c. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 3
The assessed items in Unit 3 were not different from Unit 1 and Unit 3; those were the appropriateness of the content, language, materials presentation,
and the materials layout. The first assessed item was the appropriateness of the content, as shown in the following table:
Table 4.7.3a: The results of expert judgment on the content appropriateness in Unit 3.
No. Items
Means Description of Agreement
1. The appropriateness of the material
4 Agree
2. The depth of the material
4 Agree
3. The accuracy of the material
4 Agree
4. The novelty of the material
4 Agree
The means for the appropriateness, the depth, the accuracy, and the novelty of the material were 4. It means the whole content of the material was appropriate
for the second grade students of automotive engineering. After the content was assessed, the next assessed item was the appropriateness of the language, as
shown in the following table:
Table 4.7.3b: The results of expert judgment on the language appropriateness in Unit 3.
No. Items
Means Description of Agreement
1. The appropriateness towards the students’
ability development 4.50
Strongly Agree
2. The communicative aspect
4 Agree
3. The language accuracy
3 Neutral Neither Agree or
Disagree 4.
The unity of the material 4
Agree The result of the expert judgment in Unit 3 was not different from Unit 1
and Unit 2. The means for the communicative aspects and the unity of the material were 4. Furthermore, the mean for the appropriateness towards the students’
ability development was 4.50. Those indicated that Unit 3 was appropriate towards the students’ development. Also, the communicative aspect and the unity
of the material in Unit 3 were quite good. Meanwhile, as in Unit 1 and Unit 2, the mean for the language accuracy were 3, which was neither agreed or disagree. It
indicated that there were many grammatical mistakes in Unit 3 which should be revised.
The next item which was assessed in Unit 3 was the appropriateness of material presentation. The result of expert judgment in this aspect was shown in
the following table:
Table 4.7.4c: The results of expert judgment on the materials presentation in Unit 3.
No. Items
Means Description of Agreement 1.
The presentation technique 4
Agree 2.
The tasks presentation 4
Agree Both means for the presentation technique and the tasks presentation was 4.
It means that the materials presentation in Unit 3 was appropriate for the second grade students of automotive engineering in SMK Sanjaya Ngawen. After the
materials presentation was assessed, the last item in Unit 3 which was assessed
was the appropriateness of the materials layout. The results of expert judgment in this aspect were shown in the following table:
Table 4.7.4d: The results of expert judgment on the appropriateness of the layout in Unit 3.
No. Items
Means Description of Agreement
1. The content layout
4 Agree
2. The content illustration
4 Agree
3. The typography of the material 4
Agree The means for the content layout, illustration, and the typography of the
material were 4. It indicated that the materials layout in Unit 3 was appropriate for the second grade students of automotive engineering in SMK Sanjaya Ngawen.
From the results of expert judgment above, the speaking material which was designed was appropriate for the second grade students of automotive
engineering. The content, the materials presentation, and the materials layout were quite good and appropriate. Meanwhile, for the language aspect, the
appropriateness towards the students’ ability, the communicative aspect, and the unity of the ideas were quite good and appropriate, but the language accuracy
aspect needs to be corrected because of many grammatical mistakes found in the exercise in each unit.
5. The Review of the First Draft of the Materials
The first draft of the material needs to be revised, there were still many mistakes found by the material developer in each unit based on the results of
expert judgment. First, the title on each unit was not consistent. The title in each
unit should be theme, language functions, or language expressions. Then, the sources of the pictures in each unit were not mentioned. Besides that, each unit in
the speaking material was not focused in one language function; it still contains two language functions. Meanwhile, the use of intermezzo in each page was not
consistent. In one page, there were quotes, and in other pages, there were riddle or cartoon. Those mistakes need to be revised. Here, the material developer will
present the evaluation and revision of Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3. The evaluation and revision of each unit was presented in the following table:
a. The Evaluation and Revision of Unit 1:
Table 4.8.1: The evaluation and revision of Unit 1.
Task Evaluation
Revision
Task 1 The source of the picture in task
1 was not mentioned. The source of the picture in task 1
was mentioned. Grammatical mistakes in task 1
must be revised: 1. Have you ever been repairing
your vehicle? 2. What part of the vehicle that
you repair? 3. What tools that you need?
4. Can you explain how do you repair your vehicle?
The revision of the grammatical mistakes in task 1:
1. Have you ever repaired your vehicle?
2. What part of the vehicle did you repair?
3. What tools did you need? 4. Can you explain how you
repaired your vehicle? Task 2
The words in the box begin with capital letter.
The words in the box must be in small letter.
The source of the picture in task 2 was not mentioned.
The source of the picture in task 2 was mentioned.
Kategori