The Description of the Preliminary Field Testing of the Learning Material The Data Presentation

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