Teachers’ Questions To Promote Students’ Critical

Thinking In EFL Class

1
Rini Al Baqoroh, 2Noni Agustina
1
Universitas Esa Unggul Jakarta, West Jakarta, Indonesia, (021) 5674223

2
Universitas Esa Unggul Jakarta, West Jakarta, Indonesia, (021) 5674223

e-mail: rinialbaqoroh14@student.esaunggul.ac.id noni@esaunggul.ac.id

Abstrak

Critical thinking has a very important role in the EFL class. Questioning is also one way
to develop critical thinking. Questions from English teachers at the junior high school
level have not impacted the level of critical and creative thinking, so students become
passive. This study aims to explore teachers’ questions to foster students' critical
thinking in EFL class. This study aims to investigate to what extent the teachers use
questions to promote students' critical thinking. Thus, this study will employ
qualitative approach. This study will use questionnaires and interview sheets to
collect data. In terms of findings, it can conclude that teachers use questions to create
students' critical thinking. There are three questions teachers use most often when
teaching, that are questions that probe reason and evidence (100%), questions about
agreement and disagreement (100%), and questions about summary and conclusion
(100%). Some recommendations for further research can be as follows. First, more
research is needed that studies teachers’ questions to enhance students' critical
thinking at various levels. In addition, researchers also advise further research using
other collection methods to produce more comprehensive and valid results.

Kata Kunci: Critical Thinking, Teachers’ Question, Students’ Critical thinking, EFL
Class
INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking has a very important role in the EFL class. It is one of the twenty-first
century skills that must be taught to students in education field (Alharbi, 2017). It is
needed in almost all learning because each individual, especially students, must be
able to channel their ideas with good communication, choose good decisions, analyze
and solve a problem in the right way (Esfandiari, Rezvani, & Hadian, 2021). There are
several activities to stimulate critical thinking skills. According to Walker (2003), the
activities are classroom discussion and debates. Those activities involve the students
to control their tension between two opinions. The condition of tension between two
opinions is one part of the emergence of critical thinking and it makes students are
able to argue well and comfortably. Another activity that can stimulate critical thinking
is written exercise. The written assignments obtained by students are also useful for
processing their thinking. Similarly, Memari (2021) believes that essay writing can
lead to students’ critical thinking since they can interact with students' previous
observations, experiences, and knowledge.

Questioning is also one way to develop critical thinking. Ilyas (2015) examines the
elements of critical thinking questions contained in Indonesian ELT textbooks for high
school class XII. Meanwhile, DeWaelsche (2015) researches the appropriateness of
higher-level questioning in an activity involving students and English teachers to
develop students' critical thinking through class observation and students’ surveys at
universities in Korea. Dumteeb (2009) also examines teachers’ questions and
techniques for asking in English classes at universities in Thailand. Defianty and
Wilson (2019) also investigate secondary school teachers’ question through class
observation in West Java, Indonesia. According to Ritan (2020), questions from
English teachers at the junior high school level in class interactions have not impacted
the level of critical and creative thinking, so students become passive when the teacher
asks questions. To enrich the study, it is necessary to research teacher questions for
different levels or contexts, referring to a study conducted by Dumteeb (2009),
Therefore, this study aims to explore teachers’ questions to foster students' critical
thinking in English classes by adopting Ilyas’ critical thinking theory. The research
question of this study is “To what extent do EFL teachers use questions to promote
students' critical thinking in EFL class?”.

Previous related studies

A few studies examined teachers’ questions to promote students’ critical thinking
Wilson and Defianty (2019) investigate the teachers’ questions to stimulate students’
critical thinking in seven English classrooms of high school in Indonesia. Shen &
Yodkhumlue (2012) also investigated whether the teacher's questions could facilitate
students' critical thinking in the Chinese College EFL reading classroom. DeWaelsche
(2015) also examined the suitability of high-level questions in activities involving
students and English teachers to develop student's critical thinking through class
observations and student surveys at universities in Korea. Chew, Lin, & Chen (2019)
also conducted research by proposing to design critical thinking enhancement
exercises for elementary school students using the Socratic question strategy.
Dumteeb (2009) by investigated the teachers’ questions and techniques by Thai
English teachers in order to develop their students’ critical thinking skills.

