72 the combination of reading and writing skills with the addition of grammar and
vocabulary sections.
4. Preliminary Field Testing
a. Evaluation Instrument
After the designed materials were combined into four units of learning, the researcher distributed the materials to the evaluators. The materials should be able
to meet the needs and the objectives as well as help the students to achieve the targets of study. Thus, evaluations from the experts were needed to gain some
opinions, comments, and suggestions. The evaluators were the people who were considered as experts in designing materials and or the representatives who were
familiar with the subject that the research was conducted. Later, the feedback was going to be used as the evaluation for the researcher to revise the product and to
achieve well-designed materials which were suitable for the first semester students of History Department.
The researcher conducted evaluation to the English lecturer of History Departments and two English lecturers of English Language Education Study
Program ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The data description of the evaluators was presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 The Description of Evaluators Background
Respondents Sex
Educational Background
Teaching Experiences in Years
Male Female
S1 S2
S3 1-5
6-10 11-15
16-20 20
The English lecturer of
History Department
√ √
√
73
Respondents Sex
Educational Background
Teaching Experiences in Years
Male Female
S1 S2
S3 1-5
6-10 11-15
16-20 20
The English lecturer of
ELESP Sanata Dharma
University √
√ √
The English lecturer of
ELESP Sanata Dharma
University √
√ √
The researcher distributed the evaluation questionnaires which consisted of selected-response questions and open-ended questions. In the selected response
questions, the evaluators were asked to put a tick in the points of agreement available about the topics, learning objectives, reading texts, writing tasks, the
exercises, the instructions, the layout and the overall presentation of the designed materials. The open ended questions consisted of two questions: first the strengths
and the weaknesses of the designed materials and second the feedback for the researcher.
The result of the evaluation was analyzed in a statistical description which was presented in Table 4.8. From the result, the mean ranged from 3 to 3.7 on the
scale of 4. It meant that the designed materials were considered appropriate and acceptable but still needed some revisions. The comments and feedback given by
the evaluators were useful to revise and improve the materials.
