It is important to identify the characteristics of questions in learning activities so teachers understand the material mastery level of students. The study aimed at documenting the patterns and types of questions in genetic lecture using RQA (Reading, Questioning, Answering) learning. The data were collected by documenting all the questions during the learning process, and the sentence structures were analyzed referring to the guide of Krathwohl as the revision form of the Bloom guide. The findings of the study showed that the patterns of questions were not always similar to the questioning skill theory due to the linguistic structure and the understanding in communication during the learning interaction. The most types of questions occurred were understand as much as 40.3% related to cognitive dimension, conceptual as much as 41.1% related to knowledge dimension, and classify as much as 23.4% related to the cross section between cognitive and knowledge dimension. These results are important for the evaluation based of the learning achievements.

Anderson, L. W. (Ed.)., Krathwohl, D. R (Ed.)., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Bahri, A. (2010). Pengaruh strategi pembelajaran Reading Questioning and Answering (RQA) pada perkuliahan fisiologi hewan terhadap kesadaran metakognitif, keterampilan metakognitif, dan hasil belajar kognitif mahasiswa jurusan biologi FMIPA Universitas Negeri Makassar [The effect of Reading Questioning and Answering (RQA) learning strategy on metacognitive awareness, metacognitive skills, and cognitive learning results of the students majoring in biology at animal physiology lecture, State University of Makassar] (Unpublished master’s thesis). State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (1st Ed.). Harlow, Essex, England: Longman Group.

Corebima, A. D. (2014). Kajian tentang perkembangan keterampilan metakognitif pada perkuliahan genetika di jurusan biologi FMIPA UM [The study on the development of metacognitive skills in the genetics lecture at biology department at the mathematics and science faculty State University of Malang] (Unpublished Research Report). State University of Malang, Malang.

Dalton, J., & Smith, D. (1986). Extending children’s special abilities: strategies for primary classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.nmmu.ac.za/cyberhunts/bloom.htm

Hariyadi, S. (2015). Evaluasi akademik mahasiswa biologi terhadap perkuliahan genetika di universitas jember [Academic evaluation of biology student to genetics class at the university of Jember]. Jurnal BioEdukasi, 3(2), 336-348.

Hasanuddin. (2013). Pemberdayaan kemampuan berpikir metakognitif melalui pembelajaran Reading Questioning and Answering pada matakuliah taksonomi tumbuhan [The empowerment metacognitive thinking skills through Reading Questioning and Answering learning on plant taxonomy course]. Jurnal Mentari, 16(2). Retrieved from http://ejournal.unmuha.ac.id/index.php/mentari/article/view/131

Khairil. (2009). Potensi model perkuliahan genetika di jurusan biologi fmipa um terhadap kemampuan metakognisi, kerja ilmiah dan hasil belajar kognitif mahasiswa [The Potential of the models of genetics lecture on the students’ metacognitive skills, scientific work, and the cognitive learning results in the biology department of mathemathics and science faculty, State University of Malang] (Unpublished doctoral disertation). State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: an overview. Retrieved from http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Metacog.htm

Long, K. (2008). Study demonstrates that misconceptions about genetics remain prevalent in U.S. science classrooms. The American society of human genetics. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/pages/education/dnaday/newsandfeatures/ashgstudypressrelease.pdf

Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (2006). Asking better question (2nd Ed.). Canada: Pembroke Publishers.

Munzenmaier, C., & Rubin, N. (2013). Bloom’s taxonomy: what’s old is new again. Santa Rosa: The eLearning Guild.

Omar, N., Haris, S. S., Hassan, R., Arshad, H., Rahmat, M., Zainal, N. F. A., & Zulkifli. (2012). Automated analysis of exam questions according to bloom’s taxonomy. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 297-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.278

Pohl, M. (2000). Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn: Models and Strategies to Develop a Classroom. Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education Pty.

Roini, C. (2012). Kajian miskonsepsi genetika dan upaya mengatasinya dengan pembelajaran peta konsep dan inkuiri terbimbing menggunakan perangkat berpendekatan konsep pada SMA berkategori berbeda [The study of the genetic misconceptions and the attempt to overcome it using concept map learning and guided inquiry supported by concept approach base device in senior high schools with different categories]. Digital Repository State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://mulok.library.um.ac.id/index3.php/57944.html

Sumampouw, H. M. (2011). Keterampilan metakognitif dan berpikir tingkat tinggi dalam pembelajaran genetika (artikulasi konsep dan verifikasi empiris) [Metacognitive skills and higher-order thinking, learning skills in genetics course (articulation of concepts and empirical verification)]. Jurnal Bioedukasi UNS, (Online), 4(2). Retrieved from http://jurnal.fkip.uns.ac.id/index.php/biologi/article/view/878

Zhakhina, N. M. S. B. B., Kukubaeva, A. K., Smagulov, N. K., & Kazhibaeva, G. K. (2016). Studying innovation technologies in modern education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), 6512-6517.