The previous related studies focus on the teachers’ questions in the English class.
Three studies of them undertaken at the University, one study was undertaken at the
high school level and one study also was taken on at the elementary school. Besides, as
stated by Ritan (2020) teachers' questions at the junior high school level have not
influenced students' critical and creative thinking so, it can make students passive
when they get questions from the teacher. Therefore, This study is different from the
context in which it focuses on the junior high school level. It will portray the teachers’
questions to promote students’ critical thinking in English class.

Conceptual Framework

This study will investigate to what extent EFL teachers use questions to promote
students' critical thinking in EFL class. Therefore, this study employ Ilyas’ critical
thinking framework to explore teachers’ questions in their English class. The critical
thinking framework consists of question of clarification, question that probes
assumption, question that probes reason and evidence, question about viewpoint or
perspective, question that probes implication, consequence and alternative,
question about the question, question about prediction, question about agreement
and disagreement, and question about summary and conclusion.

Table 1. Ilyas' critical thinking framework

Questions Example
Clarification What does it mean?
Assumption What can you assume?
Reasons and evidence Can you tell me your reason?
Viewpoints or perspective What do you think of online learning?
Implication, consequences, and What is the best solution to solve the
alternatives problem?
Question Why is the question important?
Prediction What will probably happen if people
ignore wearing masks during the
pandemic?
Agreement and disagreement Do you agree with them? Why?
Summary and conclusion What can you conclude?

RESEARCH METHOD
This study aims to investigate to what extent the teachers use questions to promote
students' critical thinking. Thus, this study will employ qualitative approach. The
qualitative approach is an approach that analyzes real experiences, beliefs and their
perceptions with the aim of obtaining a reasonable understanding (Agazu, Dejenu, &
Debela, 2022). Using a qualitative approach in data collection can be objective and
detailed. It can bring out different experiences, perceptions and viewpoints from the
participants. In addition, by employing a qualitative research design, analysis can be
more accurate and precise on an issue. That leaves participants with sufficient
freedom to determine what is consistent for them. As a result, complex issues can be
understood easily (Pornprasertmanit, 2008). Despite the advantages already
explained, there are also limitations to utilizing a qualitative approach. According to
Rahman (2016) employing this approach may give low credibility to research results.
Therefore, to avoid low credibility, researchers used two instruments in collecting
data, namely interviews and questionnaires to build trustworthiness and credibility in
the data. The research procedures undertaken are as follows:

1. Obtaining the informed consent from the junior high school English teachers

2. Studying the literature review related to the critical thinking

3. Constructing the questionnaire using Google Form (see the appendix 1)

4. Constructing the interview protocol (see the appendix 1)

5. Administering the questionnaire through WhatsApp

6. Interview the junior high school English teachers for 10-15 minutes by voice
call WhatsApp

7. Transcribing the interview

8. Analyzing the questionnaire and interview transcription by categorizing and

coding thematically

9. Making interpretation and drawing conclusion

This study will involve Junior High School English teachers in Indonesia. So it can find
to what extent junior high school teachers use questions that stimulate students'
critical thinking. Seventy-Eight teachers will answer the questionnaire and seven of
them will interview. They are from Java island, Kalimantan island, Sulawesi island,
Sumatra island, Maluku island and Papua Island. The questionnaire is used to ask the
teachers whether they use critical thinking questions or not. It consists of 27 open-
ended and close-ended questions. Further, the interview protocol has similar
questions to the questionnaire in order to establish the data trustworthiness and
credibility (Creswell, 2012).

