Education Department at Yogyakarta State University. The questionnaire for the expert judgment was based on the official document issued by BSNP. The
following section contains the results of the expert judgment questionnaire and revisions of the materials. The mean value obtained for the three units in the
developed materials was 3.59. It was within the range of 3.25 x ≤ 4 which was
categorised as very good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP.
Table 25: The Results of the Expert Judgment
1. Unit 1
3.62 2.
Unit 2 3.50
3. Unit 3
3.67
Mean 3.59
a. The Results of the Expert Judgment and Revision of Unit 1
1. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 1
There were four aspects which were evaluated in this unit. They were materials appropriateness, linguistic appropriateness, method appropriateness,
and presentation appropriateness. The mean value for Unit 1 obtained from the expert judgment was 3.62 as shown in the table below. It was within the range
of 3.25 x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the
standard proposed by BSNP.
Table 26: The Results of the Expert Judgment of Unit 1
1. Materials Appropriateness 3.91
2. Linguistic Appropriateness 3.14
3. Method Appropriateness 3.75
4. Presentation Appropriateness 3.67
Mean 3.62
The following are the elaboration of the expert judgment results for unit 1.
a Materials Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of materials appropriateness of Unit 1.
Table 27: Materials Appropriateness of Unit 1 1. The materials were developed in accordance with the Standard
of Competence SC and Basic Competence BC for grade XI of vocational high school in the odd semester.
4
2. The materials were developed in accordance with the course
grid. 4
3. The materials were developed in accordance with the
students’ needs.
4 4.
The materials explored enough texts related to the lives of students majoring in Avionics Maintenance and Repair.
4 5.
The materials explained texts in detail. 3
6. The materials provided explanation of the elements, the
structures, the functions and the linguistic features clearly. 4
7. The materials taught students about asking for and giving
instructions expressions. 4
8. Texts in the material helped students understand asking for and
giving instructions expressions. 4
9. The materials taught students about the use of transitional
signals. 4
10. The materials taught students about the use of simple present tense used in procedure texts.
4 11.
The contents texts, tables, images, etc. were taken from sources relevant to the topic .
4
Mean 3.91
Table 27 shows that the mean value of materials appropriateness of Unit 1 was 3.91. This value was in the range of 3.25
x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP.
b Linguistic Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of linguistic
appropriateness of Unit 1.
Table 28: Linguistic Appropriateness of Unit 1 1.
The language used in the instructions was in accordance with the level of development of students.
3 2.
The language used in the explanation according to the level of cognitive development of learners.
3 3.
The language used in accordance with the development of language skills of students.
3 4.
The language was presented clearly and easily understood by students.
3 5.
The language was in accordance with English grammar. 3
6. The contents presented in one unittaskparagraphsentence
reflected the harmony in the delivery of ideas. 3
7. The texts in the materials reflected the unity of ideas.
4
Mean 3.14
Table 28 shows that the mean value of linguistic appropriateness of Unit 1 was 3.14. This value was in the range of 2.25
x ≤ 3.24 which was categorised as good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP.
c Method Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of method appropriateness of Unit 1.
Table 29: Method Appropriateness of Unit 1 1.
The materials provided opening section, core activities, and reflection consistently every unit.
4 2. The tasks were presented in a balanced manner on each unit.
3 3. In this unit, the tasks were arrangedsorted by the rules in
material development. 4
4. The tasks in the unit were presented in various ways. 4
5. The tasks were developed to encourage interaction in English. 4
6. The tasks encouraged students to be active in the classroom. 4
7. Materials presentation and tasks encouraged students to be active in the process of self-learning.
4 8
The materials encouraged students to recognize their success or lack in learning English.
3
Mean 3.75
Table 29 shows that the mean value of method appropriateness of Unit 1 was 3.75. This value was in the range of 3.25
x ≤ 4 which was categorised as very
good and appropriate based on the standard proposed by BSNP. d
Presentation Appropriateness
The following table shows the results of the analysis of presentation appropriateness of Unit 1.
Table 30: Presentation Appropriateness of Unit 1 1.
