The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 1:

Table 4.7.2b: The results of expert judgment on the language appropriateness in Unit 2. No. Items Means Description of Agreement 1. The appropriateness towards the students’ ability 4.50 Strongly agree 2. The communicative aspect 4 Agree 3. The language accuracy 3 Neutral Neither agree or disagree 4. The unity of the ideas 4 Agree The results of expert judgment in the language appropriateness in Unit 2 were almost the same as the result of expert judgment of the language appropriateness in Unit 1. The mean for the appropriateness towards the students’ ability development was 4.50, which means that the language is appropriate towards the students’ development, while the mean for the communicative aspect and the unity of the ideas were 4, which indicates that the communicative aspect and the unity of the ideas were good. Meanwhile, the mean for the language accuracy was 3; that is neither agrees or disagrees, because of the grammatical mistakes found in the tasks in Unit 2, so the revision related to grammar was needed in Unit 2. Next, after the appropriateness of the content and the language was assessed, another item which was assessed was the appropriateness of materials presentation, as shown in the following table: Table 4.7.2c: The results of expert judgment on the speaking material presentation in Unit 2. No. Items Means Description of Agreement 1. The presentation technique 4.25 Strongly Agree 2. The tasks presentation 4 Agree The result of mean for the presentation technique was 4.25 and the mean for the tasks presentation in Unit 2 was 4. It means that the presentation of the material in Unit 2 was appropriate for the students of automotive engineering program in SMK Sanjaya Ngawen. Meanwhile, the last assessed item in Unit 2 was the appropriateness of the materials layout. The result of expert judgment towards the materials layout was shown in the following table: Table 4.7.2d: The results of expert judgment on the speaking material layout in Unit 2 . No. Items Means Description of Agreement 1. The layout of the content 4 Agree 2. The illustration of the content 4 Agree 3. The typography of the material 4 Agree The means for layout, illustration, and typography of the material and its content in Unit 2 were 4. It means that the layout of the material was quite good and appropriate for the second grade students of automotive engineering. From the result of expert judgment above, the content, language, presentation, and the layout of Unit 2 were appropriate, but there are still many grammatical mistakes found in this unit, as in Unit 1, so to make Unit 2 more appropriate, revisions related to the grammatical mistakes in the tasks in Unit 2 was needed.

c. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 3

The assessed items in Unit 3 were not different from Unit 1 and Unit 3; those were the appropriateness of the content, language, materials presentation, and the materials layout. The first assessed item was the appropriateness of the content, as shown in the following table: Table 4.7.3a: The results of expert judgment on the content appropriateness in Unit 3. No. Items Means Description of Agreement 1. The appropriateness of the material 4 Agree 2. The depth of the material 4 Agree 3. The accuracy of the material 4 Agree 4. The novelty of the material 4 Agree The means for the appropriateness, the depth, the accuracy, and the novelty of the material were 4. It means the whole content of the material was appropriate for the second grade students of automotive engineering. After the content was assessed, the next assessed item was the appropriateness of the language, as shown in the following table: Table 4.7.3b: The results of expert judgment on the language appropriateness in Unit 3. No. Items Means Description of Agreement 1. The appropriateness towards the students’ ability development 4.50 Strongly Agree 2. The communicative aspect 4 Agree 3. The language accuracy 3 Neutral Neither Agree or