64 Therefore, the materials which will be learned by the students are provided in the
Student’s Book. On the other hand, the Teacher’s Manual contains the way of teaching
which can be used by the teacher in teaching the English speaking instructional material. Teacher’s Manual helps the teacher in teaching the material by providing
the steps to do by the English teachers or tutors. For the steps provided in the Teacher’s Manual, the English teacherstutors can change it with the suitable one
if they think that the steps should be changed. The change can be caused by the students’ situation or some others reasons. Therefore, the English teacherstutors
still can develop the steps in teaching the English speaking material.
65
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This last chapter presents to major parts. The first part draws conclusions of this study. While, the second part of this chapter presents suggestions for the
teacher or the tutors, and other future researchers.
A. Conclusion
This study is about designing a set of English speaking instructional materials using MI approach for level 1 English Mastery of Titian Foundation,
Bayat, Klaten. There were two problem discussed in this study. The problem are: 1 how is a set of English speaking instructional materials using on MI theory for
the Level I of English Mastery class of Titian Foundation designed? and 2 what does the speaking instructional material using MI approach for Level I of English
Mastery program in Titian Foundation look like? In order to solve the first problem, the writer adapted and combined the
instructional design models offered by Kemp and Research and Development or RD by Borg and Gall 1983. The result of the adaption and combination were
five steps in designing English instructional material. The first step is research and information collecting, in which the researcher tried to identify the learners’ needs
and intelligences. The second one is planning, in which goals, topics, and the learning objectives were stated and specifying the learning objectives. The third
step is development of preliminary form of the product, in which the researcher
66 selected teaching and learning activities. The fourth step is preliminary field
testing, in which the researcher conducted materials evaluation. The last step is main product revision, in which the researcher revised the materials based on the
evaluation from expert and the participants of evaluation. In order to answer the second problem, the researcher presented the final
version of the English speaking instructional materials model. The designed materials consist of four units. They are Let’s Be Friends Unit 1, Thanks a
Million Unit 2, I Always… Unit 3, and I Wanna Be…Unit 4. The duration of each unit is 1 x 90 minutes. There are some activities in each unit. The number of
activities depends on the needs of the unit so it may has different number of activities in each unit. The final version of the designed material was presented in
Appendix J Student’s Book and Appendix K Teacher’s Manual.
B. Suggestions
Based on the conclusion presented above, the writer proposed some suggestions for the benefits of the English teachers or tutors who would like to use
this design and also for the future researchers. Below are suggestions proposed by the writer.
1. For English Teacher or Tutors The teachers or tutors need to make sure that the classroom setting should
be set carefully so the activities can go well. Since this design deals with speaking skill, the teachers or tutors have to make sure that communicative activities should
be the primary activities without ignoring the focus of intelligences being used in
67 the material. The teachers or tutors have to make sure that English is actively used
in both teacher-student and student-student communication. 2. For Future Researchers
For the future researchers who will use this research as related study for their research, this study only deals with the material development from the
available module before. An implementation needs to be carried out in order to know the strengths and also weaknesses of this design material. At the end of this
course, the research can also have a measurement test to test the effectiveness of this material in acquiring students’ speaking skill and in developing their MI.
68
REFERENCES
Amstrong, T. 1994. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razarich, A. 1990. Introduction to research in education
4
th
ed. USA: Rineheart and Winston. Banathy, B. 1976. Instructional system. A paper presented at Seminar Nasional
Inovasi dan Teknologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: IKIP Negri Jakarta. Borg, W. R., Gall, M. D. 1983. Educational research: An introduction.
London: Longman. Brown, J. D., Rodgers, T. S. 2004. Doing second language research. NY:
Oxford University Press. Campbell, B. 1991, January 1. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Retrieved
January 25
th
, 2015, from http:www.context.orgiclibic27campbell Campbell, L. 1996. Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.
Needham Heights: A Simon Schuster Company. Campbell, L., Campbell, B., Dickinson, D.2004. Teaching and learning
through multiple intelligences 3
rd
ed.. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Campbell, B. 2014. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Retrieved on
September 17
th
, 2014 from http:www.context.orgiclibic27campbell Carver, T. K., Fotinos, S. D. 1998. A conversation book I: English in
everyday life 3
rd
ed.. NY: Pearson Education. Christinson, M. 1998. Applying multiple intelligences in the second and foreign
language major room. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center Publishers.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2010. The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Dick, W., Reiser, R. A. 1989. Planning effective instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple intelligences; The theory in practice. New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: The intelligences for 21
st
century. New
York: BasicBooks.
69 Gardner, H. 2011. Frames of mind; The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: BasicBooks. Hoerr, T. R. 2000. Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Alexandria, USA:
Va. Assoc. Hoerr, T. R., Boggeman, S., Wallach, C. 2010. Celebrating every learner:
Activities and strategies for creating multiple intelligences classroom . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Houle, C. O. 1978. The design of education. London: Jossey – Bass.
Hutchinson, T., Water, A. 1994. English for specific purpose: A learning centered approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemp, J. E. 1977. Instructional design: A plan for unit and course development.
California: Fearon-Pitman Publishers. Labovits, S., Hagedorn, R. 1971. Introduction to social research. New York:
McGraw – Hill Book. Co. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching 2
nd
ed. London: Oxford University Press. Lazarton, A. 2001. Teaching oral skills. In Marriane Celce-Murcia ed.
Teaching English as a second or foreign language 3
rd
ed. Boston: Heinle Heinle.
Liu, H., Chen, T. 2013. Foreign language anxiety in young learners: How it relates to multiple intelligences, learner attitudes, and perceived
competence. Journal of language teaching and research, 45, pp. 932-938 Louma, S. 2004. Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Madatika, L. N. 2012. A set of instructional speaking materials based on multiple intelligence theory for the fourth grade students of SD Pius
Kutoarjo . Unpublished Thesis. Yogyakarta: English Language Education
Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Mindy, K. 2005. Living usage ingeniously on the multiple intelligences. Taipei,
Taiwan: Yuan-Liou. Negari, R. S. 2009 The implementation of multiple intelligences theory through
a set of integrated material to teach English to the fifth grade students. Unpublished Thesis. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study
Program, Sanata Dharma University.
NN. n.d. Retrieved on February 20
th
, 2015 from http:www.esl-galaxy.com
