82
3 Post Activities
This section, namely Assessing Yourself, was an assessment task which covered language exercises and feedback. There were two kinds of the assessment
which were the personal assessment and the summarized assessment. For the personal assessment, the students gave a tick on the providing statements in a
table in order to value their works or friends ‟ works. Then the students created a
summary of the lessons maintaining what they have got through learning each unit. The time estimations were 10-15 minutes.
B. Researh Findings and Discussion of the Materials Evaluation
At this sub chapter, there were two parts which were presented. The frist part was the preliminary filed testing which was recommended for conducting
evaluation on the designed product. The second part was the main product revision which attended to make revision based on the results of the evaluation on
the designed product.
1. Preliminary Field Testing
At this stage, the writer conducted evaluation. The framework of this stage was seen in figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Preliminary Field Testing Framework
Preliminary Field Testing
Evaluation
83 The instructional materials including materials, recources, and activities or
exercises were evaluated to assess the suitibility of the designed product. Kemp 1977 did agree that the evaluation was needed to assess the suitability of the
objectives, subject contents, learning methods and the materials. In other words, Yalden 1987 gave high intention to conduct the evaluation to fit between goals
set and final performances of the students, as there was no implication of the designed product. Thus, the product was evaluated by some experts. The
description of the repondents was clarified in table 4.7. The writer gathered the quantitative and qualiatative data which were shown in table 4.8 and table 4.9.
a. Description of the Respondents
The evaluators were eight repondents with different professions, experiences, and educational background. They were a lecturer, four teachers, and
three material designers.
Table 4.7: Desciption of the Respondents
No Respondents
Educational Background
Teaching Experiences
1 Lecturer
Ph.d 10 years
2 Teacher1
Bachelor Degree 1-5 years
3 Teacher2
Bachelor Degree 1-5 years
4 Teacher3
Bachelor Degree 1 year
5 Teacher 4
Bachelor Degree 10 years
6 Material Designer 1
Bachelor Degree 1 year
7 Material Designer 2
Bachelor Degree 1 year
8 Material Designer 3
Bachelor Degree 1-5 years
The lecturer was from Sanata Dharma University who had more than 10 years teaching experiences. Two of the teachers were from SMA Katolik
Villanova, the place where this study occured, who had 1 up to 5 years experiences. The other teachers had experiences to teach in Papua for more than
84 one years teaching expriences. Three material designers who did the same study,
RD, were fresh graduated-students of Sanata Dharma English Education Study program. They had designed the instructional materials and defenced their thesis
scientifically. Additionally, there were not certain considerations to choose the eight respondents. The researcher maintained the time to finish this thesis, as
some of the respondents did not finished evaluating the materials on the deadline. Moreover, as an expectation, the participants assessed the suitibility of the
designed product.
b. Data Presentation of the Materials Evaluation Questionnaires
The writer distributed 10 questionnaires to 10 respondents, yet only 8 questionnaires were submitted. The respondents were asked to assess the
suitibility of materials. There were two parts of the questionnaires, which were part I and Part II. There were 10 statements that stated about the relevance
between content and indicators, feacibility of the content and integration of the activities or exercises for all units. In part II, the respondents were asked to give
critiques for weaknesses, state the strengths and give the overall comments and the suggestions to improve the designed product. The data were gathered in the
form of quantitative and qualitattive data. To analyze the data, the writer used mean score and summarizing for the qualitative data. The mean score was more
stable data measurement than mode or median which was used to summarize the data Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, 2010.
