a. The description of the evaluators
The five evaluators were chosen because they had experiences in teaching English. Three of them were the English teachers of SMAN 1 Depok
who used to handle the eleventh grade students. The others were a lecturer of English Education study program of Sanata Dharma University and an English
instructor of ELTI, an English course institution. Table 4.2 presents the description of the evaluators.
Table 4.2: The Description of Evaluators
Educational Background
Teaching Experience in years
Evaluators’ Occupation
S1 S2 S3
other
0-5 5-10 10-15 15
English Teachers 3
1 2 English Lecturer
1 1
English Instructor
1 1
b. Data presentation
Since the questionnaire distributed to evaluate the materials consisted of closed-form and open form items, there are two kinds of data to
be presented in this section. The first data was presented in form of level of agreements as closed-form items. The points of agreement indication are
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree
3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree
Table 4.3 presents the data gathered in closed-form questionnaire from the five evaluators. It shows points of agreement chosen by the
participants for each statement and their central tendency.
Table 4.3: Closed-form questionnaire’s result and central tendency Points of
Agreement No Statements
1 2 3 4 Central
Tendency Mean
1 The indicators of the designed materials are
well formulated and support the attainment of the competency standard.
- 1 3 1 3
2 The topic of each unit is relevant to the
students’ need. - 3 1 1
2.6 3
The theme of each unit supports the CTL concept.
- 1 3 1 3
4 The exercises level of difficulty is suitable to
the eleventh grade students of senior high school.
- 3 2 2.4
5 The exercises and activities in each unit are
relevant to the CTL concept. - 1 4
2.8 6
The designed materials facilitate the students to enrich grammar knowledge.
- 1 3 1 3
7 The designed materials provide the students
with enjoyable activities and exercises. - 3 2
2.4 8
The designed materials encourage the students to correlate their knowledge with
their daily life environment and experience. - 4 1
3.2 9
The designed materials have covered the four English skills; listening, speaking,
reading and writing. - 4 1
3.2 10
The materials layout is interesting. -
1 1 3 3.4
In Table 4.3, the central tendency of each item in closed-form questionnaire was counted using following formula
M = ∑X
N
Where : M = Mean of the Scores
∑ = Sigma Sum of X = Scores chosen by participants
N = Number of participants By counting the Mean, it would be known whether the designed
materials were acceptable or not. The measurement was classified as follows: ≤ 2.6: the materials need improvement
2.6 : the materials were acceptable Meanwhile, the data gathered through the open-form items of
questionnaire from the five evaluators are shown by Table 4.4. The data in Table 4.4 provided respondents’ further opinions or suggestions on the
designed materials and research syllabus.
Table 4.4: Open-form questionnaire’s result Respondents’ Answers
Questions Strengths
Weaknesses
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
designed materials? ¾ The materials are quite
communicative and provide CTL-based
activities. ¾ The material varies.
¾ The materials are integrated, covering all the
English skills. ¾ The materials provide
various integrating grammar in the activities.
¾ The materials reflect the topics well.
¾ The materials lack of variety of activities.
¾ There is no follow-up on each unit.
¾ ‘Let’s get started’ part lacks of illustration.
¾ ‘Language Focus’ is a bit boring.
¾ There are some grammatical mistakes or
mistypes in the materials.
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
syllabus? ¾ It reflects integrated
learning. ¾ It reflects contextual
learning. ¾ The learning activities
need to be varied. ¾ There is no source of
lesson. ¾ There is no post-activity.
9. Revising the Designed Materials
Kategori