19
written in the objectives. At the end of the meeting, the teachers need to assess the students in order to know whether they have achieved the goal.
In this research, the evaluation was conducted two times; before pre-test and after post-test GAIL the treatment was applied. The pre-test was done to measure
the students’ writing skill before the treatment. After the treatment was given, the post -test was conducted. In order to maintain the equal aspects of the evaluation
Kothari, 2004, both tests were assessed by using adapted rubric from Wagner 2002.
As mentioned previously, the activites taken for GAIL were chosen by considering material development theory by Tomlinson and Matsuhara 2004.
Presented below is the complete explanation of the theory.
2.1.4 Material Development Theory in GAIL
In designing GAIL, the researcher applied minus category. Applying this category meant the researcher made some modifications in the content of the adapted
materials Tomlinson Matsuhara, 2004. The further reason for choosing minus category was because the researcher decreased the level of difficulties of the
materials and omitted the part of sentences in the materials; these actions belonged to minus category in Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s theory. In addition, these steps were
done in order to develop some materials that will meet students’ need Jackson, 2011.
In developing the materials, the writer seeks to incorporate valid theories as the basis of this part of the study. In doing so, the writer adapted Tomlinson and
20
Matsuhara’s 2004 materials development theory into the theoretical framework. The writer intended to utilize this theory to complement Kemp’s 1997 adapted
instructional design steps. The materials evaluation and revision of Kemp’s 1997 steps were the focus of Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s 2004 adapted theory. The writer
employed two out of five steps of materials adaptation from the mentioned authors, which were: 1 the evaluation, and 2 the adaptation theory. These steps were used as
guidances to strengthen Eclectic Approach and to adapt the relevant ones from Deep Learning Cycles as part of Kemp’s revision processes.
Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s 2004 materials evaluation measurements and adaptation techniques were employed and linked to the first and last steps of Kemp’s
adapted instructional design. The materials evaluation measurements covered seven inquiry points which were: 1 the appeal or attractiveness of the materials, 2 the
validity or whether materials teach worth teaching, 3 the ability of materials to interest the learners and the lecturers, 4 the ability of the materials to motivate the
learners or to stimulate the learners so they want to give time and energy to the materials, 5 the potential learning values, 6 the preparation, delivery and assessment
assistance given to the lecturers, and 7 adaptation flexibility of materials by lecturers to suit a particular context .
Furthermore, the materials adaptation theory section that was implemented has three main categories: a Plus +, b Minus - and or c Zero 0 i.e.
modification without changing quantity. Shown below are the adaptation techniques with each set of details explained in the tables under each category explained before.
