1987) which find that divergent questions are seldom used by classroom

teachers (p.15).

The finding is also supported by Sukur (2016) which states that divergent

questions are rarely employed in Micro teaching course. However, the researcher

finds some divergent questions in the following examples.

[150] From the video, what question that you can ask?

[183] What do you think about the moment that always update in the news?

Case [150] is categorized as a divergent question since the question is asked

by students is less predictable. The participant states the question to explore

students’ ideas about the video and determine them to create a product (question).

In this situation, there are no wrong answers because all responses are acceptable.

In case [183], the participant gives an open-ended question. It means that student

can present any answer and the participant may not expect the responses given.

However, case [150] and [183] do not seek single answer and short response but

look for a variety of possible answers that can make longer discussion about news.

B. Levels of Questioning Found in Micro Teaching Course

In this section, the researcher presents the findings of the first research

problem. Based on the data, the researcher finds that all six levels of questioning

are employed by students of Micro Teaching. The details of the findings are showed

(47)

Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course

Levels of Questioning Number Percentage

Create 1 0.6%

Evaluate 7 4.9%

Analyze 12 8.3%

Apply 11 7.7%

Understand 34 23.6%

Remember 79 54.9%

The table indicates that all levels of questioning occur during the students’

performance. In addition, it may show Micro Teaching Students’ teaching capacity

in asking questions. The total number of levels of questioning employed by the

students are 144. Remember is the most frequently applied in Micro Teaching class

and create has the least number compared with the others. The detailed description

and explanation of the data findings are discussed in the following sections.

1. Remember

Remember involves retrieving relevant knowledge from long term memory

(Mayer, 2002, p.228). Students will identify and match questions with presented

information when they are given things that are related to previously learned

knowledge (Anderson et al. 2001). Based on the findings, most participants deliver

the remember question in opening and closing the class. Here are some examples

of the cases.

(48)

Case [39] is asked when the participant opened the class and the question is

categorized as an introductory part. The participant previously asked students’

experiences on receiving and making invitation card. Several students have the

situation and the participant instructs them to mention phrases or words used in the

card based on their experiences.

For case [65], it is expressed after the participant asked a specific moment

about greeting and farewell. Several students experienced such situation and they

are asked to give some examples on how to say something in greeting and farewell.

Remember questions can also be differentiated from the context or situation.

To give an illustration, here are the examples.

[24]: Which one is transition words?

[51]: What is language features of recount text? [78]: What is the generic structure?

Basically, those questions do not belong to level of remember. However, if

readers see from time and situation where those are delivered, they are. The

situation for the first sentence is when the teacher has just explained about transition

words. In the explanation, the teacher gives some examples of transition words.

Then, students are given a text and asked to mention the transition words. It means

that the students retrieved relevant knowledge from a long-term memory, in this

case was the transition words, then compare and match it with the presented

information.

For case [51] and [78], the teacher places them at the end of the class.

(49)

situation, the teacher restates it in order to review the topic and recall the

knowledge.

The researcher sees that remember level becomes the highest frequency

because Micro Teaching students have the tendency to restate questions. For

instance, a teacher asks the purpose and the generic structure of a text in the

beginning of the class. Then, he/she proposes the same questions in the end of class

activity to make lesson review. In addition, Micro Teaching students often ask

questions relate to experiences in the past so that students need to retrieve their

memory.

2. Understand

When students are able to build connection between the new knowledge and

theirs, they are said understand (Anderson, et al. 2001). This level has six cognitive

processes. In this case, the researcher finds 5 types of understand occurring in the

teaching practice. They are interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, comparing, and

explaining.

[87]: What have you learned from video?

Case [87] belongs to interpreting. Mayer (2002) states that interpreting

occurs when a student is able to convert information from one form representation

to another such as words to words, pictures to words, and the like (p.228). The

researcher sees that the participant uses a video in order to stimulate the students’

thinking. It is a kind of warming up before going to the main activity. By asking the

question, the students might state opinions using their own words.

(50)

Case [103] is expressed after the participant has explained the concepts or

principles of the topic. In order to check the students’ understanding, the participant

asks the question and hoped the students can give some examples. Thus, this case

belongs to exemplifying.

[112]: Which one is the title?

In case [112], the participant and students are analyzing a text. The

participant has explained the generic structure of a text and gives an example. The

researcher sees that the aim of this question is to make the students are able to

determine and categorize something, in this case is the title. Therefore, case [112]

is classified as exemplifying.

[111]: Do you know what the difference between report text and descriptive text is?

Case [111] above is classified as comparing cognitive process since the

question intends to contrast differences between two texts. Several things can be

compared from those texts such as meaning, purpose, language features, generic

structure, and the like. The question is delivered in the beginning of the activity

when the participant talks the main topic.

[94]: So, do you know how to make application letter?

Case [94] is expressed as an introductory part. The participant asks the

chosen student to explain steps or process of making application letter. This

question is given to students who have ever applied for jobs (by condition) because

they know, understand, and have experience. Then, the chosen student is asked to

Gambar

Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning ......................................................................
Table 3 2 Participants Questioning . View in document p.14
Table 3.1 Participants’ Questions
Table 3 1 Participants Questions . View in document p.37
Table 3.2 Participants’ Questioning
Table 3 2 Participants Questioning . View in document p.38
Table 4.1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course
Table 4 1 The Findings of Types of Questions in Micro Teaching Course . View in document p.42
Table 4.2 presents 47% type of question belonging to procedural. It shows
Table 4 2 presents 47 type of question belonging to procedural It shows . View in document p.43
Table 4.2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course
Table 4 2 The Findings of Levels of Questioning in Micro Teaching Course . View in document p.47

Referensi

Memperbarui...

Download now (84 pages)