PENGEMBANGAN MATERI BELAJAR MEMBACA BAGI SISWA KELAS X
SMAN I SEYEGAN DI TAHUN AJARAN 2012/2013
DEVELOPING
READING LEARNING MATERIALS FOR GRADE X STUDENTS OF
SMAN
I SEYEGAN IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2012/2013
Ihtiara Fitrianingsih1, Suwarsih Madya2
ihtiarafitrianingsih@gmail.com1,
madyasuwarsih@gmail.com2
Abstrak
Penelitian
ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan materi belajar membaca yang sesuai dengan
kebutuhan pembelajaran siswa Kelas X SMAN I Seyegan pada tahun ajaran
2012/2013. Penelitian pengembangan ini dilaksanakan melalui sembilan langkah,
yaitu: 1) pengembangan instrumen penelitian, 2) identifikasi dan eksplorasi
kebutuhan belajar siswa yang meliputi kebutuhan pembelajaran dan target
pembelajaran siswa, 3) pendesainan silabus, 4) penyusunan draf 1 materi
belajar, 5) evaluasi pra-penggunaan, 6) pengembangan draf 2 materi belajar, 7)
uji coba materi belajar, 8) evaluasi pasca-penggunaan, dan 9) revisi dan
pengembangan produk akhir. Hasil penelitian ini adalah sebagai berikut. 1)
Materi belajar membaca yang telah dikembangkan dan sesuai untuk siswa kelas X
SMAN I Seyegan berupa empat unit materi cetak yang digunakan sebagai materi
balajar tambahan dalam pembelajaran teks news
item dan narrative pada semester
kedua Kelas X. 2) Berdasarkan data hasil uji coba, materi belajar membaca yang
dihasilkan sesuai dengan kebutuhan pembelajaran dan target pembelajaran siswa.
3) Hasil evaluasi materi belajar yang dilakukan oleh siswa dan kolega
menunjukkan bahwa materi belajar membaca yang dihasilkan sesuai dengan kebutuhan siswa. Produk akhir penelitian ini juga
telah dianalisis berdasarkan pada kebutuhan pembelajaran kosakata (3000 kata
berfrekuensi tinggi) dan keterampilan mikro membaca sehingga distribusi
keduanya lebih sesuai dan seimbang.
Kata kunci: pengembangan materi, keterampilan membaca,
kelas X SMA
Abstract
This study
aims to develop reading learning materials which are appropriate to the needs
of Grade X students of SMAN 1 Seyegan in the academic year of 2012/2013. This research and development study was carried out
in nine stages, namely 1) instrument development, 2) identification and
exploration of needs, covering the student’s and teachers’ learning needs and
target needs, 3) course grid design, 4) the development of the first drafts of
the learning materials, 5) pre-use evaluation, 6) the development
of the second
drafts of the learning
materials, 7) try-out of the materials, 8) post-use evaluation, and 9) revision & final
material production. The results of the study show the
following. 1) The developed reading learning materials which are appropriate for
grade X students of SMAN 1 Seyegan are four units of printed materials which
are used as additional learning materials in learning the news item and
narrative texts in the second semester of grade X. Based on the tryout data,
the reading learning materials are appropriate to the target needs and the
learning needs of the students. 3) The results of the material evaluations by
the students and the colleagues reveal that the reading learning materials are appropriate with the target and learning
needs of the students. The final products of this study were also analyzed
based on the needs of vocabulary (3000 high frequency words) and micro skills
of reading so that both needs are equally and sufficiently distributed in the
units.
Keywords: material
development, reading skills, grade X of Senior
High School
Background
In the
academic year of 2012/2013, the
School-Based
Curriculum for
grade X of Senior
High School requires students to comprehend and create
short functional texts, monologues and essays in the form of procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative, and news item (Depdiknas,
2006). Teachers are also required to select,
use, and/or provide materials in order to help the students’ learning on the
texts. To be resourceful
of teaching reading, therefore, it is important for teachers to have ample skills in providing appropriate learning materials so that
the students can learn the subject matters appropriately and sufficiently.
