51
of the English extracurricular activity and the second teacher was the 2
nd
graders’ English teacher. The interview was done on the 21
st
and 23
rd
of April 2010.
2. Data Gathering Technique of the Post-design Study
In the post-study, the writer distributed post-design questionnaire and the designed materials to the users and experts. The designed materials were
examined by the users who included two English teachers of SD Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta
and the experts who were three lecturers of Sanata Dharma University
who had at least 5 years experience in teaching.
E. Data Analysis Technique
This section would elaborate the technique used to analyze the obtained data in the pre-design study and post-design study.
1. Data Analysis Technique of the Pre-design Study
In the pre-design study, the technique which used in data processing was descriptive analysis. The participant observation was aimed to give the writer to
have teaching experience in the English extracurricular class. The writer did the participant observations during the first and second semesters to find out the
students’ characteristics, difficulties, what interest and bore them and media used. The results of the participant observations were analyzed descriptively where the
writer drew conclusions from the checklist used. The data gained from interviewing two English teachers of SD Pangudi
Luhur Yogyakarta which was analyzed descriptively by drawing a conclusion of
each question and made it into one main idea. In order to find out the result of the
52
interview with the teachers, the writer attempted to interpret the interview results by drawing the conclusion of each answer.
2. Data Analysis Technique of the Post-design Study
In the post-design study the writer analyzed descriptive statistic data. Likert scale type and open-ended questionnaire distributed to the two English teachers of
SD Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta and three English lecturers of Sanata Dharma
University PBI. There were two kinds of data analyzed in the post-design study, those were about the participants’ educational background and secondly, the
descriptive data of the participants’ statements. In this post design study, the writer used two kinds of data; the first one was
the data about the post-design participants. In order to make justification about the experts’ qualifications, the writer made a table showing the differences between
the lectures and the teachers in terms of sex, educational background and teaching experiences. The format of the post-design study questionnaire is described in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: The Blueprint of the Description of the Respondents’ Background
Respondents Sex Educational
Background Teaching Experience
in years Male Female
S1 S2 S3 1-5 6-10 11-15 English teacher
English lecturer
53
The second data was the descriptive data about the participants’ statements. The first part of the questionnaire was closed-form questionnaire where the
participants gave their judgments in four degrees of agreements. The second part of the questionnaire was open-response where the respondents gave their
comments and suggestions freely. The closed-form questionnaire was in a form of Likert’s scale. The Likert’s scale which ranged from 1 to 4 was adopted from Best
1970:173. The four degrees of agreements were: 1: strongly disagreevery poor
2: disagreepoor 3: agreegood
4: strongly agreevery good In order to calculate the data of the post design questionnaire, the writer
employed the central tendency proposed by Brown and Rodger, namely “mean” or as known as “average” which could be used to describe the average or the sum
among a group of scores. Mean or the average point was discovered by calculating the sum of the respondents’ answer
∑x divided with the total number of the respondents N. The formula was showed on the next page.
Note: M
: mean or the average point ∑×
: the sum of the respondents’ answer N
: the total number of the respondents =
M
N
54
The data was presented in form of table which showed the respondents’ opinions, statements and mean or point average. The format of the table is shown in Table
3.2.
Table 3.2: The Blueprint of the Results of the First Part of the Post-design Questionnaire
No Statement Degree
of Agreement
Central Tendency
1 2 3 4 N
M
Notes: N: the total number of the students
M: Mean
In the preliminary field testing, the designed materials would be considered acceptable and good or not. In order to find out the feasibility of the designed
materials, the writer made categorizations to put the judgment on the designed materials. The maximum points were 4. Good and acceptable designed materials
reached the total points which were more than seventy five percent of the maximum points. It could be concluded that good and acceptable designed
materials had to reach more than 3 points. If the designed materials reached the total of central tendency about fifty up to seventy five percents, it meant that the
designed materials were good but needed some crucial revisions. Further, if the designed materials only reached the total of central tendency below fifty percent,
it meant that the materials were poorly designed.
55
F. Research Procedure
