78
G. Instructional Materials
This part was the result of the seventh step of Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model, developing and selecting instructional materials. To support the
instructional strategy, instructional materials were developed. They were adapted and adopted from various relevant printed and online resources. Table 4.9
distributed the learning materials in each unit.
Table 4.9. The Learning Material of the English Speaking Instructional Materials Based on Eclectic Approach for the Seventh Grade Hearing Impaired Students
Topic: Unit and Title
Learning Material
Greetings: 1 Good morning
• Dialogues containing greeting expressions
• Greeting expressions e.g. Good morning; Good afternoon; Good
evening; How are you?; I am fine, thank you •
Conversation examples containing greeting expressions, personal pronouns, and to be
Introduction: 2 I am Susi
• A monologue of introducing self
• A monologue of introducing friend
• A vocabulary set of hobbies e.g. chatting, painting, drawing,
writing, reading •
Monologue examples containing introduction expressions and possessive pronouns
Thanking: 3 Thank you
• Dialogues containing thanking expression
• A vocabulary set of nouns e.g. book, pencil, pen, ruler, eraser
• Sentence examples containing singular and plural nouns
• Conversation example containing thanking expression and a
singular noun Apologizing:
4 I‟m sorry •
Dialogues containing apologizing expression •
A vocabulary set of verb phrases e.g. tear paper, break glass, stain shirt, pick flower, lock door
• Conversation examples containing apologizing expression, verb
and prepositional phrases
H. Instructional Materials Feedback and Revision
This part was the result of the eighth and ninth steps of Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model, designing and conducting formative evaluation of
instruction and revising instruction. There were two stages of instructional
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
materials revision during the research. The first revision stage was done after getting feedback through consultation with the thesis counsellor and the English
teacher of SLB Wiyata Dharma I. Meanwhile, the second revision stage was done after having verification from the English teacher of SLB Wiyata Dharma I and
the English lecturers in the area of Language Education through questionnaire. In the first revision stage, both the thesis counsellor and the teacher had three
comments. Meanwhile, in the second revision stage, the teacher and the English lecturers added their opinion, criticism, andor suggestion for the instructional
materials. The thesis counsellor firstly commented on the instructional materials
layout. At the beginning, the materials provided colourful comic pictures from Donald Duck magazines. The use of the pictures was intended to attract the
students‟ attention to learn. However, the counsellor suggested the materials show value of locality. It meant that the adoption of the pictures in the materials should
be not only from foreign creation but also from local creation. Furthermore, the adopted comic pictures also showed inappropriate use of callouts. Indonesians
were accustomed to reading from left to right or from up to down. However, the comic pictures did not show such flow of reading so that it was difficult to
differentiate the initiator from the responder. Due to these reasons, all of the comic pictures from Donald Duck magazines were omitted. They were changed
with non-comic pictures which were adopted from Bobo magazines. Then, the counsellor‟s second comment was related to the bilingual
instructions in the materials. The counsellor suggested omitting the instructions in
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
80
Bahasa Indonesia because the used English diction was general so that it would not be difficult for the teacher and the students to understand it. However, the
omission was not done because the bilingual instructions were requested by the teacher to be given since she realized that she was not an English graduate so that
she was afraid giving the students the wrong instructions interpretation in Bahasa Indonesia if there were only English instructions provided. Besides, the bilingual
instructions also made the students understand more easily what they exactly should do in each activity in every unit in case they wanted to review the materials
themselves. Next, the third comment from the counsellor related to the type of
learning. He conveyed that the instructional materials tended to expose deductive learning. He suggested developing inductive learning so that it suited with the
view of modern education. What he meant by inductive learning was the students could apply grammatically correct utterances in English because of their being
accustomed to using the right English utterances, not because of structure comprehension. To expose the inductive learning, the activities in the materials
should involve more communication. This comment was accepted by changing the structure comprehension activities with more communicative activities.
Still in the first revision stage, the English teacher firstly said that the instructional materials provided too much vocabulary. She advised introducing
five new words at the maximum in each unit because it was already hard for the students to memorize the words in one meeting and to review them in the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
81
following meeting since they had profound hearing impairment. Due to this reason, the amount of the new vocabulary in every unit was lessened.
Secondly, the teacher commented on the learning methods which were stated in the lesson plans. She conveyed that lip reading was the main method in
teaching the hearing impaired students. So, it should be added to the learning methods. Since lip reading was a means to facilitate repetition, it was added to the
Audiolingual Method. Then, the teacher‟s third comment was related to the learning source.
Besides a textbook, the teacher stated that she also needed flashcards of the vocabulary which was introduced in each unit. The flashcards could help her teach
the new vocabulary to the students. She also added that lists of the vocabulary pronunciation and meaning in the form of glossary might be helpful for her
because these could help her give the right model to the students. Since the vocabulary flashcards and glossary were considered supporting the teaching
learning activities, they were added in the instructional materials. After the first revision of the instructional materials was done based on
the comments from the thesis counsellor and the English teacher of SLB Wiyata Dharma I, the instructional materials were revised secondly according to the data
from questionnaire which was given to the English teacher of SLB Wiyata Dharma I and the English lecturers in the area of Language Education.
