REVISI CELT.cdr ISSN: 1412-3320 English Culture, Language Teaching & Literature A Journal of CeltCelt Accredited by DIKTI 040/P/2014 Celt, Vol. 14, No.1, pp. 1-128, Semarang, July 2014 Celt A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching and Literature A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching and Literature (Celt) is published biannually in the months of July and December (ISSN: 1412-3320) presenting articles on culture, English language teaching and learning, linguistics, and literature. Contents include analysis, studies, application of theories, research reports, material development, and book reviews. Celt was firstly published in December 2001. Based on the decree from Hasil Akreditasi Jurnal Ilmiah, SK Direktur Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, No. 040/P/2014 dated on 18 February 2014, Celt is nationally accredited until 2019. Editor-in-Chief Ekawati Marhaenny Dukut Business Manager Cecilia Titiek Murniati Editors Antonius Suratno Emilia Ninik Aydawati Gerardus Majella Adhyanggono Heny Hartono Website Designer & Administrator Ridwan Sanjaya Cover Designer Oscar Santoso Correspondence: Address: The Editors, Celt, Faculty of Language & Arts, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Henricus Constance building, 4 th floor, Jl. Pawiyatan Luhur IV/1, Bendan Dhuwur, Semarang 50234, Indonesia; email: celtjournal@gmail.com; celt.unika@yahoo.com; celt@unika.ac.id; website: http://www.journalcelt.com; http://journalcelt.blogspot.com; Telephone: +62-24-8316142, 8441555 (hunting) ext. 1705, Fax no.: +62-24- 8445265 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Celt is published by the Faculty of Language & Arts, Soegijapranata Catholic University. Rector: Prof. Dr. Ir. Yohanes Budi Widianarko, M.Sc., Vice Rector for Academic Affairs: Dr. Ridwan Sandjaja, S.E., S.Kom, MS.IEC.., Vice Rector for Financial and Administration Affairs: Ineke Hantoro, S.T.P., M.Sc., Vice Rector for Students’ Affairs: Lita Widyo Hastuti,S.Psi, Msi, Vice Rector for Cooperation and Development Affairs: Dr. Marcella Elwina Simandjuntak, S.H., CN, M.Hum., Dean: Angelika Riyandari, S.S., M.A., Ph.D., Vice Dean for Academic Affairs: Dra. Cecilia Titiek Murniati, M.A., Ph.D, Vice Dean of Financial and Administration Affairs: Drs. Antonius Suratno, M.A., Ph.D., Vice Dean for Student Affairs: B. Retang Wohangara, S.S., M.Hum. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Contributions: Contributions are welcome from anyone who is concerned with culture, English language teaching and learning, linguistics and literature. Contributors should consult the current Celt Manuscript Submission Guidelines before submitting articles, which contains important information about the focus and format of articles (see back cover). Cost per journal is Rp 40.000 and is payable through Bank BII kas Unika Soegijapranata, with a bank swift code: IBBKIDJA, bank acc. no.: 1-575-16246-4, bank acc. name: Angelika Riyandari dan Antonius Suratno. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Printed by Santosa Print Offset, Yogyakarta Published and copyright by Soegijapranata Catholic University Press, Semarang © 2014. mailto:celtunika@gmail.com mailto:celt.unika@yahoo.com mailto:celt@unika.ac.id http://journalcelt.blogspot.com/ Heavenly Tears – Earthly Loss: Different Ways of Coping with Life Loss in Tears in Heaven, Circus, and Since I Lost You Akun ...............................................................................................................1 Constructing a Course on Indonesian Shadow Puppet for International Students Yoseph Bambang Margono Slamet .................................................................16 Using Popular Culture's Media of Indonesian-English Picturebooks as a Way of Reaching More Vegetable Consuming Children Ekawati Marhaenny Dukut, Maya Putri Utami, Adi Nugroho, Novita Ika Putri, and Probo Y. Nugrahedi ................................................................................36 Cultural Untranslatability: a Study on The Rainbow Troops Nur Utami S.K. ..............................................................................................48 Analyzing Complaints by Indonesian EFL Speakers Anna Marietta da Silva ...................................................................................63 Teacher Questioning in Classroom Interaction Sarlita Dewi Matra ........................................................................................82 Students' Perspectives on the Role of Open Access Centre and Language Laboratory as Supporting Units in Developing English Language Skills Wuryani Hartanto ......................................................................................112 Celt, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 1-128, Semarang, July 2014 B BA Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature Celt ISSN: 1412-3320 TEACHER QUESTIONING IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION Sarlita Dewi Matra starlighta_unique@yahoo.com English Department, Teachers’ Training and Education Faculty, Pekalongan University Abstract: Questions play an important role in every classroom- both students’ questions and teachers’ questions. The types of question used by teacher can help students to lift their own levels of understanding toward the concept given or even to build up new ideas. The study explored (1) how eventually teachers provide some ease to the students in creating an interactive classroom interaction through questions and answers exchanges; (2) how the questioning technique used by the teachers might encourage the students to be active in classroom interaction. By using Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS) the data were analyzed in order to find out what types of question were mostly used by the teachers during teaching learning process in encouraging the student’s activeness. The data were collected through observations in two English classes in SMP N 2 Pekalongan with two different English teachers. The data showed that the cognitive level of teacher’s questions which mostly occurred was lower order cognitive questions. The questions were aimed to invite the learners to speak and deliver their ideas. Based on the observed data, in details, the result showed that teachers used recall questions for 52%, comprehension for 42% and application occupied the remaining that was 6%. The target language was usually used on several occasions such as praising, encouraging, explaining and giving directions during the classroom interaction. Therefore, the suggestions are given to the teacher to understand practical uses of questioning techniques in minimizingstudents’ barriers to speak up in English. Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 83 Key words: Teacher’s questioning, types of questions, BIAS, cognitive level, classroom interaction Abstract: Pertanyaan memainkan peran penting di setiap kelas- baik pertanyaan guru dan pertanyaan siswa. Beberapa jenis pertanyaan yang digunakan oleh guru dapat membantu siswa untuk meningkatkan pemahaman mereka terhadap konsep yang diberikan atau bahkan untuk membangun ide baru. Penelitian ini berupaya menggali (1) bagaimana guru mempermudah siswa dalam menciptakan interaksi kelas yang interaktif melalui pertanyaan dan jawaban; (2) bagaimana teknik pertanyaan yang digunakan oleh guru yang mungkin dapat mendorong siswa untuk aktif dalam interaksi kelas. Dengan menggunakan Brown Interaction Analisys System (BIAS) data dianalisis untuk mengetahui jenis pertanyaan yang sering kali digunakan guru selama proses belajar mengajar dalam mendorong keaktifan siswa. Data dikumpulkan melalui observasi di dua kelas bahasa Inggris di SMPN 2 Pekalongan dengan dua guru bahasa Inggris yang berbeda. Data menunjukkan bahwa tingkat kognitif pertanyaan guru yang sebagian besar terjadi adalah pertanyaan kognitif dengan tingakatan yang lebih rendah. Beberapa pertanyaan itu bertujuan untuk mengajak peserta didik untuk berbicara dan menyampaikan ide mereka. Berdasarkan data yang diamati , secara detail , hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa guru menggunakan jenis pertanyaan recall sebesar 52%, comprehension sebesar 42% dan application sebesar 6%. Bahasa target biasanya digunakan pada beberapa kesempatan seperti memuji, mendorong, menjelaskan dan memberikan arah selama interaksi kelas. Oleh karena itu, saran yang diberikan kepada guru untuk memahami penggunaan praktis dari teknik pertanyaan dalam menguragi kesulitan siswa untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris. Kata kunci: pertanyaan guru, jenis pertanyaan, BIAS, tingkatan kognitif, interaksi kelas INTRODUCTION Nowadays, English is important and used by people all over the world. That’s why people are interested in learning this language. Based on the newest curriculum-2013 Curriculum, the purpose of English education in Indonesia is to enable students to use English communicatively as a 84 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 communication means. Students of junior high school are targeted to be able to develop their communication competence to achieve the functional literacy, means that students should be able to communicate in English either spoken or written to solve daily problems they face (Depdiknas 2006, p. 5). The target that has to be reached will be a challenging task for the teachers. Furthermore, the inexistence of speaking class in junior high schools becomes another case to be paid attention for the teachers in gaining the purpose since there is no appropriate time to train students’ speaking skill. As the result, teachers have to conduct good and successful teaching. Although there are no agreed conceptual or operational definitions of good teaching and successful teaching, Brown (1975, p. 11) explains that good teaching is in the eyes of the beholders and successful teaching is in the performance of the students. Harmer (2002, p. 56) also asserts that the indicator of a good lesson is the student’s questioning activities during the teaching learning process, not the performance of the teachers. In this case, the teachers must create an interactive class so that the teaching learning process will go interactively and eventually students can understand the concept given well. A good teaching learning process does not only put the teachers as single main source but also involve the students in that process. The involvement of the students is an important thing in every teaching learning process as there will be an excellent interaction among the teachers and the students. In creating an interactive classroom, teachers need to provide supports, which can be in the form of questions, to students by interacting and involving them in order to train their speaking skill also to ensure that the students master the concepts. The supports given by the teachers and the result of them will clearly be seen in spoken cycle through teacher’s talk and students’ talk or students’ speaking performance. The purpose of this study was to describe what types of questions used by the teachers in helping the students to find some ease in speaking English particularly in classroom interaction. The types of question used by the teachers might help students to lift their own levels of understanding toward the concept given or even to build new knowledge therefore;it also Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 85 could train students’ speaking skill. How the teachers provide and support students using some types of question would be discussed in this study. The questions raised in this study are presented as follows: 1. What types of question which are mostly used by the teachers in teaching learning processes? 2. How do the questioning technique used by the teachers encourage the students to be active in classroom interaction? THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF QUESTIONING There are lots of studies about the use of Questioning in helping students learning target language and improving students’ achievement. Regarding the study done by Cotton (2001) entitled “The Schooling Practices That Matter Most”, the findings reported in his summary are drawn from thirty-seven study documents. The study is concerned with a variety of treatments. By far the largest number of documents - twenty-six - is concerned with the relative effects on student learning produced by questions at lower and higher cognitive levels. That’s why I am interested in carrying on the study about the use types of question in helping students understand the concepts or materials given and even to build new knowledge also improving their speaking skill. The skills of questioning are as old as the instruction itself. They are the basis of the method of the teaching developed by Socrates in the fifth century B.C. Despite this long history of the use of questions, it is surprisingly difficult to define precisely what a question is. Brown (1975, p. 103) has given a general definition of question. He states that a question would be any statement which tests or