74
Next, the students also stated the strengths, the weaknesses, and the suggestions for the product. First, the strengths of the product were: it could be
accessed quickly at anytime; it was fun and not boring when they did the exercises because it had a variety of exercises; it helped them learn grammar, improve their
vocabulary, and evaluate the materials at school; it could make the students think quickly, actively, and logically; the sources were reliable; it was appropriate to the
subject material; it had interesting pictures and videos; it could enhance their knowledge; they were interested and challenged to do the exercises; it had clear
use of fonts and words; and, the exercises were understandable, even for the students who did not understand related materials, such as both tenses.
Second, the weaknesses of the product were: it only existed on the website; it might be misused by some people; some backgrounds were rather dark,
so the words became unclear; it was difficult to be accessed; there were some small font size and small pictures, so it was not readable; more exercise should be
added; the exercises should be more challenging and have clear instructions; the limit time was too short; it was still not interesting because it had uninteresting
variety of the exercises; they could not comprehend the material well because of time limit; there were only some topics discussed on the product; if they could
finish and memorize the exercises, it would be boring exercises; the video was uninteresting, not to the point and not colourful.
b. Content Evaluation
The process of content evaluation was done twice in order to validate the product designed. After the writer got the evaluation sheet from each evaluator in
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
this step, she conducted interview in order to confirm the answers stated on the evaluation sheet. Table 4.8 describes the evaluators’ background information.
Table 4.7: The Evaluators’ Background Evaluator
Sex Educational Background
Teaching Experience
The English teacher Female
S1 14 years
The first expert Male
S2 8 years
The second expert Male
S2 12 years
1 The First Content Evaluation The writer conducted two validations, namely practitioner validation and
expert validation. Before the writer reported the results of the validation process from the practitioner and the expert, Table 4.8 presented the results of the
questionnaire on the evaluation sheet.
Table 4.8: The Evaluation Sheet Result from the Teacher and the First Expert No.
Topics Answered
by Teacher Answered by
1
st
Expert Y
N Y
N
1. The instructions in the designed exercises were clear
and understandable. √
√ 2.
The designed exercises were relevant with the syllabus used in SMK Sanjaya Pakem.
√ √
3. The designed exercises were in accordance with the
indicators. √
√ 4.
The designed exercises were suitable and appropriate to the first grade students.
√ √
5. As the supplementary exercises, the designed
exercises were effective and efficient to be implemented for the students in order to improve their
grammatical skills. √
√ √
6. The designed exercises practice the structure correctly
and conveyed a meaning on every sentence. √
√ √
7. The content was appropriate for the students and
reliable as instructional exercises. √
√ √
8. The topics given were varied and interesting.
√ √
9. Te designed exercises were challenging for the
students so that it can create the students’ motivation. √
√
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
No. Topics
Answered by Teacher
Answered by 1
st
Expert Y
N Y
N
10. The designed exercises have enough questions in each
topic. √
√ 11.
The designed exercises were easy to be accessed by the students.
√ √
12. The pictures provided are big and clear enough.
√ √
13. The fonts were appropriate and big enough so that
they are readable. √
√ 14.
The link on each page worked well. √
√ 15.
The designed exercises have enough time allocation for each exercise.
√ √
a Practitioner Validation The practitioner referred to the English teacher. Before gaining the
validation from the practitioner, she was asked to follow the trial of the product together with the students. The practitioner gave the validation on September 28
th
, 2011. Then, interview was conducted on October 4
th
, 2011 in order to confirm the answers on the evaluation sheet. The following paragraphs explained the reasons
why the practitioner chose the answers on Table 4.9. The practitioner evaluated the product based on the result of trial process
that the writer conducted to the first grade students. Basically, she agreed that the designed exercises are suitable and appropriate to the first grade students because
it contains simple present tense and simple past tense exercises. Besides, the topics are varied and interesting because they are colourful and relatively new for
them. Next, she stated that the designed exercises were not in accordance with
the indicators because tenses were not the main menu learned at school, while they were just supporting material. It was because, unfortunately, the practitioner
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
thought about the indicators stated on the syllabus. She did not reffer to the learning objectives on each topic in the exercises. Therefore, she stated that
reason. The practitioner also stated that the designed exercises were not
challenging for the students so that it could not create the students’ motivation because the exercises were not really related to their daily attentionconcern. In
addition, when conducting the trial of the product, the English class did not have a chance to practice the exercises in computer laboratory. Besides, not all students
have computer and internet connection at home. Therefore, she said that the designed exercises were not easy to be accessed by the students.