In reference to the interview with the grade X English teacher of SMAN I
Seyegan in Sleman subdistric which was conducted on the 20th April
2013, the researcher found that the teacher still needed to work hard in
providing the students with learning materials which are suitable for their
needs. The interview results show that grade X students of SMAN I Seyegan
learned English in classes by using workbooks or Lembar Kerja Siswa (LKS)
without having any textbook of their own. For introducing
new texts, the teacher said, she needed to retype the materials from the
textbook and present them, for example, in a two-page handout in order that the
students could have its copies. Then, the students would be working on the
workbooks for the tasks. Considering
that teaching materials are one of key components in most language programs
(Richard, 2001: 251), teachers and students should be provided with a great
deal of teaching resources. Allwright (1990), as quoted by Kitao (1997), says that materials should
teach students to learn, that they should be resource books for ideas and
activities for instruction/learning.
Besides, every learning material taken from various sources should be
adapted or modified to suit students’ target needs and learning needs (Hutchinson
and Waters, 1987) or in Nation’s (2010: 24) words, should match with students’
needs, lack and wants.
However, there are some evidences showing
that materials available in the market, especially the workbooks or Lembar
kerja Siswa (LKS) do not have the
criteria of good instructional materials. Two workbooks that the researcher had
reviewed do not have the criteria of good reading materials in which they do
not allow the learners to develop certain micro skills of reading and that some
principles in teaching reading are not applied yet. Moreover, when they are
applied in the classroom, the materials do not match with students’ lacks,
needs, and wants. However, developing such good materials is not a short and
simple thing to do. In providing such good reading materials, some steps in
needs analysis and material development stages should be done. This is why the
researcher developed learning materials to teach reading skills for grade X
students of SMAN 1 Seyegan through doing research and development.
Research Method
This research and development was
carried on May – June 2013 on SMAN 1 Seyegan, Sleman, Yogyakarta Special
Province. 163 respondents were
involved in the study, consisting
of 157 students (2 students for the first-piloting of the needs analysis
questionnaire, 4 students for the
second-piloting of the needs analysis questionnaire, 61 students as the respondents of the needs analysis, 157 students for the tryout and post-use evaluation), 1 English teacher for the needs analysis and
material evaluation, 1 expert and 1 colleague for the pre-use evaluation, and 3
colleagues for the material evaluation.
To develop reading materials
which are appropriate for the students, there are some steps which should be
carried out carefully. The processes are 1) instrument development, 2) identification and
exploration of needs, covering the student’s and teachers’ learning needs and
target needs, 3) course grid design, 4) the development of the first drafts of
the learning materials, 5) pre-use evaluation, 6) the development
of the second
drafts of the learning
materials, 7) try-out of the materials, 8) post-use evaluation, and 9) revision & final
material production.
The flow of the processes above are presented on Figure 1.
The first development step was developing research
instruments, such as needs analysis questionnaire, material evaluation
questionnaires, and interview guidelines, whilst field notes were developed
during the tryout of the second draft of the learning materials.
Then, after the needs analysis
instruments were piloted and revised, they are used to gather the data about
the students’ target needs and learning needs. The data about the students’
needs cover their eight categories of target needs and seven categories of
learning needs which include the students’: 1) profile (age, sex and language),
2) learning objectives, 3) L1 and L2 literacy skills, 4) frequency of learning the
four skills, 5) background as a reader, 6) familiarity with genres of texts, 7)
use of reading strategies, 8) performance on the micro skills of reading, and
their choice of 9) topic, 10) learning
activities, 10) homework, 11) learning feedback, 12) task setting, 13) role for
learning, and 14) role of the teacher. After the needs are noted, the
crousegrid of the learning materials is designed. Later, the first draft of the
learning materials are developed based on the coursegrid.
 |
Figure
1. The
Material Development Model Applied in the Study
(modified from Brown, 1995: 164 and Jolly & Bolitho in Tomlinson,
1998: 98)
The next step was the pre-use
evaluation of the first draft of the learning materials on which some material
expert are working. After the data of the pre-use evaluation was gathered and
analyzed quantitatively, the first draft of the learning materials were
revised. Then, the second draft of the learning materials were tried out to the
students as they also gave the post-use evaluation data through questionnaires.
