Preliminary Field Testing Process of Designing English Instructional Speaking Materials
validation and user validation questionnaires are presented in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14.
Table 4.13: The Description of Participants for Expert Validation Questionnaire Groups of
Respondents Educational Background
Teaching Experience Sex
D3 S1
S2 S3
1 1-5
6-10 10
M F
Lecturers 2
2 2
Table 4.14: The Description of Participants for User Validation Questionnaire Groups of
Respondents Educational Background
Teaching Experience Sex
D3 S1
S2 S3
1 1-5
6-10 10
M F
Instructors 2
1 1
2
The writer conducted expert validation by distributing evaluative questionnaire to two lecturers of the English Language Education Study Program
of Sanata Dharma University. The lecturers were selected concerning their
experience and expertise in English language teaching. The writer also conducted
user validation to two English instructors of Global Lingua, Yogyakarta by distributing the same evaluative questionnaire as used in the expert validation.
The selection of the English instructors was based on considerations that they would be the users of the materials, and hence would be able to judge the
materials’ applicability and practicality. The writer combined the results of both the expert validation and the user validation questionnaire by considering the fact
that the statements listed in both questionnaires are the same. 72
After the data of post designed questionnaires were computed and analyzed, it was found that the results were satisfying. In the first part of the
questionnaires, where the participants had to state their degree of agreement on the given statements, the means ranged from 3.25 to 4.00, indicating the
participants believed the materials had been well-developed. The helpful materials to achieve the learning indicators, the relevant discussions on each unit
to the topic, the various and encouraging activities for learners to speak, the clear and understandable questions in the journal, and also the attractive and well-
designed layout were the strongest features of the materials. The mean of such statements is 4.00, indicating all the four participants were under the impression
that the designed materials were very good on those aspects. The results of the first part of the post-design questionnaire can be seen in Table 4.15. The detailed
results were presented in Appendix C.
Table 4.15: The Results of the Questionnaire for Expert Validation and User Validation
No Respondene’s Opinion on
Ceneral Tendency
N Mean