Data collected through questionnaire was analyzed by categorizing into question that
probes assumption, question that probes reason and evidence, question about
viewpoint or perspective, question that probes implication, consequence and
alternative, question about the question, question about prediction, question about
agreement and disagreement, and question about summary and conclusion. Further,
those data are coded and calculated the frequency and percentage of data occurrence.
In addition, the data are collected through interview. The data from the interview are
transcribed. The analysis process of interview is similar to the questionnaire, namely
categorizing, coding, and calculating frequency and percentage of data occurrence.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Questions of clarification
The result showed most teachers applied the questions of clarification. The
questionnaire presented that 94, 9% of them addressed the questions that asked
the students to clarify their answers. Besides, the questionnaire result pointed out a
few teachers did not use questions that asked students to clarify. It demonstrated
5.1% of them did not employ the questions.

2. Questions that probe assumption

In the questionnaire results, a few teachers did not operate questions that probe
assumption. It indicated 7.7% of them did not apply the questions. Further, the result
proved most teachers used questions that probe assumption. The questionnaire
conveyed 92.3% of them employ the questions that asked the students to give their
assumptions.

3. Questions that probe reason and evidence

The outcome presented all of the teachers employed the questions to probe reason and
evidence in the class. The questionnaire showed that 100% of them responded to
questions that request students to reveal reason and evidence.

4. Questions about viewpoint or

perspective
The results in this part evidenced
nearly all teachers applied the questions of viewpoints or perspectives. The
questionnaire concluded that 96.2% of teachers used the question that asked students
to give their viewpoints or perspectives. Additionally, the researcher also found in the
questionnaire result that a scant of teachers did not operated questions that asked
students to give their viewpoints or perspectives. It indicated 3.8% of them did not
apply the questions.

5. Questions that probe implication, consequence and alternative

In this section, the researcher found that almost all teachers wielded the question that
asked students to give probes implication, consequence, and alternative. The
questionnaire proved that 98.7% of them replied to these questions. Moreover, the
questionnaire result pointed out infrequent teachers did not utilize questions that
asked students to probes implication, consequence, and alternative. It revealed 1.3% of
them did not employ the questions.
6. Questions about the question
The questionnaire result established some teachers did not resort to the questions
about question. It represented 6.4% of them did not 'applied the questions.
Furthermore, The result presented that most teachers utilized the questions about
questions. The questionnaire showed that 93.6% of them answered the questions that
asked the students to reveal a consequence

7. Questions about prediction

In this section, the questionnaire
result found some teachers did not
applied the questions that asked
students to predict. It proved 3.8% of them did not utilized the questions to developed
students' critical thinking. Furthermore, the researchers also found most teachers
resort to the question about prediction. The questionnaire propounds that 96.2% of
teachers utilized these questions to asked students to predict. It was similar to the
seven teachers' responses when interviewed, they said applied those questions in the
classroom.

8. Questions about agreement and disagreement

In this section, the researcher found all the teachers wielded the questions about
agreement and disagreement. The questionnaire showed that 100% of teachers applied
the questions that asked students to revealed their agreement and disagreement.
9. Questions about summary and conclusion
The result proved that all of the teachers employ the questions about summary and
conclusion. The questionnaire revealed that 100% of them used the questions to asked
students to summarize and conclude.

Discussions

Based on the data results, revealed there are three questions with the highest
percentage used by the teacher to promote students' critical thinking. First, the
teachers applied questions that probe reason and evidence with a percentage result of
100%. The teachers also prefer to employed questions that ask students to express
agreement and disagreement in the classroom, as shown by 100% of teachers using
these questions. The researchers also found there was a percentage of 100% which
indicated that to build students' critical thinking, the teacher resorted to a questions
about summary and conclusion. This finding is consistent with the results of previous
research conducted by Chew, Lin, & Chen (2019), DeWaelsche (2015) that critical
thinking questions can grow students to think critically.

Besides, the results of this study are also different from the three previous related
studies. Wilson and Defianty (2019) argued that most teachers employed low-level
thinking questions in the classroom (75%). The teachers employed lower-order
questions that asked students to recall information or check their comprehension. Shen
& Yodkhumlue (2012) had different results from this study, they stated teachers utilized
low cognitive questions excessively so they could not facilitate the development of
students' critical thinking (79.2%). Moreover, Dumteeb (2009) declared that the
questions and asking techniques applied by teachers in class are still low (80%). The
result of this study also different with Özgür (2007), she revealed that the three
teachers used high-order questions in the class is not high, only 8%-12%. The way the
teacher includes high-order questions in learning activities is still ineffective and needs
adaptation.

