67
Table 4.4 D
escription of the Post-Design Participants
Sex Education
Teaching experience in years Respondents
Female Male D1 S1
S2 1
1-5 6-10 10
English teachers 2 2
2 English
Lecturers 1 2 3
1 2
From the data above, there were 2 English teachers and 3 English lecturers who gave evaluation on the proposed designed materials. Two of the English
teachers are S1 graduates and three of the English lecturers are S2 graduates.
2. Data Presentation
This section presents two parts. The first part describes the presentation of the descriptive statistics of the respondents’ opinions. The second part presents
respondents’ comments and suggestions on the designed instructional materials.
a. The Descriptive Statistics of the Respondents’ Opinion
Questionnaires were used to obtain the data from the respondents. The respondents evaluated the designed materials by choosing one of the points of
agreements. The assessment of the respondents’ opinions on the designed materials used five points of agreement. They were:
1 : strongly disagree with the statement
2 : disagree with the statement
3 : undecided with the statement
68
4 : agree with the statement
5 : strongly agree with the statement
The following data presents the result of the descriptive statistic of the respondents’ opinions on the designed materials:
Table 4.5 The Participants’ Opinion in the Designed Materials
Central Tendencies No
Participants’ opinion on N Mn
1 The competence standard is well formulated
- -
2 The basic competences are well formulated
- -
3 The indicators are well formulated
5 4
4 The indicators are able to support the attainment
of basic competences 5 4
5 The topics are well selected and arranged
5 4
6 The instructions are already clear
5 3.6
7 The materials are matched with the competences
and indicators 5 3.8
8 The pre-activity, main-activity, and the post-
activity are well-developed 5 3.4
9 The materials are interesting, suitable and relevant
for the grade VIII students of SMP II Indonesia 5 4.2
10 The materials are able to help students to develop
their ability in writing English 5 4.2
11 The learning experience are relevant with KTSP
5 3.6
12 The use of Process-Based Approach to teach
writing is well-developed 5 3.8
69
13 The content is relevant with the context and the
situation which the language is used 5 4
14 Generally, the instructional materials are well-
elaborated 5 4.2
N : Number of respondents
Mn : Mean an indicator of central tendencies of the
sources set The mean was counted using the formulation below:
Note:
x
: The range point
: The sum of all scores
N : The number of respondents
b. Respondents’ Comments and Suggestions on the Designed Materials
Open-ended questionnaire were distributed in order to obtain feedback, comments, and suggestions on the designed materials. There were three questions
asked in the questionnaire. The questions were about the weaknesses, the suggestions, and also the comments or the opinions on the designed materials.
=
x
N
70
From the three questions, the writer concluded the feedback and suggestions as follows:
1 The writer should reconsider the time allocation for each unit.
2 The writer should include the modeling step as in Genre-Based Approach in
every unit in the designed materials. 3
The vocabulary must be rearranged well. It is better to have the part of vocabulary in the pre-activity.
4 The vocabulary is not related to the previous parts.
5 It is better if the material of personal letter is changed into Email, message in
Facebook, etc. It will be more interesting and up to date. 6
The first and second question of the material evaluation questioner should be omitted because the Competence Standard and Basic Competence are already
formulated by Government. This means that Competence Standard and Basic Competence are already well-formulated.
C. Discussion on the Designed Instructional Materials Evaluation
From the data presentation, the average point of the central tendency is 3.9 on the scale of 5. This means that the designed materials were well-formulated and
acceptable to the grade VIII students of SMP Institut Indonesia Yogyakarta. However, the designed materials still need revisions based on the respondents’
comments, suggestions, and feedback. Besides, based on the respondents’ feedback and suggestions, the writer
revised the designed materials. The revisions were as follows:
