continued
Table 28 presents the result of expert s’ judgment related to the language of
the materials in Unit 1. The mean of the general judgment of the language is 3.75. Therefore, the language in Unit 1 is categorized as very good.
Table 29: The Appropriateness of the Layout of Unit 1
Table 29 presents the result of expert s’ judgment related to the layout of the
materials in Unit 1. The mean of the general judgment of the language is 3.50. Therefore, the language in Unit 1 is categorized as very good.
4.
Language The spelling of the language of
instruction is in accordance with spelling principle.
3.50 Good
5. The choices of words of the materials are
in accordance
with word
choice principle.
4 Very
good
6. The developed materials in a unit are
linked to materials in the next unit. 4
Very good
The general judgment of the language 3.75
Very good
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
1. Lay-out
The fonts used are no too various. 3.50
Good 2.
The fonts used are not too big or too small.
3.50 Good
3. The color of the materials are not
disturbing the reader. 3.50
Good 4.
The pictures are provided for aesthetic and functional purposes.
3.50 Good
The general judgment of the layout 3.50
Good
b. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 2
The tables below present the descriptive statistic of the material judgment related to the appropriateness of Unit 2.
Table 30: The Appropriateness of the Content of Unit 2
Table 30 shows that the contents of the materials in Unit 2 are categorized as good. It could be inferred from the mean of the general judgment of the content
which is 3.50.
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
1.
Content The developed materials are appropriate
to the learning goals. 4
Very good
2. The developed materials text, table,
picture, etc are taken from recent source of science issue
3.50 Good
3. The developed materials text, table,
picture, etc are relevant to the topics being discussed
3.50 Good
4. The
developed materials
contain language
functions which
are in
accordance with students’ need. 3.50
Good
5. The
developed materials
contain knowledge of science.
3.50 Good
6. The developed materials are appropriate
with the students’ level of English proficiency.
3.50 Good
7. The developed materials lead the
students to understand the linguistic features of the discussed text.
3 Poor
The general judgment of the content 3.50
Good
Table 31: The Appropriateness of the Presentation of Unit 2
Table 31 shows that the presentation of the materials is considered good. It could be seen from the mean of the general judgment of the presentation.
Table 32: The Appropriateness of the Language of Unit 2
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
1.
Presentation The
developed materials
provided opening, main activities, evaluation,
reflection and summary consistently in each units.
3.50 Good
2. The developed tasks are well organized,
systemically graded, grading from the easiest task up to the most difficult task.
3.50 Good
3. There is good balance among task in a
unit with the tasks in the next unit. 3.50
Good 4.
The developed tasks encourage students to
perform oral
communication effectively.
3.50 Good
5. The developed tasks encourage students
to be creative. 3
Good 6.
The developed tasks encourage students to work independently and in groups.
3.50 Good
7. The developed materials consist of
evaluation for students to measure their understanding
of the
developed materials.
3.50 Good
8. The
developed materials
provide vocabulary appropriate with the topic
being discussed. 3.50
Good
9. The developed materials contains science
terminology related to topic discuss in each unit.
3.50 Good
The general judgment of the presentation 3.44
Good
Table 32 shows that the material is very good in terms of its language aspect. It could be seen from the mean of the general judgment of the language in Unit 2.
Therefore, the language of the developed materials is categorized as very good. Table 33: The Appropriateness of the Layout of Unit 2
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
1.
Language The language used is relevant to
students’ cognitive development. 4
Very good
2. The language of instruction can be easily
understood by the students. 3.50
Good 3.
The materials are developed in a grammatical English.
3.50 Good
4. The spelling of the language of
instruction are in accordance with spelling principle.
3.50 Good
5. The choice of words of the materials are
in accordance
with word
choice principle.
4 Very
good
6. The developed materials in a unit are
linked to materials in the next unit. 4
Very good
The general judgment of the language 3.75
Very good
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
5. Lay-out
The fonts used are no too various. 3.50
Good 6.
The fonts used are not too big or too small.
3.50 Good
7. The color of the materials are not
disturbing the reader. 3.50
Good 8.
The pictures are provided for aesthetic and functional purposes.
3.50 Good
The general judgment of the layout 3.50
Good
Table 33 shows that the layout of the materials is good. It is shown from the mean of the general judgment. The mean is 3.50, which categorized the layout of
Unit 2 as good.
c. The Results of Expert Judgment of Unit 3
The tables below present the descriptive statistic of the material judgment related to the appropriateness of Unit 3.
Table 34: The Appropriateness of the Content of Unit 3
No. Evaluated
Aspect Items
Means Category
1.
Content The developed materials are appropriate
to the learning goals. 4
Very good
2. The developed materials text, table,
picture, etc are taken from recent source of science issue
3.50 Good
3. The developed materials text, table,
picture, etc are relevant to the topics being discussed
3.50 Good
4. The
developed materials
contain language
functions which
are in
accordance with students’ need.
3.50 Good
5. The
developed materials
contain knowledge of science.
3.50 Good
6. The developed materials are appropriate
with the students’ level of English proficiency.
3.50 Good
7. The developed materials lead the
students to understand the linguistic features of the discussed text.
3 Poor
The general judgment of the content 3.50
Good