creates knowledge in the learner. Cotton (2001) defined a question inas any sentence that has an interrogative form or function. In classroom settings, teacher questions are defined as instructional cues or stimuli that convey to students the content elements to be learned and directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it. According to the quotations above, in my opinion, a question is any sentence in the interrogative form that can arouse learners’ interest to the content elements to be learned and create knowledge of them. The 86 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 idea of using questions came up as the result of creating active and interactive classroom activities so that the teachers can use students’ knowledge to lift their understanding toward the lesson to develop their speaking skills. Yet, the students will produce English sentences while they are conveying their idea, interacting and communicating each other by increasing their talking time. Turney states,“the purposeful use by teachers of questioning provides a sound structure for the promotion and sustaining of pupil learning” (1983, p. 72). It can be drawn that these purposes are generally pursued in the context of classroom performance, defined as a series of teacher questions, each eliciting a student response and sometimes a teacher reaction to that response. It is clear that in order to help students through questions; the teacher should be able to identify various types of question, effectively use the various types of question in teaching, and help the students to give better answers. The awareness of the use of various types of question will also help the teachers to plan ways of monitoring how far the students master the concepts given and evaluating students’ learning. THE COMPONENTS OF QUESTIONING According to Brown (1975, p. 104), there are at leastfourout of eightcomponents in questioning techniques which should be mastered by teachers: A. Clarity and Coherence Teachers should give questions clearly, easily to be understood by the students, not confusing, and coherently expressed. Teachers should not give questions with conflicting alternatives or ‘double barreled questions’ in order to avoid confusing the students. If the students do not respond the questions, the questions should be repeated and rephrased. In the early stages of teaching, clear and coherent questions should be planned and written in the lesson plans and scrutinized carefully, especially in using high level cognitive questions. Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 87 B. Pausing and Pacing Pausing after asking and also varied pacing at which teachers ask a question is important. Beginner teachers frequently ask more questions than they receive answers (Brown, 1975, p. 105). The speed of delivery of a question is determined by the kind of questions asked. Low level cognitive questions can be asked quickly, but more complex questions, in this case are high level cognitive questions, should be preceded by a short pause, should be asked slowly and clearly, and also should be followed by a long pause. C. Directing and Distributing Teachers should direct some questions at individual students and distribute questions among the whole group of students around the class. While asking questions, teachers can use them as controlling tools since teachers should monitor the class to see who is attending and who is not attending. If a question cannot be answered by the first person asked, after a pause, teacher can redirect it to another pupil. Directing questions towards students in a non-threatening way will help to draw them in a discussion. If they give response and their responses should as far as possible be praised and subsequently used again in the discussion. If they cannot respond, teachers should redirect the question to another pupil after giving them an encouraging nod and remark. D. Prompting and Probing Prompting and probing can be givento any weak answers uttered by the students. Prompting consists of giving hints to help the students formulating their answers. A series of prompts followed by encouragement can help students to gain confidence in giving replies. Probing questions can direct the pupil to think more deeply about his initial answer and to express himself more clearly. In so doing they develop a pupil’s critical awareness and his communication skill. Prompting and probing can be given to help students especially for higher order cognitive questions because these types of questions need more hints to help students formulating their answers in giving replies. Prompting and probing can also help teachers deliver the questions and choose which types of question which appropriate so that they do not overwhelm the students. 88 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 These components of questioning are important to be accomplished and used by the teachers, so that they can create effective and interactive classroom through the exchanging of questions-answers during the teaching learning process in a conversation class. However, I will only analyze prompting and probing since in BIAS only these two components of questioning which are included to be analyzed in this study. COGNITIVE LEVEL OF QUESTION There are many types of question. According to Bloom there are 6: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. While according to Brown (1975, p. 103) there are two types of question: lower order cognitive questions and higher order cognitive questions. And supporting Brown’s idea, Cotton (2001) also grouped types of question into two: lower and higher cognitive questions. Even though question is the basis of the teaching method and interest to researchers and practitioners because of its widespread use as a contemporary teaching technique, but often coming up some questions, such as, should the teachers be asking questions which require literal recall of text content and only very basic reasoning? Or ought the teachers to be posing questions which call for speculative, inferential and evaluative thinking? The majority of researchers, however, have conducted more simple comparisons: they have looked at the relative effects on student outcomes. Cotton (2001) has given the definition of lower and higher cognitive questions. Lower cognitive questions are those which ask the student merely to recall verbatim or in his/her own words material previously read or taught by the teacher. Higher cognitive questions are defined as those which ask the student to mentally manipulate bits of information previously learned to create an answer or to support an answer with logically reasoned evidence. While Brown (1975, p. 103) defines lower order question are questions which are used to create correct single answers and higher order questions are questions which used to create new knowledge in the learner. In my study I will use Brown’s types of questions.Categories of teacher questions are as follows: Lower 1. Compliance: The pupil is expected to comply with a command worded as a question Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 89 2. Rhetorical: The pupil is not expected to reply. The teacher answers his/her ownquestions 3. Recall: Does the pupil recall what he has seen or read? 4. Comprehension:Does the pupil understand what he recalls? 