90 application, thus many difficulties and challenges were found during the process of
developing FLAP. In creating an Android application using App Inventor, a developer needs
to work with the Designer components and the Blocks components. The Designer components consists of some elements that will be inserted in the application, such
as button, label, picture, textbox, video, sound, etc, while the Blocks components consist of some behaviours to those elements.
The materials that had been selected were adjusted with file formats which could be accepted by App Inventor. For instance, the image types were in JPG or
PNG format, while GIF images animation images did not work well in this software. Additionally, the audio files should be adjusted with the App Inventor
acceptable file size. The maximum size of the media that can be uploaded in the App Inventor is only 5 MB. If the total file size is more than 5 MB, there will be a
warning as shown in the following.
Figure 4.1. The Warning of the Failed Building Project
To overcome this problem, the researcher then tried to compress the file and convert it into an AAC Advanced Audio Coding audio file format. Compared to
MP3 file, AAC file has the smaller size. However, as the consequence, the quality of the audios was not good enough. There were 55 audios which were successfully
uploaded in the application. There are some limitations of this Android development program. First, to
develop an Android Application using App Inventor needs stable internet
91 connection. The speed of the internet connection really influences the process of
uploading the files as well as building the application. If the contents of the application are large, the program will stop for a while. The warning will appear
like in the following.
Figure 4.2. The Error Internet Connection Causes the Program to Stop
The display of the application in the mobile phones or tablets depends on the screens which build up the application. The number of screens used in App
Inventor is also limited. There will be a warning if the screens exceeded the number. The warning is shown below.
Figure 4.3. The Warning of Exceeding Number of Screens
Fortunately, this warning can be ignored. The program will still run and another screen can still be added. However, it is recommended for the developer to use as
few screens as possible to save the space and to make it easier to work with the components in App Inventor.
Another limitation is about the files uploaded in the application. If a lot of files including audios, pictures, or videos, are used in the application, the building
92 process building the files into .apk format will take longer time. Therefore, it is
important to delete unnecessary files so that they will not be included in the building process.
d. Building the Application into .apk File
After all the necessary elements were included in App Inventor, they were packaged into an .apk file to enable it to be tested through a mobile phone. The .apk
file was then copied into a smartphone and installed according to the common procedures of installing Android applications.
Another way to try out the application without necessarily building the application into .apk file was by using an Android application named MIT AI2
Companion . It can be downloaded from the playstore. For those who do not have
mobile phones to try out the application, there is an Android emulator which can be used through a laptop which functions the same as a smartphone.
To check whether the application could work well or not might take more time because the appearance may not be the same as the expectation. In the
Designer pane, the layout might look neat, but in fact it might be different. There could be some missing parts or some parts which could not work well. As a result,
the building and tryout process were done many times. After the application met the expectation, it was given to the experts to be validated.
4. Evaluation and Revision
The steps done in this stage generally were in line with those in Borg and Gall model, namely Preliminary Field Testing, Main Product Revision, Main Field
testing, and Operational Product Revision. This stage involved the processes of validating the product by experts materials and media and users students. After
93 the product was evaluated, there was a revision of some aspects. The feedback about
the product was used to improve the product until it reached the final version. a.
Experts Validation In Borg and Gall model, this stage belongs to Preliminary Field Testing.
After the product had been developed, it was then evaluated and reviewed by the experts. There were two kinds of experts in this research, namely materials experts
and media experts. The materials validators gave feedback, comments, and suggestion about the materials aspects, including the suitability with the syllabus,
the content appropriacy, and how the contents support listening comprehension. Meanwhile, the media experts gave feedback, comments, and suggestions toward
the design, layout, as well as the navigation of the application. The materials validation was conducted by distributing questionnaires and
conducting interviews to the experts. The questionnaire for the English teacher was distributed on Friday, May 8th, 2015, while for the English lecturer was done on
Wednesday, May 20th, 2015. The questionnaire for the IT lecturer was distributed on Tuesday, May 12th, 2015, while for the IT teacher was on Thursday, May 21st,
2015. The questionnaires were analyzed using the conversion scores as presented in Table 3.6. in the previous chapter.
The mean scores were then interpreted to gain meaning about the quality of the product. The interpretation of the score range can determine whether there
should be revision to the product or not. Using the five scale conversion by Sukarjo 2006, the categories can be defined as follows.