CONCLUSION
In terms of findings, it can conclude that teachers use questions to create students' critical
thinking. There are three questions teachers use most often when teaching, that are
questions that probe reason and evidence (100%), questions about agreement and
disagreement (100%), and questions about summary and conclusion (100%). In addition to
teachers' questions that can enhance students' critical thinking, it turns out that the school
facilities operated also need to be developed so they can sustain students' critical thinking,
it was stated by Teacher A.

The researcher realizes several other limitations still need further investigation. The first
limitation correlates to the method of data collection. As mentioned, the methods
employed in this study were interviews and questionnaires. This study did not apply other
data collection methods due to time constraints. Researchers also found difficulties in time
allocation. Researchers did not examine the extent to which teacher questions create
students' critical thinking in senior high schools. This limitation causes researchers to be
unable to compare teacher questions that support students' thinking at different levels.

REFERENCES
Agazu, B. G., Dejenu, A. K., & Debela, K. L. (2022). A Comparative Review of Qualitative
Research : A Guide to Design and Implementation, 27(8), 1499–1508.
Alharbi, B. (2017). Saudi Teachers’ Knowledge of Critical Thinking Skills and Their Attitudes
towards Improving Saudi Students’ Critical Thinking Skills, 7864. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2693125411/B31756B75D264B4CPQ/1?
accountid=25704
Chew, S. W., Lin, I. H., & Chen, N. S. (2019). Using socratic questioning strategy to enhance
critical thinking skill of elementary school students. Proceedings - IEEE 19th
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2019, 2161-377X,
290–294. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00088
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson (fourth). Boston.
Defianty, M., & Wilson, K. (2019). Fostering Critical Thinking through Questioning in EFL.
Thinking Skills and Creativity in Second Language Education, (2003), 74–94.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315098920-5
DeWaelsche, S. A. (2015). Critical Thinking, Questioning and Student Engagement in Korean
University English Courses. Linguistics and Education, 32, 131–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.10.003
Dumteeb, N. (2009). Teachers’ Questioning Techniques And Students’ Critical Thinking
Skills: English Language Classroom In The Thai Context, 246. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/teachers-questioning-techniques-
students-critical/docview/305089252/se-2?accountid=25704
Esfandiari, M. A., Rezvani, E., & Hadian, B. (2021). Impact of Critical Thinking Instruction
Through Argument Mapping Techniques on Iranian Male and Female EFL Learners’
Critical Thinking Ability and Reading Skill. Research in English …, 9, 70–89.
https://doi.org/10.30486/relp.2020.1882326.1166
Ilyas, H. P. (2015). Critical Thinking : Its Representation in Indonesian ELT Textbooks and
Education Hamzah Puadi Ilyas University of York Education February 2015, (February).
Memari, M. (2021). Effects of Critical Thinking on Writing Cause and Effect Essays by Iranian
EFL Learners. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 9(2), 489–506.
https://doi.org/10.30486/RELP.2021.1927318.1260
Özgür, N. (2007). Teachers’ Questions : Do They Encourage Critical Thinking? PhD Thesis,
(May), 84. Retrieved from http://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/18638
Pornprasertmanit, S. (2008). Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research Methods,
1–6.
Rahman, M. S. (2016). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment”
Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Ritan, G. O. (2020). Analisis Dampak Pertanyaan Guru Terhadap Kontribusi Siswa dalam
Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. 178, 3(2). Retrieved from
http://jurnal.unikastpaulus.ac.id/index.php/jpro/article/view/699%0Ahttp://
jurnal.unikastpaulus.ac.id/index.php/jpro/article/download/699/428
Shen, P., & Yodkhumlue, B. (2012). A Case Study of Teacher’s Questioning and Students’
Critical Thinking in College EFL Reading Classroom. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 2(1), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p199
Walker, S. E. (2003). Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking. Journal of
Athletic Training, 38(3), 263–267.