The first item of the questionnaire was related to the suitability of the instructional materials with the demand of School-Based Curriculum. Of the
respondents, there was only one who strongly agreed that the instructional
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
82
materials were suitable with the demand of School-Based Curriculum. Meanwhile, the other two respondents stated that they just agreed. Moreover,
none of the respondents added further comments for this item. Because of these positive results, no change was made.
Then, the second item was dealing with the measurability of the materials objectives. The results were the same as those in the first item. Only one
respondent strongly agreed that the objectives of the materials were measurable while the rest just agreed with it. No further comments were stated for this item.
Therefore, none of the objectives was changed in the materials. Afterwards, the third item was about the materials‟ adjusting the
learners‟ characteristics. One respondent strongly agreed that the materials adjusted the le
arners‟ characteristics. Other respondent also agreed with it. However, there was one respondent who neither agreed nor disagreed with the
materials‟ adjusting the learners‟ characteristics. Of all respondents, only one added further comment. It conveyed that the materials were quite simple for the
seventh grade hearing impaired students. Because there was no more specific indication which showed the need of further materials adjustment, none of the
materials contents was changed. The fourth item was aimed to find out whether the topics in the materials
were interesting. Only one respondent strongly agreed that the materials topics were interesting. Meanwhile, the other two respondents just agreed with it.
Further comments were added for this item. The first comment stated that whether the topics in the materials were interesting was relative. Meaning to say, each
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
83
learner could give different responses towards the topics. Then, the second comment stated that the materials topics were interesting because of the variation
of colours and shapes. For these positive results, no topic in the materials was changed.
Then, the fifth item was aimed to figure out whether the learning
activities in the materials motivated the learners to learn speaking in English. All of the respondents agreed that the materials learning activities motivated the
learners in English speaking learning. However, there was a comment conveying that
if the learning exercises were truly aimed to motivate the learners, they needed to be more communicative. Yet, no change was done to make the learning
exercises more communicative because they kept the belief of Audiolingual Method which conveyed that the most effective way to enable the hearing
impaired students to develop their spoken language competence more communicatively was to make them accustomed to using the language frequently
in the classroom in particular from the beginning. Afterwards, the sixth item was aimed to seek whether the
learning activities in the materials encouraged
learners‟ participation. Two respondents agreed that the materials learning activities could improve the learners‟
participation. Meanwhile, there was only one respondent who neither agreed nor disagree with it. A further comment stated that in the learning activities, more
communicative preparation was needed. However, no change was done in the
learning activities because of the same reason stated in the previous item.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
84
The seventh item was aimed to find out whether the learning activities in the materials are interrelated one another. Of all respondents, one strongly agreed
and two agreed that there was an interrelationship in the materials learning activities. No further comment was added for this item. Therefore, there was no
change made. Then, the eighth item was to figure out whether the learning activities in
the materials were developed from the simplest one into more difficult one. The three respondents agreed that the materials learning activities had been developed
from the simplest one into more difficult one. A comment was added for this item. It said that the difficulty level of each learning material was relative depending on
the preparation of the class and the learners. For these reasons, there was no change in the sequence of the learning activities in the materials.
Afterwards, the ninth item was aimed to seek whether the learning activities in the materials provided clear instructions. All of the respondents
agreed that the materials learning activities had provided clear instructions. However, a comment conveyed that the instructions should be clearer by
providing a clue whether the learners had to do spoken or written learning
activities. This comment was accepted by adding the word “orally” in the instructions.
Lastly, the respondents added their opinion, criticism, andor suggestions for
the instructional materials. One of the respondents stated that the learning
materials were quite good. However, the respondent suggested that the time allocation for their delivery need to be considered further. From the statement, it
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
85
was implied that the allocated time was unable to cover the learning materials in each unit only in one meeting. However, nothing was changed from the learning
materials. The change tended to be done to some numbers in the exercises so that there would be enough time to learn the materials in a meeting.
Then, other respondent stated that in the syllabus, the indicators showed
that there were needs of communication. However, the formative assessment had not shown any activity which involved communication. If the term of
communication referred to any speaking involvement, the activities in formative assessment had provided it. In fact, the speaking formative assessment for the
hearing impaired students in this research was developed differently since in order to enable the students to develop their spoken language competence more
communicatively, it had more emphasis in providing activities which allowed the students to have frequent practices of using the spoken language from the
beginning. This was along with the main language teaching method for hearing impaired students, Audiolingual Method.
Next, the respondent also conveyed that there were conversation examples which still did not sound natural. Due to this statement, the conversation
examples in the materials were reviewed. Changes were only done to some conversation examples.
Afterwards, the other respondent stated that a colourful design in fact
could attract the learners‟ interest in reading. However, the respondent could not see the difference or the uniqueness of strategies in teaching between learners
with special needs and normal learners. Whether the teaching strategies in the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
86
materials were unique was relative. Meaning to say, each expert in the field of instructional materials development might have different opinion towards any
designed instructional materials and it was absolutely very subjective. However, the focus of designing English speaking instructional materials was not providing
unique instructional materials based on subjective point of view but providing comprehensible and acceptable instructional materials for the teacher and the
hearing impaired students of SLB Wiyata Dharma I based on the current curriculum.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
87
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Kategori