94
Table 4.9 The Categorization of the Scores Category
Score Interval
Very High Very Good 1.2
– 2 High Good
0.4 – 1.1
Fair -0.4
– 0.3 Low Poor
-1.2 – -0.3
Very Low Very Poor -2
– -1.1 According to the table above, if the scores range from 1.2
– 2, it is considered as very good, meaning that it does not need any revision. Then, the
scores are classified as good and acceptable when they range from 0.4 – 1.1. It
means that the revision is optional. Next, the scores are considered fair if they range from -0.4
– 0.3. In this case, it is necessary to conduct more exploration on the existing part of the design. When the scores range from -1.2
– -0.3, it is categorized as poor. Therefore, it is recommended to modify or revise some parts
of the application. Moreover, if the category was very poor with the range score from -2
– -1.1, revision is highly required. The questionnaire results were presented using decriptive statistics. The
mean scores were used to define the parts which still required some revision. The following table shows the materials experts’ opinions toward the application.
Table 4.10. The Descriptive Statistics of Materials Experts’ Opinion
No. Statements
V1 V2 Mean
Category
1. The materials in FLAP can help
the students practice listening. 2
-1 0.5
High 2.
The materials in FLAP are interesting.
2 1
1.5 Very High
3. The materials in FLAP are new for
the students. 1
-1 Fair
4. The materials in FLAP are easy to
understand. 2
1 1.5
Very High 5.
Learning English using FLAP is more enjoyable.
1 1
1 High
continued
95
continued
No. Statements
V1 V2 Mean
Category
6. FLAP is really practical because it
can be accessed through mobile devices, such as handphone and
tablet. 2
2 2
Very High
7. FLAP can be used as a learning
tool to practice listening, not only in the classroom, but also outside
the classroom. 2
-1 0.5
High
8. The audio transcription helps the
students understand the materials. 1
1 1
High 9.
The instructions in FLAP are easy to follow.
2 1
1.5 Very High
10. The materials in FLAP are in line
with the syllabus. 1
1 1
High 11.
The exercises help the students in practicing listening.
2 2
2 Very High
12. The division of the activities in
FLAP Focus, Fun, and Final help the students learn listening easier.
2 1
1.5 Very High
13. The
students can
learn independently through FLAP.
2 1
1.5 Very High
14. FLAP can help the students
increase their vocabulary. 2
1 1.5
Very High 15.
Focus section in FLAP can ease the
students with
listening materials.
2 1
1.5 Very High
16. Fun section is interesting because
it provides
some enjoyable
activities. 2
2 2
Very High
17. Final Section gives opportunities
for the students to practice doing some listening exercises.
2 1
1.5 Very High
18. FLAP can vary the media to
practice listening. 2
2 2
Very High 19.
Teacher’s guidance is required in using FLAP.
2 -1
0.5 High
Total Score 24.5
Very Good Mean
1.3
After the data were calculated and analyzed using the interpretation scores, it was found that the general result was satisfying. From the material aspects, the
96
mean score was 1.28. It indicated that the materials were good and acceptable for
the tenth grade students of Senior High Schools. The validators agreed that the materials in the application were interesting, easy to understand, and could help
students practice listening. They also considered that FLAP was practical and flexible because it could be accessed through mobile devices, such as smartphones
and tablets. This is in line with the principles of m-learning proposed by Elias 2011 number 1 equitable use and 2 flexible use. In addition, the experts also
agreed that the instructions were easy to follow. It corresponds to the principle number 4 perceptible information and 6 low physical and technical effort.
However, there were some aspects which still need some attention. Statement number 2 scored 0 and it was categorized as fair. It was about the novelty
of the materials. Therefore, some revision was made related to the selection of materials.
The score of the last statement i.e. 0.5 indicated that the guidance of the teacher tutor was less required. It showed that FLAP could facilitate students in
practicing listening independently. From the results of the open-ended questions in the questionniare see Appendix 9, both material experts agreed that FLAP was an
innovation in English learning by optimizing the use of technology so that it could increase students’ motivation in learning English. Conceptually, FLAP can be used
as supplementary materials to improve students’ listening ability. The materials experts mentioned some strengths of FLAP. First, there are
various materials that can be used to practice listening. Next, FLAP is easy to operate. Besides, the size of the application is quite small, thus students do not need
long time to download and install the application in their mobile devices.
