49
students, then multiplied by 100. The data collected in the pre-design survey questionnaire would be calculated using percentage as follows.
100 ×
∑
n N
Note: N
= the total number of students who choose certain topic
∑
n = the total number of students
The writer calculated the data to find out the results. The results of the survey functioned as one of the considerations in designing the materials. In order
to improve the information needed, the writer also interpreted the results of the interview with the English teacher of SD Kanisius Kanutan.
2. Evaluation on the Design
The data for the evaluation were divided into two categories. The first category was about the respondents’ opinions that were shown statistically. The
second category was the respondents’ comments and suggestions that were explained in sentences.
a. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents’ Opinion on the Designed Materials
In order to calculate the data from the materials evaluation questionnaire, the writer used central tendency proposed by Brown and Rodger, namely “mean”
Brown and Rodger, 2004: 128. The mean was used to describe the average performance among a group of scores. The mean or average point was obtained
50
by calculating the sum of the respondents’ answer ∑x divided by the number of the respondents N.
The formula was:
N x
x
∑
=
Note: x
= the average point
∑
x = the sum of respondents’ answer N
= the number of respondents The estimation of the respondents’ opinions on the designed materials used
five points of agreement and disagreement, namely:
1 = if the respondents strongly disagree with the statement 2 = if the respondents disagree with the statement
3 = if the respondents neither agree or disagree or the respondents do not know or
doubt 4 = if the respondents agree with the statement
5 = if the respondents strongly agree with the statement
The data were presented in the form of table in which the respondents’ opinion, statements, and the mean. The format of results of the materials
evaluation questionnaire was presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. The Format of Descriptive Statistic of the Respondents’ Opinion Blank
No Respondents’
Opinions Statements
N Central
Tendency 1
2 3
4 5
Mn
51
Note: N
= Number to point out the amount of the respondents Mn
= Mean the indicator of central tendency of the set of the scores
In the preliminary field testing, the data showed whether the designed materials were good and acceptable or not. In order to judge whether the designed
materials were acceptable or not, the writer gave description to categorize the results. The maximum points were five. The materials designed were called good
and acceptable if the total points were more than seventy-five percent from the maximum points. This meant that the materials designed would be called good
and acceptable if the total of central tendency was more than 3.75. The materials designed were called good but needed crucial revisions if the total of central
tendency was fifty percent up to seventy-five percent. The materials designed were called poorly designed if the total of central tendency was below fifty
percent.
b. Respondents’ Comments and Suggestions
