B. Research Respondents 1.
Respondents of Research and Information Collecting
In this study, the students’ needs were the most important thing to be considered in designing the intended materials. The writer conducted research and
information collecting by having informal interview to the English teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta
. The interviews were conducted in order to know the
learners’ needs in speaking skill. 2.
Respondents of Preliminary Field Testing
In order to conduct preliminary field testing to the designed materials, the writer distributed the questionnaire and designed materials to the English teachers
of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta and two lecturers of English Language Education of Sanata Dharma University. The teachers were involved in evaluating the designed
materials because they have direct contact in English teaching learning processes at school. All the respondents were asked to judge whether the designed materials
based on Cooperative Language Learning theory is accepted or not.
C. Research Instruments 1.
Interviews for the Respondents of Research and Information Collecting
The interviews were conducted informally to the English teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta
. The writer interviewed the teachers using Indonesian, so that they would simply catch the points of the questions. The information was an
important consideration in designing the materials. The interview guideline is
presented in Appendix E.
2. Questionnaires for the Respondents of Preliminary Field Testing
The writer used both open and closed forms questionnaires in conducting preliminary field-testing. The questionnaires were distributed to the English
teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta and two lecturers of English Language Education of Sanata Dharma University in order to get feedback on the designed materials.
From the questionnaire, the writer might recognize whether or not the goals, objectives, subject contents, learning activities, and instructional meet the
learners’ needs. The feedback was then beneficial in the revision of the designed
materials
D. Data Gathering Techniques
There were three types of data gathering techniques in this study. The first was the data of related literature which were gathered by consulted to some books
and literature. The second was gathering data for needs analysis. The data for need analysis were gathered by conducting interviews with the English teachers of
SMAN 4 Yogyakarta . The last type was by gathering data for conducting revision
and improvement on the designed materials. The data for conducting revision on the designed materials were gathered by distributing questionnaire and conducting
informal interviews to the English teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta and two lecturers of English Language Education of Sanata Dharma University.
E. Data Analysis Techniques 1. Research Information Collecting
The data in this study are the data from the research and information collecting and preliminary field-testing. The data for the research and information
collecting were gained from the interviews conducted by the researcher. The researcher gathered data from the interviews and made a conclusion about the
students’ needs. The data from the preliminary field-testing were also gathered and used to do the revision, improvement, and making of the final version of the
designed material.
2. Preliminary Field Testing a.
Respondents’ Opinions on the Designed Materials
The writer used both open and closed forms questionnaires in conducting preliminary field-testing. In open forms questionnaire, the respondents were to
give their opinions by choosing from the options given. The writer then presented the data in the form of central tendency and
mean. Mean is the average point. It refers to general opinion of the respondents. Borg and Gall 1979 as cited by Hadjar 1996: 221 define mean as a single point
to which is used to describe the average or to represent the score of overall respondents. Mean displays the position of the dominant score in a distribution
used by a researcher to analyze the score gathered from the respondents. Mean is the most useful central tendency among the other such as median and mode
because of its validity. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Hadjar 1966:222 states that mean is considered as the most valid central tendency because it involves all scores in measurements. Mean displays whether
or not the respondents accept the design. The higher the mean, the more acceptances it gathers from the respondents. The mean X was obtained by
counting the sum of the respondents’ answers ∑x divided by the number of the
respondents N. The formula can be seen as follows.
N X
X
∑
=
Notes: X
: the mean ∑x
: the sum of the respondents’ answers point N
: the number of the respondents The researcher outlined the results of the questionnaires in the form of
table in which the respondents opinions, the mean, the median, and the mode are presented. The data of respondents’ opinions is presented as follows.
Table 3.2: The Data of Respondents Opinions on the Designed Materials blank
Frequency of points of agreement
Central Tendency
No Respondents Opinion
on 1 2 3 4 N Mn
Notes: N : Number of respondents
Mn :
Mean PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Likert’s scale Best, 1970: 173 values range from 1 to 5. However, the writer only adopted the scales of 1, 2, 4, and 5. The degree of 3 was not included
because it displays the respondent’s absence in giving the opinion. Thus, it does not provide important information for the research. The writer then changed the
scales into 1, 2, 3, and 4. The assessment involves four points of agreement as the following:
Table 3.3: The Points of Agreement
Range Meaning
1 If the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
2 If the respondents disagree with the statement.
3 If the respondents agree with the statement.
4 If the respondents strongly agree with the statement.
After the result were calculated and analyzed in term of mean, the results were then interpreted based on the criteria presented in the following table:
Table 3.4: The Interpretation of the Result Mean
Range Item Evaluation
0.00 – 1.00 Poor items, to be rejected or improve by revision.
1.01 – 2.00 Marginal items, usually needing and being subject to
improvement. 2.01 – 3.00
Reasonably good but possibly subject to improvement. 3.01 – 4.00
Very good items, although - some minor revisions needed.
b. Respondents’ Comments and Suggestions on the Designed Materials
In closed forms questionnaire, the respondents freely gave their opinions or evaluation on the designed materials. The data gained were in the form of
comments, criticisms, and suggestions on the designed materials. The writer then PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
made a list of all respondents’ opinions. Finally, the overall data gained from both open and closed forms questionnaires were used to revise and improve the
designed materials in order to produce the final version one.
F. Research Procedures
The description of research procedure was meant to give a clear picture in conducting the study. The steps in conducting the study are described as follows:
1. Finding the place and target of the research and development study, and
finally chose SMA N 4 Yogyakarta. 2.
Finding and collecting underlying theories to support the research. The
theories were about speaking, the review of instructional designs, and Cooperative Language Learning theory.
3. Asking permission letters from the Head of English Education Study
Program of Sanata Dharma University, Dinas Perijinan Kota Yogyakarta and BAPEDA Pemerintah Provinsi Yogyakarta to conduct a research.
4. Asking permission to the head master of SMA N 4 Yogyakarta
5. Conducting needs analysis by interviewing the English teachers of SMAN
4 Yogyakarta 6.
Designing the materials based on the needs analysis. 7.
Distributing and gathering questionnaires to the English teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta
and two lecturers of English Language Education of Sanata Dharma University.
8. Analyzing the results of the evaluation questionnaires.
9. Revising the designed materials based on the results of the evaluation
questionnaires in order to obtain the final version of the designed materials.
10. Presenting the final version of the designed materials.
49
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the writer would like to present the results of the research. This chapter consists of four parts. The steps in conducting the study which aims
to produce a set of English speaking materials for the first grade students of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta
based on Cooperative Language Learning theory, constitutes the first part. The next part covers the discussion and findings of the designed
materials evaluation. The last part presents the final designed materials.
A. The Steps in Conducting the Study
In designing a set of speaking materials, the researcher took eight steps from Kemp’s and Yalden’s models. The steps were 1 conducting a needs’
analysis; 2 stating instructional goals, topics, and general purposes; 3 specifying learning objectives; 4 listing the subject contents; 5 selecting
teaching learning activities; 6 developing the syllabus; 7 designing the materials; 8 evaluating and revising the designed materials.
1. Conducting need analysis
The need analysis was conducted to obtain data about the students’ needs, interests, motivation, and obstacles in learning speaking. The need analysis was
carried out by conducting informal interviews with three English teachers of SMAN 4 Yogyakarta.
The data of the respondents are presented as follows: PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Kategori