No. Steps Data Obtained
Participant Instrument
b. Teaching
learning process. c.
The media used by the teachers.
d. Teacher’s
opinion toward the existing
materials e.
The expectation toward the
designed materials.
2. Preliminary
Testing Part A
a. Teachers’
opinion about the goal of the
materials b.
The content of the materials
c. The level
difficulty of the materials
d. The tasks of the
designed materials
e. The layout of
the designed materials
Part B
a. Teachers
comment of the designed
materials b.
Suggestion and critics
Teachers Questionnaire
Part A
a. Teachers’
opinion about the goal of the
Lecturers Questionnaire
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
No. Steps Data
Obtained Participant Instrument
the materials b.
The content of the materials
c. The level
difficulty of the materials
d. The tasks of the
designed materials
e. The layout of
the designed materials
Part B
a. Teachers
comment of the designed
materials b.
Suggestion and
critics E. Data Analysis Techniques
The writer used two ways in collecting the data. They were interview and questionnaire which would be presented in the form of numerical data and
narrative description. The interviews were conducted to the English teachers of SMP N 2 Sidoharjo for research and information collecting. It was in the form of
open ended questions. The data gathered from the interviews would be analyzed in the form of narrative description.
In research and information collecting, the writer distributed questionnaires to the seventh grade students of SMP N 2 Sidoharjo in order to
gain their opinion toward English subject. The data from questionnaires were calculated using the percentage of respondents’ opinions. The formulation to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
calculate the percentage was presented as follows:
n x 100
∑ n
Note: N
= the total number of participants Σ n
= the number of participants who choose certain statements In preliminary field testing, the questionnaires were distributed to the
English teachers of SMP N 2 Sidoharjo and two lecturers of English Language Education Study Program. The questionnaire was the combination of open and
closed questionnaire. The formulating data is the same as the previous formula.
n x 100
∑ n
Note: n = the total number of participants
Σ n = the number of participants who choose certain statements The judgment of the participants’ statement on the questionnaire uses four
points agreement. They are:
Table 3.2. Points of Agreement Points of agreement
Meaning
1 Strongly disagree very poor
2 Disagree poor
3 Agree good
4 Strongly agree very good
The data were presented in the form of table, which consist of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
respondents’ opinions, statements, and percentage. The format of result of the materials evaluation questionnaire was presented in table 3.3.
Table 3.3. The blue print of The Form of the Result of Respondents’ Questionnaire
No Statement
Degree of Agreement Percentage
1 2 3 4 N
Note: N
= Number of respondent The data from preliminary field testing showed whether the designed
material is acceptable or not. To judge whether the designed is good or not, the writer decided the categorization of the point. The maximum points were five.
The designed material was called good if the total point is more than seventy-five percent from the maximum point. This meant that the designed material was
called good and acceptable if the central tendency is more than 3.75. If the central tendency was fifty percent up to seventy-five percent meant that the material was
already good but still need some revision. Whereas, the designed material was poor if the central tendency was below than fifty percent.
F. Research Procedures
