Questionnaire B which was designed in English was distributed to the English teacher and the lecturers. Questionnaire B aimed to gather information
whether the designed materials were suitable for the students. The participants could give their opinions and suggestion towards the designed materials. The
result of this design evaluation was the basis to revise and improve the designed materials. The detailed questionnaire is available in Appendix C on page 74.
D. Data Gathering Technique
The process of gathering data and information was done in well-sequenced steps so that the writer did not overlap one step to another. Firstly, the writer went
to the library to uncover some references from any books, thesis, and other sources to study the theories related to stories, integrated language-learning
approach, and the current curriculum. The writer also prepared the research instruments, such as interview sheet, observation check list, and questionnaire
sheet. Then, the writer conducted an informal interview with the English teacher of SMA Negeri 11 Yogyakarta to acquire further information about the students’
characteristics and the factors affecting the teaching-learning process. After that, the writer began to do observation to see directly the way the students studied.
While observing the participants, the writer distributed Questionnaire A to the students to acquire some information related to their interests in learning English
using stories. Obtaining some helpful information, the writer started to make a rough
draft of the designed-materials which described what the designed-materials
would look like. Being ready with the outline of the designed-materials and the objectives, the writer developed those materials. After accomplishing to design
the materials, the writer directly distributed Questionnaire B to an English teacher and two lecturers to obtain some constructive feedback. Eventually, the writer
revised and improved the designed-materials based on the result of the design evaluation.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The writer applied descriptive statistic to analyze the numerical data that were obtained from the questionnaire. The writer gave the participants five
options representing their agreement, disagreement, and doubt about each statement. The options are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Points of Agreement Points of Agreement
Meaning
1 Absolutely disagree
2 Disagree
3 Doubt
4 Agree
5 Absolutely agree
The writer used central tendency mean, median, and mode to know the participants’ responses towards the method. According to Ary, Jacob, and
Razavieh 2002: 128, mean is the average score which is calculated by adding all the scores divided by the number of the cases. Gay 1992: 390 states, “Median is
the mid point of a distribution, whereas mode is the most frequent score in a distribution.” The writer summarized them into points. Table 3.2 presents the
central tendency of the participants’ opinions towards the method.
Table 3.2: Respondents’ Opinions about the Designed Materials No
Respondents’ Opinions on
N Central Tendency
Mn
Mdn Md
N : Number of cases
Mn : Mean; the average point in the set of scores.
Mdn : Median; the middle point occurs in the set of scores Md
: Mode; the score occurs most frequently
Where χ : mean
Σ χ: total number of the scores
N : number of respondent After gathering all of the information about the designed-materials, the
writer then analyzed the data. The result of the data analysis was interpreted as follows:
0.0 X
≤ 2 = the designed-materials were poorly designed
2.01 X ≤ 3 =
the designed-materials were fairly designed 3.01 X
≤ 4 = the designed-materials were good, but needed some
crucial revisions 4.01 X
≤ 5 = the designed-materials were well designed and
acceptable, but needed few revisions The writer made some improvement of the designed-materials based on the data.
The result of the design evaluation was the significant main source in this process as it contained feedback and evaluation from the experts.
F. Research Procedure