5. Application: Can the pupil apply rules and techniques to solve problems that have a single correct answer? Higher 6. Analysis: Can the pupil identify motives and causes, and make inferences and give examples to support his statement? 7. Synthesis: Can the pupil make predictions, solve problems or produce interesting position of ideas and images? 8. Evaluation: Can the pupil judge the quality of ideas, or problem solutions, or works of art? Can he give rationally based opinions on issues or controversies? (Brown, 1975, p. 108) RESEARCH METHOD Classroom interaction has primarily been studied from a psycholinguistic or cognitive perspective to examine how individual learners acquire linguistic knowledge and skills through in teraction with teachers or other language learners. Hughes (2002, p. 27) shows that these studies are generally based on empirical, semi-real world data, gathered through recording and transcribing oral performance to investigate a central reasearch question or a hypothesis. Nevertheless, thisstudy only focused on the teachers’ questioning. This is a study of teacher questioning and student response interaction during conversation class. It emphasizes on the verbal interaction among the teacher and students, which is considered as a core element in the teaching learning process. I tried to find out what types of question mostly used by the teachers during the teaching learning process in a conversation class. The idea of giving types of questions during the teaching learning process in conversation class was to train students’ speaking skill since the students would produce English sentences in answering the questions which increased students talking time. 90 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 Iused the qualitative data analysis, in which Idescribed, explained, and gave reason for the findings, data, and arguments. Nunan (1992) suggests that qualitative research advocates the use of qualitative methods concern with the understanding of human behavior from the actor’s own frame of reference, exploratory, descriptive and process-oriented. This study tried to explore the teacher questioning and student response interaction which were analyzed in seven categories based on Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS). It also tried to identify the types of question used by the junior high school English teachers during conversation class based on Brown (1975, p. 103). Even BIAS can be regarded as old-school theory, but the framework of this system is really suitable for anayzing the questions. Dealing with the validity upon this study, I used triangulation method to maximize the validity of it. Triangulation is a method in research used to measure the validity of data by using other instruments (Moleong, 2004).The triangulation method which was used by the researcher in this study was by comparing and crosschecking the data gained from observation with that of from interview (Alwasilah, 2002). SITE AND PARTICICIPANTS The object of the study was the classroom interaction in conversation classes at SMP Negeri 2 Pekalongan since the purpose of this study was the analysis of teacher questioning and student response interaction. The participantswho involved in the interaction were two English teachers of SMP Negeri 2 Pekalongan. Teacher A was graduated from SemarangStateUniversity in 2007. She has already had experiences in teaching for almost five years. She had ever taught a kindergarten level student, she taught all the primary subjects in English. She also had ever taught an immersion class and in International School. Teacher B was a senior English Teacher who was graduated from Semarang State University in 1991. She has had teaching experiences for more than 10 years at the level of junior high school. All participant was voluntary. I guaranteed their anonymity although they me permission to use their real names in my reserach report. Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 91 DATA COLLECTION AND CODING In order to collect the data, Idirectly observed the teachers and students interactions in the English conversation class. Idid the observation in two ways: by recording the teaching learning process and taking field notes. The procedures of collecting data were as follows: 1. Making a try out in coding Before doing the observation and witnessing the classroom activity,Imade a try out in coding. The try out was done in SMP N 2 Pekalongan. 2. Witnessing the classroom activity as field observation. Because of the limit of the time, Ionly recorded two classes and one meeting for each class. So, there would be two meetings altogether. The meetings occurred in 90 minutes. 3. Recording the classroom activity in the form of audiotape. While recording the classroom interaction, Imarked and coded also took notes any information about types of question used by the teachers. 4. Copying the record into written form In copying the record into written form, Iplayed the record and listened to it then transfered the data in transcription of the dialogues. 