b. Expert Validation
After developing the product, a formative evaluation was conducted. Morrison, Ross, Kalman, Kemp 2011, p. 274 state that “formative evaluation
is the quality control of the development process”. The materials thus would be verified by the expert to know how well the designed materials. This step is called
as expert validation. To validate the designed materials, the researcher distributed close and open-ended questionnaires for experienced lecturers and English
teachers. The experts’ opinions, feedback and suggestions are really helpful to
identify, to eliminate, and to modify existing materials. In other words, formative evaluation result was used as a basis for developing the existing materials.
There were two English lecturers and two English teachers in this study. They were selected concerning their experience and expertise. They are English
Lecturers in English Language Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. The first participant has been teaching English for more than 23 years. Right now she
teaches English for Young Learners subject for graduate students. Meanwhile, the second participant has been teaching for about 15 years. Foundation in English
Education and Program and Material Development are two subjects he taught. Both the lectures are experts in designing the materials. They have designed many
books for schools. The third was an English teacher for young learners. She teaches in SD Negeri Purwomartani Kalasan and Jomblang 1 Berbah. The last
expert was a teacher in Kanisius Elementary school Kulon Progo and UKDW University. She is also a fourth semester graduate student in Sanata Dharma
University. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
The questionnaire for experts consists of 23 closed-ended questions and 4 open-ended questions. The questionnaire was intended to validate the design of
listening and speaking activities and the applicability of CALL principles. The questionnaire for the English teacher was distributed on Monday, April 4
th
, 2016, whereas for the English lecturer was done on Tuesday, April 12
th
, 2016.
Table 4.8 Meaning of Point of Agreement Meaning of Scores
Converted Scores
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Undecided 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
As can be seen in the table above, the questionnaire was a Likert Scale questionnaire, with 5 responses. The result score of the questionnaire was
converted to find out the interpretation and meaning. There were five answers provided; i.e. Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree. The result then can be interpreted as the following table.
Table 4.9 Quantitative Data Conversion Sudijono, 2009, p. 175
From the table above, the score range is categorized into 1-5. It can be seen that if the mean score was above 4.6, it was considered as very good. It
means that the design did not need any revision. Then, if the mean was in the range 3.6
– 4.5, it means the revision was optional. After that, the design was fair but still need to be modified in some parts of the design if the range of mean score
was in the range 2.6 – 3.5. Next, if the score was in the range 1.6 – 2.5, it was
considered poor and recommended to revise some parts. Lastly, if the mean score was under 1.5, it means that the design was considered as very poor. Thus, it
definitely needed to have a total revision. The following table is the result of expert validation questionnaire.
Table 4.10 Result of Expert Validation Questionnaire No.
Statements Mean M
1. The topics are related with the syllabus.
3.75 2.
The materials are suitable with the student s’ needs.
4.25 3.
The materials are arranged systematically. 4
4. The learning outcomes are clearly stated.
3 5.
The input is meaningful and relevant content. 3.5
6. The input is attractive in motivating students to
view. 3.75
7. The input presents a simple new language and ideas.
3.75 8.
The designed materials enable students to understand more about the topics.
3.5 9.
The input can make the students enjoy learning process.
3.5 10.
The designed materials provide enough chunks of language.
4 11.
The designed materials provide clear pronunciation. 3.5
12. The designed materials encourage students to use
self- corrections to improve the clarity of production.
3.25
13. The designed materials help the students using facial
expression and body language to convey meaning. 3
14. The designed materials teach grammar implicitly.
3.75 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15. The designed materials encourage the students to
produce language according to the situations. 3.75
16. The designed materials encourage interaction
between students and students and between students and teacher.
3.5
17. The designed materials support learners in learning
language with different ways of learning. 4.25
18. The designed materials encourage the students to
produce varied and creative language. 4.25
19. The designed materials offer opportunities to
students to interact and negotiate meaning. 3.5
20. The designed materials promote students to evaluate
their own work and to give feedback to the other students of the class.
3.75
21. The designed materials establish an ideal classroom
atmosphere. 3.75
22. The designed materials provoke the learner
autonomy. 3.5
23. The designed materials provide authentic tasks.
3.5
Total Score 84.25
Mean 3.66
In the table above, the average point of central tendency on the expert validation questionnaire was 3.66 from the scale 5.00. It is interpreted as good.
However, there were certain parts which still need to be revised and modified. Firstly, on the first statement, it can be seen that the mean score was 3.75. It
means that the topics are related to the syllabus. However, one of expert mentioned that there were some parts were incompleted so that, several parts need
to be included in the design. In line with the syllabus, the designed materials were suitable for
the learners’ needs since the researcher conducted needs analysis and document analysis before designing the materials. It was proved from the result
that the mean score was 4.25 which considered as good. From this result, there was
no revision regarding the students’ needs.
The next statement was about the learning outcomes. The mean score was 3. It reflected that the learning outcomes were clearly stated. This result was
considered as good. However, it still needs an exploration on the design for the improvement of the design. From the result of the discussion with the experts,
they suggested clarifying the objectives of each topic. It aims to reach the learning goal successfully and make the learning process more purposeful. Thus the
researcher made some changes to the learning objectives. Another component which still needs some attentions was statement
number 13. The participants of the expert validation said that the video animation has not yet helped the students using facial expression and body language to
convey meaning. During designing the materials, the researcher just considered that video animation maker has very limited of facial expression and body
language. It made the characters in the video animation did not act the language out expressively like what human do. Therefore, to overcome this problem, the
researcher creates such activities that use actions to make the meaning of the words clear and to help the students more understand about the language.
According to Moon, 2006, physical activity will help children to construct their understanding the language. She also adds that physical activity provides children
with exposure to meaningful input. The second part of the questionnaire was open-ended questions. Generally,
the participants argued that the designed materials were fascinating and appropriate for young learners, interesting, and providing the simplicity of the
language. In addition, it provides opportunities for the teacher to provide a better context of the language. Nevertheless, there were some comments and suggestions
Kategori