a. The Description of the Preliminary Field Testing of the Learning Material
Model Respondents
The description of the preliminary field testing of the learning material model respondents was presented in the table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Description of the Preliminary Field Testing of the Learning Material Model Respondents
Respondents Sex
Educational Background
Teaching Experience F
M S1
S2 S3
1-5 6-10
10
English lecturer √
- -
√ -
√ -
- English teacher 1
√ -
√ -
- -
- √
English teacher 2 √
- -
√ -
- -
√
b. The Data Presentation
The data for this subsection was acquired from the evaluation of the learning material model by distributing the evaluation questionnaires. There were
two parts that would be discussed in this subsection, namely the Descriptive Statistics of Respondents‟ Opinions on the Learning Material Model and the
Respondents‟ Comments and Suggestions on the Learning Material Model.
1 The Descriptive Statistics of Respondents’ Opinions on the Learning
Material Model
This part presents the respondents‟ opinion on the learning material model by stating whether they strongly agree, agree, doubt, disagree, or strongly disagree
on the statements by choosing one of five points of agreement. The questionnaire is intended to obtain feedback about the appropriateness of the learning material
model for technology divisions of vocational high school. The following table is the Table of Point of Agreement on the Learning Material Model.
Table 4.9: Meaning of Point of Agreement Point of
Agreement Meaning
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Doubt
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree
After obtaining the results from experts, here the interpretation was to identify and to indicate the results that were obtained through closed type of
questionnaire. The interpretation of degree of agree ment for experts‟ validation
could be presented as follows.
Table 4.10: Interpretation of the Degree of Agreement for Experts’
Validation Widyoko, 2014: p. 238 No.
Criteria Score
Meaning
1. Very good
x 4,2 No revision
2. Good
3,4 x ≤ 4,2 Conduct more exploration on the existing
part of the design based on the statement 3.
Enough 2,6 x
≤ 3,4 Add more part or modify part of the design based on the lack on the statement
4. Poor
1,8 x ≤ 2,6 Replace the rejected part of the design
5. Very poor
x ≤ 1,8
Replace almost the whole part
Next, the following is the table of the Descriptive Statistics of Experts‟
Validation. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Table 4.11: Descriptive Statistics of Expert’s Validation
No. Statement
Frequency of points of agreement
Central Tendency
1 2
3 4
5 N
M
1. A Competence-Based