5. Analyzing the data interaction by classifying the data by using Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS) suggested by Brown (1975: 66-67). Iclassified the interaction data into seven categories: TL = Teacher describes, explains, narrates, directs, TQ = Teacher Questions, TR = Teacher Responds to pupils’ response, PR = Pupils’ Response to teachers’ questions, PV = Pupils’ Volunteer information, comments, or questions, S = Silence, and X = Unclassifiable. The teachers’ questions were classified into two: lower order cognitive questions consist of recall, comprehension and application; and higher order 92 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 cognitive questions consist of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. RESULTS AND FINDINGS Initially the data analysispresents general finding of the use types of question by the junior high school English teachers during teacher – student interaction in conversation class. Afterwards, the data analysis describes the implementation of types of question during the teaching learning process. In recording the interaction during teaching learning process, I followed the model suggested by Brown that was three seconds as one time unit recording instead of ten or five second intervals. As he explains that ten or five second intervals prove to be more difficult than three seconds because so many things can happen in the time interval that judgment of what is happening at the end of the intervals is difficult (1975: 73). The results of the two time observations are presented below: Teacher A Beginning the lesson, teacher A discussed about the students’ favorite stuff. The class activities were guided by some questions about the topic. She pointed at the students randomly. The teacher encouraged her students to answer the questions and accepted any answers from them. It lasted for about 5 minutes. Then, the teacher read a dialog in Part A for the students and asked them to repeat. Next, the teacher discussed the difficult words. She then asked the students to practice the dialog with their partners and also checked the students’ pronunciation. Those activities lasted for approximately 10 minutes. Next, the teacher gave a game and played it with the students. The game was giving some statements based on the dialogue in Part B, and the students should give responses to every single statement. If the statement was true, the students should stand up but if the statement was false, the students should raise their left hands. The situation in the class was alive and the students enjoyed the game. While playing the game, the teacher also asked the difficult words to the students. It took 10 minutes. Then, Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 93 the teacher asked whether the students like playing the game or not. She also explained the expressions of like and dislike in Part C. Then she drilled the students using the expressions by asking them to find out 5 friends who have the same opinion about “like and dislike”. But before that, she gave examples in order to make the students understood. It lasted almost 15 minutes. Then, the teacher moved to activity in Part D that was practicing dialog by using provided words. The students were assigned to practice that dialog with a partner. It took for about 15 minutes. Then the teacher moved around the class to check the students’ work. Next, the teacher asked the students to do exercise in Part F that was continuing a dialog. It took about 15 minutes. After that, she asked them to practice the dialog they made in front of the class until the bell rang. Next, I completed each of verbal interaction with the descriptive codes based on the seven categories of teacher – student interaction of Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS). After that, I plotted the coded data into a matrix to find out the teacher-student interaction during the teaching learning process. A brief analysis from table 1 above indicates that the teacher is responsible for 16 % of the talk, the students for 9 %, silence period for 1 % and unclassifiable occupied the remaining that is 74 %. Explicitly the teacher’s talk time was spent in the following ways: a. Teacher Lecturing 11 % b. Teacher Question 2 % c. Teacher Response 3 % While the students’ talk was spent in the following ways: a. Pupil Response 8 % b. Pupil Volunteer 1 % The silence period was 1 % and the unclassifiable was 74 % which was spent for activities that were not included in the seven categories based on Brown. The examples of the activities were: teachers checked the attendance list, teachers gave handout, students helped teachers distributing handout, students talked in their native language (Bahasa 94 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 Indonesia) so that it made the classroom situation became sonoisy and the communication could not be understood, students gave response to the teachers in the form of actions or gestures while they were playing games, students did exercises from the handout e.g. preparing their dialog, teachers circulated the class to check the students’ work, students looked for the meaning of some words in the dictionary, students moved around the class and make some noise. Teacher A used three types of question; they were recall, comprehension, and application questions. She used recall questions for 81 % from the whole questions, comprehension questions for 8 %, and application questions occupied the remaining that was 11 %. Teacher B In the beginning of the lesson, teacher B asked the students’ favorite foods, like and dislikes expressions. It took about 5 minutes. Then the teacher gave handout and read the dialog loudly. The teacher also asked the students whether they understood what the dialog told about. Next, she asked the students to practice the dialog with their partner at their seats. The teacher pointed the students randomly. After that the teacher read the dialog and the students repeated the teacher. The teacher then divided the class became two groups. Group one got the turn to read Anna’s dialog and group two got the turn to read Katie’s dialog since there were two girls namely Anna and Katie in the dialog. Then, the teacher switched the role. Group one acted as Katie and group two acted as Anna. After that she discussed the difficult words. Next, the teacher asked the students to identify like and dislike expressions in the dialog. It lasted for about 10 minutes. Then, she moved on activities B. The students did the exercises and after they finished doing the exercises in Part B, the teacher discussed the answers and some difficult words. Next, she moved on activities in Part C. She explained the expressions and then drilled the expressions. She mentioned some foods’ and drinks’ name then asked the students to give response which was determined by the teacher. Those activities lasted for approximately 10 minutes. Then the teacher moved on activities in Part D. The teacher asked the students to make a dialog. But before that, she read the example on the handout then asked them to practice it first. The class became so noisy since they practiced the dialog and asked each other. After 15 minutes, the teacher called her students randomly to perform the dialog in front of the class with their partner. Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 95 There were 10 pairs presenting the task in front of the class. Some of them acted very well, but most of them only read the text plainly. Next, the teacher moved on activities in Part E. The teacher asked the students to find another partner’s favorite foods and drinks also the reason why they like them using the expressions they have learnt. The teacher checked the students’ work and asked some students to practice using the expressions in their seat. After that, the teacher moved on activities in Part F. She asked the students to make dialog with their partners and performed it in front of the class. After 15 minutes, the teacher pointed the students randomly to practice in front of class. Thus, the activities lasted almost 35 minutes until the bell rang. A brief analysis above indicates that the teacher is responsible for 17 % of the talk, the students for 16 %, silence period for 0 % and unclassifiable occupied the remaining that is 67 %. Explicitly the teacher’s talk time was spent in the following ways: a. Teacher Lecturing 10 % b. Teacher Question 4 % c. Teacher Response 3 % While the students’ talk was spent in the following ways: a. Pupil Response 16 % b. Pupil Volunteer 0 % The silence period was 0 % and the unclassifiable was 67 % which was spent for activities that were not included in the seven categories based on Brown. Teacher B used three types of question; they were recall, comprehension, and application questions. She used recall questions for 72 %, comprehension questions for 24 %, and application questions occupied the remaining that was 4 %. Record of the Overall Types of Question used by the Teachers We can see that from the whole time of teacher talk, it was mostly spent for lecturing that was 8 %. The teacher questioning was 4 % and teacher respond was 2 %. From those only 4 % of the whole time which were used for questioning, there were 469 utterances. To find out what 96 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 types of question mostly used by the teachers, those 469 utterances were analyzed and the results are presented in the following table: Table 1: Types of Question No Types of Question OBSERVATION A B total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 Recall Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation 29 3 4 0 0 0 41 14 2 0 0 0 70 17 6 0 0 0 75 18 7 0 0 0 Total 36 57 93 100 From the table above, it can be seen that the teachers totally used lower order cognitive questions in the classroom observation which can be described further as follows: a. Recall 75 % b. Comprehension 18 % c. Application 7 % On the other hand, higher order cognitive questions were not used at all by the teachers. This study has proved that the cognitive level of teacher’s questions in teaching children was mostly lower order cognitive questions. This study also has proved that there is no significant difference in using the types of questions during the teaching learning process between graduated teachers (Teacher A and B). But there seems little difference in the amount of questions used by the teachers between the first and the second observation. CONCLUSIONS In every classroom there will be some talks among the teachers and the students and usually the teachers’ talks will dominate it. It is good for Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 97 the teachers to dominate their classroom as long as those talks bring good impact toward the students’ behavior. On the other words, they will stimulate the students’ development in mastering and understanding the concept given and gradually they will be independent learners. The use of questioning is actually to know how well pupils understand the concept given to them. The questions given by the teachers will lead the students’ interest and curiosity also. It will encourage the students to have some contributions in the teaching and learning process. Turney et al (1983, p. 73) provides nine components of the skills of basic questioning to consider in teaching and learning process: structuring, phrasing or clarity and brevity, focusing, re-directing, distributing, pausing, reacting, prompting, and changing the level of cognitive demand. Here are the types of questions which have been formulated to answer the first research question: types of question which were mostly used by the teachers were lower cognitive questions (recall questions). Lower cognitive questions were quite effective when the teacher's purpose was to communicate factual knowledge and help students in committing this knowledge to memorize. Higher cognitive questions were not better than lower cognitive questions in eliciting higher level responses or in promoting learning gains with junior high school students (primary level). Greater frequency of questions was positively related to student achievement when there are great numbers of appropriate lower level questions. Moreover, when the mostly lower level questions were used, their level of difficulty should be sustained in order to elicit students’ correct responses. Futhermore, the second result of this study showed that the types of question not only can be used to guide, lead, direct the students but also can be used to promote students to speak up and give contribution during the teaching learning process.Questions can create an interactive classroom interaction, so that the students enjoy learning English. Through questions, learners can learn new words and grammatical structure in a simple way because their capacity for taking in and retaining new words, structures, and concepts is limited. That’s why the concepts or materials should be presented in simple segments by the teachers that do not overwhelm them. Moreover learners can also learn grammar of the target language through questions when they use the full-length replies in formulating their answers. 98 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 REFERENCES Alwasilah. A. C. (2002). Pokoknya kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya. Brown, G.(1975). Microteaching. Great Britain: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Cotton, K. (2013) Questioning strategies: The Schooling Practices That Matter Most. In the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu5.html, retrieved 13 September 2013. Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Dikdasmen Depdiknas. (2006) Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran yang Efektif. Jakarta: Depdikbud. Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching”. New York: Longman. Jamshidnejad, Alireza (2011). Developing Accuracy by Using Oral Communication Strategies in EFL Interaction.Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol.2 No. 3, May 2011. Moleong, L. J. 2004. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Eka Karya. Nunan, D. (1982). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching.New York: Mc Graw Hill. Turney, C. (1983). Sydney Micro Skills Redeveloped Series 1 Handbook. Australia: Sydney University Press. 1983. Turney, C. (1983). Sydney Micro Skills Redeveloped Series 2 Handbook. Australia: Sydney University Press. Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 99 APPENDICES: Teacher : Teacher A Day/Date : Saturday, 1 st February 2014 Time : 10.30 – 12.00 P.M. Duration : 2 x 45 minutes TL = Teacher describes, explains, narrates, directs TQ = Teacher Questions TR = Teacher Responds to pupils’ response PR = Pupils’ Response to teachers’ questions PV = Pupils’ Volunteer information, comments, or questions S = Silence X = Unclassifiable Table 1: Category of teacher-student interaction Time (minute) Category of teacher-student interaction TL TQ TR PR PV S X 0-5 31 3 7 14 0 6 42 6-10 45 8 11 29 0 1 1 11-15 32 7 4 46 5 2 2 16-20 36 16 13 16 3 0 7 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 36-40 13 2 1 4 0 1 73 41-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 46-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 51-55 16 0 9 17 12 1 35 56-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 61-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 66-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 71-75 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 76-80 4 0 0 1 0 1 101 81-85 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 86-90 7 0 0 10 0 0 2 Total 186 36 45 138 20 12 1263 % 11 2 3 8 1 1 74 F ig u re 1 : T h e P e rc e n ta g e o f T e a ch e r – S tu d e n ts I n te ra ct io n C a te g o ry o f T e a ch e r A T e a c h e r - S tu d e n ts I n te ra c ti o n C a te g o r y T L 1 1 % T Q 2 % T R 3 % P R 8 % P V 1 % S 1 % X 7 4 % T L T Q T R P R P V S X 100 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 T a b le 2 : M a tr ix f o r R e co rd in g T yp e s o f Q u e st io n U se d b y th e T e a ch e r L O C Q = L o w e r O rd e r C o g n it iv e Q u es ti o n s H O C Q = H ig h e r O rd e r C o g n it iv e Q u e st io n s = R e ca ll C o m p = C o m p re h e n si o n = A p p li ca ti o n = A n a ly si s = S yn th e si s = E v a lu a ti o n T im e (m in u te ) T L S A c ti v it ie s T a sk C h a ra c te ri st ic s Q u e st io n s L O C Q R e C o m p A p p A n B K O F D is cu ss a b o u t st u d e n ts ’ fa vo ri te s tu ff T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts ’ fa vo u ri te st u ff S tu d e n ts a n sw e re d te a ch e r’ s q u e st io n s 1 . D o yo u k n o w th e m e a n in g o f st u ff ? 2 . D o yo u k n o w w h a t d o ll i s? 3 . F a ik a le b ih su k a N o k ia d ar i p a d a M o to ro la a ta u S ie m e n s. H o w d o yo u s a y th a t? √ √ √ 101 R e A p p A n S yn E v a S y n 0 -5 Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 102 6 -1 0 M O F D is cu ss in g th e d ia lo g a n d t h e d if fi cu lt w o rd s T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts a b o u t th e d ia lo g t h en d is cu ss in g d if fi cu lt w o rd s 4 . A ll r ig h t, w h o h a s th e b ir th d a y? 5 . W h o h a s th e b ir th d a y? 6 . K a ti e o r A n n a ? 7 . W h a t is t h e m e a n in g o f tr e a t? 8 . A n yo n e k n o w s w h a t o rd e r is ? 9 . W h a t is h o t in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 1 0 . W h a t’ s so u r in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 1 1 . H o w a b o u t sw e et ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 1 1 -1 5 1 2 . W h a t is b it te r? 1 3 . W h a t a b o u t sa lt y? 1 4 . K a la u S p ic y a p a ? 1 5 . O k a y, w h a t’ s th e m e a n in g o f it ’s o n m e? √ √ √ √ T e a ch er co rr e ct e d th e st u d e n ts ’ p ro n u n ci a t 1 6 . O k a y, h o w d o y o u s a y p re fe r? 17 . H o w d o y o u p ro n o u n ce p re fe r? 1 8 . [p rε ‘f ə r] o r [p rI ‘f ə r] ? √ √ √ io n Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 e x p re ss io n s o f li k e a n d d is li k e 2 5 . R ia n d o y o u l ik e D u ri a n ? 2 6 . E n d ra d o y o u l ik e a vo ca d o ? 2 7 . H o w d o y o u sa y sa ya le b ih s u k a so to in E n g li sh ? 2 8 . S a ya le b ih s u k a d u ri a n ? 2 9 . S a ya le b ih s u k a r a m b u ta n ? 3 0 . F a ik a , w h y d o yo u li k e c h ic k e n n o o d le ? 3 1 . D o yo u l ik e c o ff e e ? 3 2 . W h y yo u d o n ’t l ik e i t? 3 3 . D o yo u l ik e i ce cr e a m ? 3 4 . W h y d o y o u l ik e ic e c re a m ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 6 -5 0 JC O T D o in g a ct iv it ie s in P a rt E o n th e h a n d o u t T e a ch er d is cu ss e d th e d if fi cu lt w o rd s 3 5 . D is g u st in g ? A n yo n e k n o w s th e m e a n in g o f d is g u st in g ? 3 6 . W h a t is d is g u st in g ? √ √ T o ta l 2 9 3 4 0 0 % 8 1 8 1 1 0 0 1 6 -2 0 D is cu ss in g , e x p la in in g , a n d d ri ll in g e x p re ss io n s o f li k e a n d d is li k e T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts ’ li k e a n d d is li k e 1 9 . O k a y, A n n a a n d K a ti e s a y th a t th ey p ay t h e ir o w n f o o d . W h a t d o e s it m e a n ? 2 0 . D o yo u k n o w c h ic k en n o o d le ? 2 1 . C a n I sa y I li k e o ra n g e ju ic e o r I lo ve o ra n g e j u ic e ? √ √ √ T e a ch er d ri ll e d st u d e n ts to u se t h e 2 2 . O k a y n o w , d o y o u l ik e P e ce l, Y a n i? 2 3 . F e ri , d o y o u l ik e o b lo k -o b lo k ? 