conducted the tryout of the preliminary product to the small group. The revision step was done after getting the feedback of the experts and tryout.
a. The Preliminary Field Testing
The preliminary field testing aimed to validate the quality of the initial product designed. The Experts validation helped the researcher to see the
appropriateness or even the weaknesses of the preliminary product which was based on the results of need assessment and literature review. The expert validation
questionnaire was distributed to an expert of material development, two IT experts, five English lecturers, and three nursing lecturers. The feedback, opinion, and
suggestions were the basis for revising the prototype of the product before implemented to the target users.
Table 4.14. Description of Respondents in Preliminary Field Testing
Respondent Sex
Educational Background
Institution Teaching
Experience F
M S1
S2 S3
5 5-10
10
Material Development
Expert -
1 -
1 -
Sanata Dharma University,
Yogyakarta -
1 -
English Lecturers 4
1 1
4 -
STIKES Harapan Bangsa Purwokerto
3 2
- IT Experts
- 2
1 1
- STIKES Harapan
Bangsa Purwokerto 2
- -
Nursing Lecturers 2
1 -
1 2
• STIKES Harapan
Bangsa Purwokerto •
Prochamklao Collage of Nursing,
Thailand
• Top Rank
Academy, Philippines
- 2
1
In this section, the data were not only gathered by distributing the questionnaire but also conducting interview either face to face or online. There are two parts that will
be discussed in this section; the descriptive statistics of the respondents’ opinion,
and their comments and suggestions towards the preliminary form of e-lon. The statistics data were from the result of expert validation questionnaires.
the questionnaire was a Likert Scale questionnaire, with five responses. According to Best and Khan 2006, the values of the response were 5 for strongly agree, 4 for
agree, 3 for undecided, 2 for disagree, and 1 for strongly disagree. Dorney 2003 states that the sale can be used to indicate potency or strength. In this questionnaire,
they indicate the validity or the acceptability of the design. If the mean is between 1.00-1.99, it means the part of the design or the feature is not acceptable and should
be replaced. If it was 2.00-2.99, it means the part or feature needs to be modified. The 3.00-3.99 value means the part or feature needed to be explored to be valid.
Finally, the 4.00-5.00 value means the part or feature is valid or accepted. The respondents gave their opinions by choosing the five points of agreement.
The first expert validation questionnaire was addressed to material development expert, English lecturers, and nursing lecturers. They were required to
evaluate whether e-lon could fulfill the requirement of CAVL model which enhanced lexical retention of nursing students or not. The statements of the
questionnaire led them to assess on the quality of CAVL model. To construct the statements of the questionnaire, the researcher referred to the principles of CAVL
design Goodfelow, 1994; Levy, 1997; Nation, 2001; Joseph, 2009; and Qing Ma, 2009. A curriculum design perspective on CAVL proposed by Nation 2001 was
adapted to categorize the statements in order to make the gained data easy to analyze. However, the principles of CAVL design proposed by the other scholars
were also considered in constructing the statements of the questionnaire. Basically, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
