The focus of the phase resembling Willis’ language focus phase was to make learners more aware of and understand the grammatical errors they
produced. In this phase, learners’ significant errors were presented and discussed with the class, followed with grammar exercises. In the designed materials, the
recommended grammatical item to be discussed and the exercises were constructed. However, if during the observation the teachers found a more urgent
matter to discuss, the authority to decide was fully theirs.
e. It’s Time to Write
This additional phase served as a home assignment encouraging learners to think, reflect, and evaluate what they had learned. This phase utilized
personalizing, reflecting, and self-evaluating tasks in the forms of two or three questions for learners to answer individually at home. The purpose was to help
students monitor their own progress as well as to help the teacher understand the learners better.
4. Preliminary Field Testing
After the process of developing the preliminary form of the materials was accomplished, the next step to do was preliminary field-testing. This step aimed to
evaluate the appropriateness of the designed set of the materials and to detect possible weaknesses and judge the suitability of the designed materials to be
implemented. In this step, the writer adapted Kemp’s Instructional Design step, namely, evaluating designed materials. This step was conducted through expert
validation and user validation. The background of the participants for the expert 71
validation and user validation questionnaires are presented in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14.
Table 4.13: The Description of Participants for Expert Validation Questionnaire Groups of
Respondents Educational Background
Teaching Experience Sex
D3 S1
S2 S3
1 1-5
6-10 10
M F
Lecturers 2
2 2
Table 4.14: The Description of Participants for User Validation Questionnaire Groups of
Respondents Educational Background
Teaching Experience Sex
D3 S1
S2 S3
1 1-5
6-10 10
M F
Instructors 2
1 1
2
The writer conducted expert validation by distributing evaluative questionnaire to two lecturers of the English Language Education Study Program
of Sanata Dharma University. The lecturers were selected concerning their
experience and expertise in English language teaching. The writer also conducted
user validation to two English instructors of Global Lingua, Yogyakarta by distributing the same evaluative questionnaire as used in the expert validation.
The selection of the English instructors was based on considerations that they would be the users of the materials, and hence would be able to judge the
materials’ applicability and practicality. The writer combined the results of both the expert validation and the user validation questionnaire by considering the fact
that the statements listed in both questionnaires are the same. 72
