students may apply what they have read into completing and discussing the questions. The discussion may be conducted between peer or among peers with
the teacher’s guidance. The next activity that was instructed to the students was Exercise Section. All
applications in Exercise Section were designed by Dwijatmoko 2015. The researcher only modified and adjusted the content with the suitable one for the
students in grade 7. The application was facilitated with response and score that made the application became interactive. Lastly, as the follow-up activity, the
researcher adapted Mytext PowerPoint Application for the students. This application was designed to practice writing. The detail description about the
presentation of the learning model was explained in section B of this chapter.
4. Product Validation
According to Ary, Jacobs Razavieh 2002: 242 validity is “the most important consideration in developing and evaluating measuring instruments”.
The focus of recent views of validity is not in the instrument itself but on the interpretation on meaning of the scores derived from the instrument. The one who
can validate the designed learning model is the experts. In this term, the experts that were needed were experts of English material and the experts of educational
technology. The following are the description of the experts that became the participants in the evaluation of designed learning model.
Table 4.7 The Description of Participants in the Evaluation of Design Learning Model
Participants Sex
Educational Background
Teaching experience
in year
F M
S1 S2
S3 1-5
5-10 10-15
English teacher 1
- 1
- -
- -
1 English lecturer
2 -
- 2
- 2
- -
The English teacher was considered as the expert of English material. Her educational background was bachelor degree. She has teaching experience for 14
years in SMP Pangudi Luhur 1 Yogyakarta see appendix 8. The two English lecturers were considered as the experts of educational
technology. Their educational degree was post graduate degree. Their teaching experience was about 5 years. One English lecturer is teaching at Sanata Dharma
University and the other is at Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa University. The experts were given questionnaires as the instrument to validate the
designed learning media. The questions dealt with the English material and educational technology. The result score of the questionnaire was converted to
find out the interpretation and meaning. The following table is the agreement of converted score.
Table 4.8 The Agreement of Expert Validation Questionnaire No
Meaning Of Scores Converted
Scores
5 Strongly agree with the statementsquestions
5 4
Agree with the statementsquestions 4
3 Not sure with the statementsquestions
3 2
Disagree with the statementsquestions 2
1 Strongly
Disagree with
the statementsquestions
1
Since the questionnaire is made using Likert scale, there were five answers provided; i.e. Strongly Agree, Agree, Average, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.
Number 5 is the point for the answer Strongly Disagree, number 4 is for Agree, number 3 is for Average, number 2 is for Disagree, and number 1 is for Strongly
Disagree. After the answers were changed into number, they were converted in order to be interpreted. Number 5 is converted into 5 points, number 4 is 4 point,
number 3 is 3, number 2 is 2 and number 1 is converted into 1. The following table is the result of descriptive statistics of expert validation questionnaire that
has been converted. The following table is the interpretation of the Expert validation questionnaire.
Table 4.9 The Interpretation of the Expert Validation Questionnaire Range
Meaning
3.50 – 5.00 No revision
3.00 – 3.49 Conduct more exploration on the existing part of the
learning model 2.50 – 2.99
Modify part of the designed learning model 0.00 – 2.49
Replace the rejected part of the designed learning model
Based on the table 4.9, the analyzed data can be interpreted as the following explanation. With the total maximum point 5, the designed learning model was
considered as very good and no revision needed if the response rate of 70 percent out of the total maximum point was considered as very high. Therefore, the range
score was 3.50 – 5.00. The designed learning model was considered as good and needs to be explored more if the response rate of 60 percent out of the total
maximum point was considered as high. Thus, the range point was 3.00 – 3.49.
The designed learning model is considered as poor and needs to modify if the response rate of 50 percent out of the maximum point was considered as adequate.
Then, the range score was 2.50 – 2.99. The designed learning model was considered as very poor and need a replacement the response rate below 50
percent out of the maximum point. The range score was 0.00 – 2.49. The result of Expert Validation questionnaire is displayed in the following table.
Table 4.10 The Result of Experts Validation Questionnaire No
Statement Mean
Criteria 1.
The syllabus is well developed. 4.33
Very Good
2. The topic in the learning model is in line with the
