The respondents were also asked to give their opinion about the downside of the materials or what need to be improved. Based on their point of view, it is
necessary to add more vocabulary and writing exercises. Also, it was found that some audios in the PowerPoint presentation are not clear. These findings are
drawn from the following answers. The audio in some slides is not loud and clear enough. OEQ 31: Appendix
8 Give more writing practice especially for unit 2. OEQ 33: Appendix 8
I think you can add more vocabulary in the material since the materials is for grade 5. OEQ 32: Appendix 8
2 Validation of the Materials from Technology Experts
The following table presents the experts‟ judgment towards the developed materials, especially the PowerPoint presentation. All of the staments are based
on the essential elements of good software design by Boling and Soo 1999.
Table 4.4 The Descriptive Statistics of Experts’ Judgement on the Media
No. Statement
N x̅ Category
1. The layout is consistent.
2 5
Very good 2.
The letter font, letter size, and capitalization are consistent.
2 5
Very good 3.
Icons symbols are used consistently. 2
5 Very good
4. The layout is attractive.
2 5
Very good 5.
Each section of content fits onto one slide. 2
5 Very good
6. The texts are legible and readable.
2 5
Very good 7.
In one slide, different elements have contrast colors. 2 5
Very good 8.
Icons symbols are used repeatedly in every slide consistently.
2 4.5 Very good
9. In one slide, the same elements are placed close to
each other while unrelated elements are placed farther apart.
2 4.5 Very good
10. The navigation is easy to understand. 2
4.5 Very good 11. Navigation errors are easy to handle.
2 4.5 Very good
12. The audiovideo playback are of good quality. 2
3.5 Good
. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
The data in the table shows that in terms of consistency, use of space, legibility, contrast, repetition, alignment, proximity, and ease of navigation and
recovery, the media is categorized into „very good‟. It is indicated from the mean
score which is above 4.2. This finding is supported by the respondents‟ asnwers to the open-ended questions.
Interesting. It is easy to use since PowerPoint is a software that is already widely used. OEQb11: Appendix 9
This PowerPoint presentation has a good appearance. In general everything is good and easy to use. OEQb12: Appendix 9
The layout and icons are consistent. The colors are contrast but easy to the eyes. Everything is clear. OEQb21: Appendix 9
The layout is attractive, especially for children. The symbols are also interesting, cute, and consistent. It has a clear colouring. OEQb21:
Appendix 9 In addition, the table also shows that the respondents found the audiovideo
playback are of good quality. It can be seen from the mean score of 3.5 which is categorized into „good‟. However, one respondent found that “there are some
voices that are not s uitable with the characters in the slide” Appendix 9. Also,
the images size in the PowerPoint presentation needed to be reduced to make the media lighter, thus easing the duplication process later on. One responded added
that “big sized images make this PowerPoint presentation too heavy. It is suggested that the images are compressed” OEQb31: Appendix 9.
e. Main Product Revision
In this stage the researcher revised the materials based on data of the experts‟ judgment and feedbacks. The elements of the developed materials that
were categorized into „very good‟ did not need any revision. Meanwhile, revisions PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
for elements in the „good‟ category were optional and those that were categorized into „fair‟ needed more exploration.
Based on the questionnaire results, one element of the materials was categ
orized into „fair‟ Table 4.3. The statement that the materials support learner autonomy was doubted. According to Egbert et al. 2007, p.8, learner autonomy
is supported when learners have “ownership of the process of developing solutions to their learning task and may devize their own
learning agenda”. Referring to this, the researcher provided more free practices to facilitate learners
to have more opportunities to develop meaningful tasks. Some improveme
nts were also made regarding the teacher‟s manual. It was said that in some parts, the teacher manual does not help with the classroom
language and not really clear. Thus, the researcher improved this part by carefully simplifying the language for the classroom language. In terms of the media, the
researcher revised some elements, namely the audio playback quality and the file size. The researcher re-recorded voices to get clearer audio playback.
Furthermore, all of the images in the PowerPoint presentation were compressed so that the files are lighter. The following table sums up the improvement of the
product in the main product revision stage.
Table 4.5 The Feedback from the Experts and the Revisions Feedbacks
Revisions
The file size is too big. It might cause some difficulties when you
want to duplicate the product. Pictures are compressed so that the file
size is smaller.
Some audios are not clear. Audios thar are not clear are replaced
with the clearer ones. Some parts of the teacher manual do
not help with the classroom language and are not really clear.