2 4 . A yu , d o y o u l ik e D u ri a n ? √ √ √ √ 103Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 104 Teacher : Teacher B Day/Date : Monday, 3 rd February 2014 Time : 12.30 – 02.00 P.M. Duration : 2 x 45 minutes TL = Teacher describes, explains, narrates, directs TQ = Teacher Questions TR = Teacher Responds to pupils response! PR = Pupils Response to teachers questions! ! PV = Pupils Volunteer information, comments, or questions! S = Silence X = Unclassifiable Table 3: Category of teacher-student interaction Time (minute) Category of teacher-student interaction TL TQ TR PR PV S X 0-5 21 14 3 20 0 1 23 6-10 41 2 1 56 0 0 0 11-15 16 10 8 51 0 4 0 16-20 4 0 1 0 0 0 100 21 -25 12 22 12 40 1 1 0 26-30 27 7 6 11 3 1 45 31 -35 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 41 -45 15 0 5 32 0 0 55 46-50 7 2 3 12 0 0 75 51 -55 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 56-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 61 -65 9 0 5 12 0 0 25 66-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 71-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 76-80 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 81-85 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 86-90 6 0 2 31 0 0 0 Total 160 57 46 266 4 7 1123 % 10 4 3 16 0 0 67 Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 105 F ig u re 2 : T h e P e rc e n ta g e o f T e a ch e r – S tu d e n ts I n te ra ct io n C a te g o ry o f T e a ch e r B T e a c h e r - S tu d e n ts I n te r a c ti o n C a te g o r y T L 1 0 % T Q 3 % T R 3 % P R 1 6 % P V 0 %S 0 % X 6 8 % T L T Q T R P R P V S X Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 106 T a b le 4 : M a tr ix f o r R e co rd in g T yp e s o f Q u e st io n U se d b y th e T e a ch e r L O C Q = L o w e r O rd e r C o g n it iv e Q u es ti o n s H O C Q = H ig h e r O rd e r C o g n it iv e Q u e st io n s R e = R e ca ll C o m p = C o m p re h e n si o n A p p = A p p li ca ti o n A n = A n a ly si s S yn = S yn th e si s E v a = E v a lu a ti o n T im e (m in u te ) T L S A c ti v it ie s T a sk C h a ra c te ri st ic s Q u e st io n s T y p e s o f Q u e st io n L O C Q H O C Q R e C o m p A p p A n S y n E v a 0 -5 B K O F Q u e st io n – a n sw e r a b o u t st u d e n ts ’ fa vo u ri te fo o d s a n d d ri n k s T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts ’ fa vo u ri te fo o d s a n d d ri n k s a ls o li tt le b it in se rt e d e x p la in in g th e 1 . H o w a b o u t yo u , K ri sn a , d o y o u l ik e fr ie d c h ic k en ? 2 . G a n i, w h a t’ s yo u r fa vo ri te d ri n k ? 3 . H o w a b o u t yo u , D e sk a ? W h a t’ s yo u r fa vo ri te d ri n k ? 4 . D o yo u l ik e m il k ? 5 . H o w i f yo u d o n ’t √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 107 e x p re ss io n s o f li k e a n d d is li k e S tu d e n ts g av e re sp o n se s li k e m il k ? 6 . W h a t w il l yo u s a y? 7 . C a n y o u m e n ti o n In d o n e si a n f o o d , st u d e n ts ? 8 . D o yo u l ik e s a yu r a se m ? 9 . D o yo u l ik e sa n d w ic h ? 1 0 . D o yo u l ik e m e a tb a ll ? 1 1 . D o yo u l ik e c a k e? 1 2 . D o yo u k n o w c a k e? 1 3 . W h a t is t h a t? 1 4 . H o w a b o u t d ri n k ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 -2 0 M O F R e a d in g d ia lo g T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts w h a t th e d ia lo g t el ls a b o u t S tu d e n ts a n sw e re d te a ch e r’ s q u e st io n s 1 5 . W h a t a re t h ey ta lk in g a b o u t, d o yo u t h in k ? 1 6 . W h o a re t h ey ? √ √ D is cu ss in g T e a ch e r 17 . W h a t is b ir th d a y in √ Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 108 d if fi cu lt w o rd s a sk e d t h e d if fi cu lt w o rd s D is cu ss e d to g et h e r B a h a sa I n d o n e si a ? 1 8 . W h a t a b o u t “I ’l l tr e a t yo u ” in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 1 9 . W h a t’ s “L et ’s ta k e a n o rd e r” in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 2 0 . W h a t’ s o rd e r? 2 1 . H o w a b o u t so u r? W h a t’ s so u r in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 2 2 . W h a t a b o u t “I t’ s o n m e ” in B a h a sa In d o n e si a ? 2 3 . W h a t s d e li ci o u s in ! B a h a sa I n d o n e si a ? √ √ √ √ √ √ Id e n ti fy in g th e e x p re ss io n o f li k e a n d d is li k e i n th e p a ra g ra p h T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts to id e n ti fy t h e e x p re ss io n o f li k e a n d d is li k e i n th e d ia lo g 2 4 . C a n y o u i d e n ti fy t h e se n te n ce s? 2 5 . K ir a -k ir a k a li m a t it u m e n ya ta k a n l ik e o r d is li k e ? 2 6 . C a n y o u m e n ti o n a n o th e r se n te n ce ? √ √ √ 2 1 -2 5 D o in g e x e rc is e s in T e a ch er ch e ck ed 2 7 . W h a t’ s th e a n sw e r? 2 8 . P u tr i, A o r B ? √ √ Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 109 P a rt B st u d e n ts ’ w o rk s T e a ch er d is cu ss e d th e a n sw e rs 2 9 . C a n y o u s h o w m e th e s e n te n ce t h a t re fe rs t o yo u r a n sw e r? 3 0 . W h a t’ s th e a n sw e r, N in o ? 3 1 . C a n y o u s h o w m e th e s e n te n ce t h a t re fe rs t o yo u r a n sw e r? 3 2 . W h a t’ s th e a n sw e r, R is m a ? 3 3 . C a n y o u s h o w m e th e s e n te n ce t h a t re fe rs yo u r a n sw e r? 3 4 . W h a t’ s th e a n sw e r, D e sk a ? 3 5 . C a n y o u s h o w m e th e s e n te n ce t h a t re fe rs to yo u r a n sw e r? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ D is cu ss in g e x p re ss io n s o f li k e a n d d is li k e i n P a rt C T e a ch er d ri ll e d t h e e x p re ss io n s o f li k e a n d d is li k e 3 6 . W h a t is y o u r fa vo ri te d ri n k , P u tr i? 3 7 . W h y d o yo u l ik e so ft d ri n k ? 3 8 . W h a t’ s yo u r fa vo ri te √ √ √ √ Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction 110 fo o d , Is m i? 3 9 . W h y d o y o u l ik e so p ja g u n g ? 4 0 . D o yo u l ik e s a te a ya m ? 4 1 . W h y d o y o u l ik e sa te a ya m ? 4 2 . D o yo u l ik e g a d o - g a d o ? 4 3 . W h y d o y o u h a te g a d o -g a d o ? 4 4 . W h a t a b o u t yo u B ra m a n ty o , w h a t’ s yo u r fa vo ri te f o o d ? 4 5 . W h y d o y o u l ik e p iz za ? 4 6 . D o yo u l ik e f ri e d ri ce ? 4 7 . W h a t a b o u t yo u r fa vo ri te d ri n k ? 4 8 . D o yo u l ik e i ce d t ea ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2 6 -4 5 4 9 . H o w a b o u t o ra n g e ju ic e ? 5 0 . H o w a b o u t p la in w a te r? 5 1 . A g is ty a , d o y o u l ik e √ √ √ √ √ Celt, Volume 14, Number 1, July 2014, pp. 82-111 111 p iz za ? 5 2 . R is m a , d o y o u l ik e g a d o -g a d o ? 5 3 . F a ra h , d o y o u l ik e so to ? 5 4 . R iz k y, d o y o u l ik e g a d o -g a d o ? 5 5 . A zm i, d o yo u li k e ic e d t e a ? √ √ 4 6 -9 0 JC O T D o in g e x e rc is e s in P a rt E T e a ch er a sk e d st u d e n ts to p ra ct ic e P a rt E 5 6 . H o w i f yo u w a n t to a sk y o u r fr ie n d ’s fa vo ri te f o o d ? 5 7 . H o w a b o u t yo u r fr ie n d ’s fa vo ri te d ri n k ? √ √ T o ta l 4 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 % 7 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 Matra, S.D., Questioning in Classroom Interaction