89
2 Change some of the pictures in the teacher’s book which could give the
clearer context. 3
Maintain the consistency of the titles of the topics. 4
Change the instructions of the teacher’s book to ease the teacher to implement the teaching and learning process in the classroom.
5 The game should be more varied.
6 The media should be more varied by using the real things.
7 Provide more speaking activities in the designed materials.
The writer realized that the comments and the suggestions were useful for the sake of the designed materials. Therefore, the suggestions above had been
taken into consideration to revise the designed materials to be better. The next step was revising the designed materials based on the comments and suggestions
listed above.
b. Revising the Designed Materials
Main product revision was the last step in RD to design speaking materials based on Task-Based Language Teaching for the extracurricular activity
of the 2
nd
graders of SD Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. The main product revision was the umbrella of the last step of the writer’s model which was evaluating the
designed materials. The process of revising the designed materials was included into the process of evaluating the designed materials. The elaboration would be
discussed below. The results of the post-design questionnaire were encouraging the writer to
make the designed materials better. Therefore, the writer revised the designed
90
materials based on the comments and suggestions given by the respondents in the preliminary field testing. However, the writer did not revise the designed materials
based on all of the respondents’ comments and suggestions. The writer only chose some comments and suggestions which were relevant to the designed materials.
Humbly, the writer would like to argue to some comments and suggestions which were not considered necessary to revise. The elaboration is presented below:
There were five revisions done by the writer, those were: 1
The writer corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes in both student’s and teacher’s books. This aim at preventing the students as well as the teacher
from confusion when they use the books. The wrong grammar and spelling may mislead both users in the teaching and learning process. The writer
attempted also to avoid mistyping the sentences. 2
The writer changed some pictures in the teacher’s book which would be used as the flash cards with more contextual ones. The flash cards which were
mostly changed from the greeting and introduction materials. The writer also attached the sources of the pictures to avoid plagiarism. It was very important
to attach the sources of the pictures in the photocopiable materials. 3
The writer changed some titles of the topics as a means to maintain the consistency of the titles. The titles were very important because they reflected
what the students were going to learn. By changing the titles of the topics, the writer attempted to reflect what the teaching and learning activities would
include. Taken as an example the title “Fruit” was changed into “Can I have 2 Apples, please?” The content of the materials was clearly seen from the title
91
which was asking for help. Besides, the titles were expected to attract the students’ curiosity in following the lessons.
4 The writer attempted to improve some unclear instructions in the teacher’s
book. The changes were important to ease the teacher in understanding and implementing the teaching and learning activities successfully. The
instructions which were too complicated were changed into simpler instructions, especially in the games’ instructions. The other reason was the
essential role of instructions in the Task-Based Language teaching in order to do the various tasks. If the instructions of the task were not clear, the task
would not be done successfully. 5
The most important revision done by the writer was in the syllabus. The writer added descriptions for the learning activities in the syllabus. The writer
considered that the descriptions of the learning activities were important to give clearer depiction how to do the tasks, how to give instructions to the
students and the most essential was how to implement Task-Based Language Teaching in the classroom. The writer added two more columns in the
learning activities which were used to describe the teacher’s and students’ activities. Besides, the writer added one more column after the learning
indicators. The column was filled with the learning tasks. The learning tasks would give information about task types used by the writer and the task stages
employed in arranging the subject content. In conclusion, the writer revised the designed materials in order to present
the final version of the designed materials better. Considering the positive and
92
constructive comments as well as suggestions from the respondents, the writer were encouraged to revise five major points to make the designed materials better
and acceptable to be implemented in the real teaching and learning activities. Further in this discussion, the writer would like to give argumentation
towards the suggestions given by the respondents. Three were constructive suggestions from the respondents to make the designed materials better. Yet, the
writer revised the designed materials based on five suggestions instead of all suggestions.
Perceiving a respondent’s suggestion on the instructions used in the teacher’s book, the writer would like to give a reasonable argument. The writer
revised only the instructions on how to play the games instead of the whole instructions. The respondent suggested that the main instructions should not have
been copied from the student’s book. The reason why the writer copied and pasted the main instructions from the student’s book was merely to ease the teacher’s for
finding the part of the activity or task if there was a student who asked about the activity or the task. It would be easier for the teacher to match the instructions in
the teacher’s book if the instructions were not changed. Therefore, the writer only changed some of the games’ instructions in order to make them clearer.
Secondly, the respondent suggested that the games should be more varied. Most of the games offered by the writer involved making a big circle in the
classroom thus they were said to be a little monotonous. The writer argued that purpose of making a big circle was to ease the students for understanding the
instructions of the game better. By making a big circle with the teacher standing in
93
the middle of the circle, the teacher could control each student whether he or she had already understood the instructions. The other reason was considering the
time allocation which was 60 minutes for each meeting; it was difficult for the writer to offer a game which needed a lot of steps to do. Hence, the writer
designed the games which involved all students. Based on the writer’s 2 semester experience in teaching the extracurricular activity of the 2
nd
graders of SD Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta, the writer found out that the students were interested
in the game which included all students. It motivated them to be more confident in using the target language.
One of the respondents’ suggestions was to use the real things as the media in teaching and learning activities. The writer had positive impression
towards the suggestion but the writer also considered the capability of the English teachers to prepare the real things in the classroom. Based on the interview result
with the English teachers, they had time limitation to prepare such interesting activities as well as media to motivate the students. Considering that reason, the
availability of plastic toys and simple media would help the English teacher to deal with the time allocation to prepare the media. Though, the use of the real
things would better be fitted with the teacher’s capability to prepare. The other respondent suggested the writer provide more speaking activities
in the classroom. The writer did not give any additional speaking activity in the designed materials. The first reason was the theory which underlined the
arrangement of the tasks. The tasks had been chosen and arranged based on the framework of Task-Based Language Teaching TBLT. Therefore, if the writer
94
attached additional or more speaking activities, it would not fit in the framework of TBLT. The next reason was due to the time limit. The activities designed by the
writer fit in the time allocation of each meeting which was only 60 minutes. If the writer added more activities, she would be afraid whether the time allocation
could cope with the whole materials. The activities were in accordance with the students’ needs based on the results of the observations and interviews. As a
result, the writer did not add more speaking activities considering those reasons mentioned.
The next question to answer deals with the presentation of the speaking instructional materials based on Task-Based Language Teaching for the
extracurricular activity of the 2
nd
graders of SD Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta which would be described briefly on the next page.
B. The Brief Description of the Speaking Instructional Materials based on
