1. Evaluation and Revision Phase
a. Self-Evaluation
In this phase, the writer evaluated the developed product. Some inappropriate words found in developed product. Additionally, some mistakes in grammar were also found. The writer commonly made mistake in the use of to be past in present adverbs. The examples of corrections toward prototype 1 are described in Table 5 below.
b. Expert Review
In this phase, the developed product was evaluated by two experts who had different expertise namely expert of content (English) and expert of construct (instructional design). Each expert was given a validation sheet in the form of questionnaire. The items in the questionnaire contained different aspect to be reviewed (see Appendix 7).
In the term of content …show more content…
One-to-One Evaluation
One-to-one evaluation was the last phase in prototype 1. In this phase, the developed product was directly used by three chosen students. After evaluating the product, a sheet of questionnaire was also delivered to the students. They gave their response considering the practicality of the product on provided questionnaire (see Appendix 9). Then, to know the practicality of the developed product, the writer analyzed the data from students’ response. The results are described in Table 8.
Based on the data in Table 8, it shows that the students’ average score of the total scores of students’ response was 3.19. Therefore, the product was indicated practical which was in high practicality level.
For additional information about the product, the writer informally asked the students about the weaknesses of the product at the end of the meeting. All of the students assumed that the product was good. However, the writer still found some mistakes in the activities in developed product. Therefore, the writer revised those mistakes. Some revisions are described below.
d. Small Group …show more content…
1. In terms of content (English) and construct (instructional design), the developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were categorized valid. Based on the analysis of two experts’ judgment, the validity level was 2.86. It was indicated at high validity level.
2. After being tried out to the students in one-to-one and small group evaluation, the developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were denoted as practical. It was proven by the result of average score in one-to-one evaluation which was 3.19 indicated as having high practicality. Then, data in small group evaluation showed that the product had very high practicality with its score was 3.36.
3. The developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were indicated had potential effect after being implemented to students in a real class. There were 85.71% out of 35 students passed the minimum mastery criterion (75). Therefore, it can be determined that the developed product had high potential effect.
a. Self-Evaluation
In this phase, the writer evaluated the developed product. Some inappropriate words found in developed product. Additionally, some mistakes in grammar were also found. The writer commonly made mistake in the use of to be past in present adverbs. The examples of corrections toward prototype 1 are described in Table 5 below.
b. Expert Review
In this phase, the developed product was evaluated by two experts who had different expertise namely expert of content (English) and expert of construct (instructional design). Each expert was given a validation sheet in the form of questionnaire. The items in the questionnaire contained different aspect to be reviewed (see Appendix 7).
In the term of content …show more content…
One-to-One Evaluation
One-to-one evaluation was the last phase in prototype 1. In this phase, the developed product was directly used by three chosen students. After evaluating the product, a sheet of questionnaire was also delivered to the students. They gave their response considering the practicality of the product on provided questionnaire (see Appendix 9). Then, to know the practicality of the developed product, the writer analyzed the data from students’ response. The results are described in Table 8.
Based on the data in Table 8, it shows that the students’ average score of the total scores of students’ response was 3.19. Therefore, the product was indicated practical which was in high practicality level.
For additional information about the product, the writer informally asked the students about the weaknesses of the product at the end of the meeting. All of the students assumed that the product was good. However, the writer still found some mistakes in the activities in developed product. Therefore, the writer revised those mistakes. Some revisions are described below.
d. Small Group …show more content…
1. In terms of content (English) and construct (instructional design), the developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were categorized valid. Based on the analysis of two experts’ judgment, the validity level was 2.86. It was indicated at high validity level.
2. After being tried out to the students in one-to-one and small group evaluation, the developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were denoted as practical. It was proven by the result of average score in one-to-one evaluation which was 3.19 indicated as having high practicality. Then, data in small group evaluation showed that the product had very high practicality with its score was 3.36.
3. The developed local content-based instructional pictorial reading materials were indicated had potential effect after being implemented to students in a real class. There were 85.71% out of 35 students passed the minimum mastery criterion (75). Therefore, it can be determined that the developed product had high potential effect.