Unclear instructions are simplified carefully.
f. Main Field Testing
Dick and Carey 2001 specified that summative evaluation is conducted in this stage. Thus, after revising the materials, the researcher administered a
questionnaire to the students. It was aimed at gaining students‟ responses towards
the materials, i.e. user validation.
Table 4.6 The Descriptive Statistics of Users’ Judgement on the PowerPoint –
based Materials No
Indicators N
x̅ Category
1. The materials make the learning process more fun.
21 4.8 Very
good 2.
The materials allow me to practice listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
21 4.4 Very
good 3.
The materials have various topics, illustration, and activities.
21 4.9 Very
good 4.
The materials provide attractive presentation use of attractive colors, lots of white space, use of
photographs 21 4.9
Very good
5. The materials have appealing content topics of
interest to the learners, topics which offer the possibility of learning something new, local
references 21 4.8
Very good
6. The materials take into account that learners differ in
learning styles. 21 4.8
Very good
7. The materials offer opportunities to students to
interact and negotiate meaning. Pedagogical aspect 1 21 4.6
Very good
8. The materials provide the learners with opportunities
to use the target language with authentic audience. Pedagogical aspect 2
21 4.7 Very
good 9.
The materials encourage the learners to be involved in authentic tasks.
Pedagogical aspect 3 21 4.5
Very good
10. The materials design encourages the students to produce varied and creative language. Pedagogical
aspect 4 21 4.7
Very good
11. The materials provide learners with enough time and feedback. Pedagogical aspect 5
21 4.1 Good 12. The materials guide learners to attend mindfully to the
learning process, e.g. through instructions and examples about how to learn. Pedagogical aspect 6
21 4.7 Very
good 13. The materials provide a classroom atmosphere with an
ideal stress anxiety level. Pedagogical aspect 7 21 4.5
Very good
14. The materials support learner autonomy Pedagogical aspect 8
21 4.1 Good PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
The data suggest that the PowerPoint-based materials make the learning process more fun and facilitate the students to practice the four language skills.
This finding is highly related to the rest indicators which are categorized into „very good‟ and „good‟. As seen in the table, the students strongly agreed that the
materials are considered to have various topics, illustrations, and activities, provide attractive presentation, and have appealing contents. In addition, the
materials provide varius activitiies thus taking into account students‟ learning styles. All off these indicators are based on the principles of materials
development proposed by Tomlinson 1998. Indicators 7 to 14 refer to the pedagogical aspects in CALL by Egbert and
Hanson-Smith 2007 . The data show that most of the aspects are in the „very
good‟ category. It means that the materials provide conditions for optimal language learning environments. Further information about the dominant
pedagogical aspetcs is elaborated in the last section of this chapter.
g. Operational Product Revision
After the product was field tested to the students, it was revised according to the results of the questionnaire and classroom observation. During the field
testing, some movies could not be played. It is still unclear why the movies could not be played since after the field testing, they could be used normally. To
anticipate such issues, the researcher renamed all of the movies and put them in certain folders that are easily recognized. Thus, in case teachers could not play the
video, they could easily play them directly from the folder. In general the teaching learning process in the field testing phase run well.
The students were enthusiastic and excited about the PowerPoint-based materials. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Some students said that they wanted to have longer videos like one-hour videos for the teaching learning process. However the researcher found that it was
difficult to find one-hour-videos containing materials that are suitable for those fifth graders and also to their learning needs. All in all, there were not many things
that needed to be revised.
2. Features
This section presents the final presentation of the PowerPoint –based
materials which covers the PowerPoint presentation, teacher‟s manual, and
student book. It is to answer the first research question of “What do the
PowerPoint-based English materials for elementary school students look like?”.
The final product of the PowerPoint presentation is attached in a CD, while the teacher‟s manual and student book are attached in the appendix.
The materials follow the template that is previously mentioned in Figure 4.1. In general, the materials are presented in Presentation-Practice-Production
PPP technique. This technique is used because the researcher believes that learning is a deductive process.
According to Harmer 2007, p.50, “The PPP procedure is still widely used in language classrooms around the world, especialy
for teaching simple language at lower levels”. Similarly, Brown 2001 states that a teacher-centered classroom is suitable for students of beginning levels who are
still dependent on the teacher. The fifth graders involved in this study are still new to learning English and considered as students at the beginning level. PPP, which
tends to be teacher-centered, was thus considered to be suitable for those students. To familiarize the student with the activities, some icons representing the
activities are used. For instance, for activities named Listen and Say, there are PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