Next, the practitioner chose both answers to the questions number 5, 6, and 7. On the question number 5, on one hand, she agreed that the designed
exercises were effective and efficient to be implemented to the students in order to improve their grammatical skill. It was because it was fun to learn individually.
On the other hand, she did not agree with the point because the students need a computerlaptop to read and certain time and place. Besides, on the question
number 6, she agreed that the design practice structure correctly and convey a meaning on each sentence because it practices the verb form. But, she also did not
agree to the point because there was no maximum practice on time marker adverb of time. Moreover, on the question number 7, she agreed that the content
was appropriate for the students and reliable as instructional exercises. However, she stated also that she did not agree with it. The reason was not all parts in the
exercises were appropriate, but some parts could be tolerable.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
78
According to the practitioner, the strengths of the design were, systematically, the instructions were easily understood. Next, the exercises were
new and colourful. In addition, there was reinforcement feedback by doing the exercises successfully. If the tools to access them were available, they could be
learned anytime. Meanwhile, she also stated the weaknesses of the design. First, it was not easily accessed by the students individually since they were not from rich
family. Second, if there was no English class in a laboratory, it was time consuming to prepare everything, such as the laptop, the modem, and the viewer.
Third, it made the students nervous if they were not familiar with computer. Nevertheless, those weaknesses could later be solved. Since the purpose of
this medium is to utilize the existence of computer laboratory facilitated by online computer, the students are expected to access the design on the school laboratory.
The practitioner has stated that she would add an extra time for the first grade students on Friday to access the design in the laboratory. It is because the school
finish earlier on Friday. In addition, because there is Computer Subject at school, the students also can practice to operate the computer. Therefore, the students will
be computer literate, especially in educational technology. In order to improve the design, the practitioner also gave some
suggestions. First, the materials should be about their daily lesson suitable with management vocational school. Second, the elements of simple present tense and
simple past tense should be analyzed and applied well in the items. It was related to the use of adverb of frequency and adverb of time in the exercises.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
b Expert Validation The writer gained the validation from the first expert on September 20
th
, 2011. Before he conducted the validation, he was asked to look at the designed
exercises from the website. As the result of validating, overall, he proved that the designed exercises were suitable and appropriate for the first grade students.
However, he still did not agree with the content of the designed exercises. The content was not appropriate for the students and not reliable as instructional
exercises because there were still grammatical mistakes in it. Moreover, the expert also stated the strengths, the weaknesses, and the
suggestions of the design. The strengths were the product contained various kinds of exercises and the explanation is adjacent to the exercises. Next, the weaknesses
were, first, there was grammatical mistake in the short reading related to the use of the tenses. Second, there was still unclear instruction on the product. Then, the
suggestions from the expert were to check the grammar in the material and to provide clear instruction to help the students perform better.
After the product had been revised by regarding the suggestions from the practitioner and the first expert, the design was evaluated by the second expert in
the second content evaluation process. 2 The Second Content Evaluation
This was conducted to the second expert. The writer gave the manual printed exercises to him and asked him also to see the product on the website.
After that, the writer asked him to complete the evaluation sheet, which was the same as the evaluation sheet for the first content evaluation. As a result, the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
80
lecturer answered no for the topics number 1 and 3 see Table 4.8. Here, the instructions in the designed exercises were not clear and understandable. Besides,
the designed exercises were not in accordance with the indicators because some indicators were incorrect.
On the other hand, the fifth and the sixth topics see Table 4.8 were not answered by him. The reason for number five was because he was not convinced
whether or not the designed exercises were effective and efficient to be implemented for the students in order to improve their grammatical skill. Next,
the reason for number six was he was confused about the question. In his opinion, it must be correct that the designed exercises practice the structure correctly and
convey a meaning on every sentence. Nevertheless, he answered yes for the rest of the questions on the evaluation sheet.
On the open question, he stated first, the strengths of the product were it has interesting topics, variety of topics, and interesting alternative of structure
exercises. Second, the weaknesses of the product were some indicators were incorrect and there were not so effectiveefficient instruction. Next, he did not
give suggestion to improve the designed exercises explicitly. However, the writer still revised the evaluation result in order to be more valid as supplementary
exercises.
5. Main Product Revision
