Table 3.5. Expert Validation Questionnaire Blueprint
Participants Aspects
Purposes References
IT Experts Usability
To know the ease and efficiency of operating the
program
Clark and Meyer 2008 and
Krisnadi 2009.
Technical feature To know whether the program
provides easy navigationmenu operation for users or not
Nursing Lecturers, English Lecturers,
Experts of Material Development
Content To know the suitability of
selected vocabulary learning input included in the program
such as level of difficulty, interest, and usefulness.
Nation, 2001
The conformity of the learning
model to the CAVL principles
To gain the information whether the designed learning
model applying CAVL design principles
Goodfelow, 1994; Levy,
1997; Nation, 2001; Joseph,
2009; and Qing Ma, 2009
Target Respondents
Aspects Purposes
References
All General feedback
To get the comment on the prototype of CAVL model
- All
The strengths To get comment on positive
things from the prototype of CAVL model
- All
The needs of improvement
To get comment on things to improve from the prototype of
CAVL model -
c. Data Gathering Procedure
The data was gathered through questionnaire distribution and interview in the design and development phase. The expert validation questionnaire was
distributed to material development expert, English lecturers, IT experts, and nursing lecturers. It aimed to get the feedback towards the designed CAVL
prototype before delivering to the target users. The interview was conducted to the small group of nursing students as the representative of the target learners. It was
to know their opinion after experiencing vocabulary learning mediated with computer program.
d. Data Analysis Procedure
In the design and development phase, the data were collected from the expert validation questionnaire and the feedback from the participants in the try-out
of the preliminary design model. The data analysis procedure used in need analysis phase was also applied to analysis the results of expert validation questionnaire
which would be converted into score and recapitulated into a table. The next step was calculating the mean by using the same formula proposed by Bluman 2009:
In which,
= ∑
X
The calculated mean then would be interpreted based on the criteria. The criteria were adapted from Dornyei 2003. He stated that the scale could be used to
show the potentiality or strength of the designed CAVL model. In this study, the higher scale meant that the CAVL model was acceptable. If the mean was between
1.00-1.99, it means that the part of the design was not acceptable and should be replaced. The scale of 2.00-2.99 meant that the part of the design needs to be
modified. The scale of 3.00 – 3.99 meant that the part was already good, but it need
more exploration. The scale 4.00 – 5.00 meant that the part did not need to be
revised. The following is the interpretation table of agreement levels on e-lon.
Table 3.6. Interpretation Table of Agreement Levels Range
Interpretation
1.00-1.99 Replace the rejected part of the designed CAVL
2.00-2.99 Modify part of the designed CAVL
3.00-3.99 Conduct more exploration on the existing part of the design
4.00-5.00 No revision
Mn = mean ∑ X = number of responses
n = number of respondents PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
