b. The Results of the Expert Judgment and Revision of Unit 2
1. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 2
There were four aspects which were evaluated in this unit. They were materials appropriateness, linguistic appropriateness, method appropriateness,
and presentation appropriateness. The mean value for Unit 2 obtained from the expert judgment was 3.50 as shown in the table below. It was within the range
of 3.25 x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the
standard proposed by BSNP.
Table 31: The Results of the Expert Judgment of Unit 2
1. Materials Appropriateness
3.55 2.
Linguistic Appropriateness 3.43
3. Method Appropriateness
3.37 4.
Presentation Appropriateness 3.67
Mean 3.50
The following are the elaboration of the expert judgment results for unit 2.
a Materials Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of materials appropriateness of Unit 2.
Table 32: Materials Appropriateness of Unit 2 1. The materials were developed in accordance with the Standard
of Competence SC and Basic Competence BC for grade XI of vocational high school in the odd semester.
4
2. The materials were developed in accordance with the course
grid. 4
3. The materials were developed in accordance with the
students’ needs.
4 4.
The materials explored enough texts related to the lives of students majoring in Avionics Maintenance and Repair.
4 5.
The materials explained texts in detail. 3
6. The materials provided explanation of the elements, the
structures, the functions and the linguistic features clearly. 4
7. The materials taught students about how to ask for favors.
4
8. Texts in the material helped students understand how to ask for
favors. 4
9. The materials taught students about how to write memo.
2 10. The materials taught students about the use of simple present
tense used in writing memo. 2
11. The contents texts, tables, images, etc. were taken from
sources relevant to the topic. 4
Mean 3.55
Table 32 shows that the mean value of materials appropriateness of Unit 2 was 3.55. This value was in the range of 3.25
x ≤ 4 which was categorised as
very good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP. b Linguistic Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of linguistic
appropriateness of Unit 2. Table 33: Linguistic Appropriateness of Unit 2
1. The language used in the instructions was in accordance with
the level of development of students. 3
2. The language used in the explanation according to the level of
cognitive development of learners. 3
3. The language used in accordance with the development of
language skills of students. 3
4. The language was presented clearly and easily understood by
students. 4
5. The language was in accordance with English grammar.
4 6.
The contents presented in one unittaskparagraphsentence reflected the harmony in the delivery of ideas.
4 7.
The texts in the materials reflected the unity of ideas. 3
Mean 3.43
Table 33 shows that the mean value of linguistic appropriateness of Unit 2 was 3.43. This value was in the range of 3.25 x
≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP.
c Method Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of method
appropriateness of Unit 2.
Table 34: Method Appropriateness of Unit 2 1.
The materials provided opening section, core activities, and reflection consistently every unit.
4 2.
The tasks were presented in a balanced manner on each unit. 3
3. In this unit, the tasks were arrangedsorted by the rules in
material development. 3
4. The tasks in the unit were presented in various ways.
3 5.
The tasks were developed to encourage interaction in English. 4
6. The tasks encouraged students to be active in the classroom.
4 7.
Materials presentation and tasks encouraged students to be active in the process of self-learning.
3 8
The materials encouraged students to recognize their success or lack in learning English.
3
Mean 3.37
Table 34 shows that the mean value of method appropriateness of Unit 2 was 3.37. This value was in the range of 3.25
x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very
good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP. d Presentation Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of presentation appropriateness of Unit 2.
Table 35: Presentation Appropriateness of Unit 2 1.
Consistent placement of the layout elements title, introduction, illustrations at the beginning of each unit.
4 2.
The placement of elements on the page layout followed a consistent pattern.
4 3.
The texts were differentiated clearly. 3
4. The illustration was able to increase the understanding on the text
content. 4
5. The illustration has a proportional size so as to provide an accurate
picture of the object in question. 4
6. In general, the illustrations shown harmoniously in accordance
with the topic of discussion. 4
7. The material developed did not use too much different typefaces
fonts. 3
8. The materials used easily readable typeface.
3
9. The materials used letter variations bold, italic, capital to
distinguish different level and stress on a text. 4
Mean 3.67
Table 35 shows that the mean value of presentation appropriateness of Unit 2 was 3.67. This value was in the range of 3.25
x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP.
2. The Revisions of Unit 2
There were only two tasks in this unit that need revision. The first was in Task 6, in which the expert suggested that instead of focusing on simple present
tense, the materials should focus in the linguistic features of expressions of asking for favor and the responses. In Task 16, the expert advised that a sample
answer should be provided.
c. The Results of the Expert Judgment and Revision of Unit 3
1. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 3
There were four aspects which were evaluated in this unit. They were materials appropriateness, linguistic appropriateness, method appropriateness,
and presentation appropriateness. The mean value for Unit 3 obtained from the expert judgment was 3.67 as shown in the table below. It was within the range
of 3.25 x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the
standard proposed by BSNP. :
Table 36: The Results of the Expert Judgment of Unit 3
1. Materials Appropriateness
3.64 2.
Linguistic Appropriateness 3.43
3. Method Appropriateness
3.75 4.
Presentation Appropriateness 3.89
Mean 3.67
Kategori