79
the second questionnaire to the participants to gain feedback and evaluation from them as it could help the writer present the final version of the designed materials.
The detail information of the participants and the results of the evaluation survey will be discussed in the next section, namely The Result of the Preliminary Field
Testing to Evaluate the Designed Set of Materials.
8. Revising and Improving the Designed Materials
After getting the evaluation and feedback, the writer revised the design materials based on the suggestions, criticims, and corrections from the participants
in the evaluation survey step.
B. The Result of the Preliminary Field Testing to Evaluate the Designed Set of Materials
After a set of instructional materials was completely designed, the writer administered Preliminary Field Testing to evaluate the design materials so that
improvement and changes can be done for the development of the material. In this evaluation step, the writer distributed the second questionnaire to the participants.
The description of the participants, their opinions, comments and suggestions as well as the revision done to improve the designed materials are described as
below.
1. Description of the Participants
The total number of the participants of the Preliminary Field Testing were four people. They were three English Instructors of Wisma Bahasa English
80
Division Yogyakarta and one lecturer of the English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. They gave their judgment towards the designed
material and the descriptions of the participants are represented in the following table.
Table 4.5: The Description of the Preliminary Field Testing Participants
Group of Participants
Sex Educational
Background Teaching Experience
in years F
M S1
S2 S3
1-5 6-10
11 English Instructors
of Wisma Bahasa Yogyakarta
2 1
3 -
- 3
- -
English Lecturer of Sanata Dharma
University -
1 -
- 1
- -
1
2. Data Presentation
The types of the questionnaires for the Preliminary Field Testing were closed and open forms. The closed questionnaire consisted of twenty statements
related to the designed materials. The participants gave their evaluation by choosing one of the points of agreements presented below:
1 = If the participants strongly disagree with the statement
2 = If the participants disagree with the statement
3 = If the participants are undecided with the statement
4 = If the participants agree with the statement
5 = If the participants strongly agree with the statement
81
Then, the writer calculated the results using the mean as central tendency. The data gained were presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: The Data of Participants’ Opinion
No Participants’ Opinion on
Central Tendency x
N X
1. The
competency standard
is well
formulated. 16
4 4.00
2. The basic competences are well formulated.
16 4
4.00 3.
The indicators are well formulated. 20
4 5.00
4. The indicators are able to support the
achievement of basic competence. 19
4 4.75
5. Overall the competency standard, basic
competences, and indicators are suitable for enhancing speaking skills in communicating
in class or at school and in teaching mathematics.
16 4
4.00
6. The topics are well selected and arranged.
16 4
4.00 7.
The syllabus is well presented. 16
4 4.00
8. The instruction were written clearly.
19 4
4.75 9.
The activities are interesting 16
4 4.00
10. The activities are suitable to meet the
indicators. 19
4 4.75
11. Snapshot section in each unit is a good ice-
breaker to direct learner’s attention to the topic.
19 4
4.75
12. The conversations in each unit match with
the topic that will be discussed. 20
4 5.00
13. The language skills which are emphasized
on the materials are well developed. 16
4 4.00
14. The mathematics parts which are discussed
on the materials are well developed. 16
4 4.00
15. The exercises in each unit are elaborated and
can facilitate the students to understand the topic being discussed.
16 4
4.00
16. The vocabularies match with the topic
discussed. 19
4 4.75