Besides, three colleagues who ever worked on the similar study also evaluated
the materials by using a different material evaluation questionnaire. In this
stage, the material evaluators investigate the six categories of evaluation, such as 1) layout and graphic, 2)
language, 3) content, 4) activity, 5) language skill, and 6) support.The English teacher also
contributed to the post-use evaluation through an interview. After all the data
are gathered, they are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
As the questionnaires were
close-ended, most of them use
five-scaled items. The formula for counting
the interval/range will be: five minus one per five, which equals to 0.79. By using this formula, the
interpretation of the questionnaire data uses the Table 1. Meanwhile, to analyze the qualitative data, the five stages of data analysis suggested by Burns
(1999: 157-160) are referred. They are: 1) assembling the data, 2) coding the data, 3) comparing the data, 4) building interpretations, and 5) reporting the outcomes.
Finding and Discussion
The descriptions of the developed reading learning materials
From
the needs analysis data, it is found that the needed learning materials are in
the form of four units of printed reading learning materials which were
developed for around-16-year-old students. The topics, as covered in the four
units, are: Smartphone Hunt (technology-news
items), Celebrity Update (entertainment-news items), Sweet Love (love-narratives),
and Adventure Time (adventure-narratives). Describing the layout of the
learning materials, the
pictures appearing in the first-two pages, the task numbering system and the organization of these units
adapted the design of learning materials
in the English Buku Sekolah Elektonik
(BSE) or Electronic Books developed by Joko Priyana (2008) namely Interlanguage: English for Senior High
School Students X. The materials were
organized to have the following features: 1) Let’s Explore, 2) Let’s Read, 3) Let’s
Do More, 4) Homework, 5)Let’s Reflect, and 6) Let’s
Summarize.
Table 1. Scales
for the Closed-Ended Questionnaires and Its Interpretation
|
Scale
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Means
|
1.00 – 1.79
|
1.80 – 2.59
|
2.60 – 3.39
|
3.40 – 4.19
|
4.20 – 5.00
|
|
Interpretation
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Partly Agree
|
Agree
|
Strongly Agree
|
Let’s
Explore
is a part consisting of tasks for leading students to the subject matter
discussed throughout the unit. It may consist of 2-3 tasks. Students may be lead to think about their existing
knowledge about the theme (i.e. music), study their vocabulary related to the
theme, etc. In Let’s Read, students are provided by some sample reading texts and
tasks related to the texts. The tasks may in the form of matching statements
and pictures, answering comprehension questions, ordering a sequence of
pictures, mind mapping the information given in a reading text, studying a
grammar explanation related to the reading text, doing grammar exercises,
previewing a text, skimming a text, studying the organization of a genre of
text discussed in the unit, labeling the text based on its generic structure,
etc. In this part the students may also found wise words related to the moral
value introduced in one of the reading text. The tasks also enable the students
to work either in pairs, in groups or individually.
In Let’s Do More, the students may work in pairs and individually to do four or
five extra reading activities. However, Let’s
Do More is focused for
individual tasks in order to develop the students’ self confidence in doing
reading tasks. The next feature is Homework. Homework may consist of extra
reading tasks, for example, reading a reading text and answering some
comprehension questions, finding another reading text in newspaper or other
media and making its summary, summarizing a given text, etc. Whilst in Let’s Reflect students are required to mention and write what they like best in
the unit, what they do not like in the unit, what seems difficult in the unit
and what improvement they made after learning in the unit. At last, Let’s Summarize listed what the students
have learnt. It consists of a genre of text with its organization, the grammar
point presented in the unit, and the reading skills developed in the unit. This
feature helps the students to memorize and review what they have learnt in
order that they can think of how much they learn in the unit.
Besides having the
features mentioned above, the learning materials also developed to have
consistent lay out in each unit. Start from the first page, the students can
find the unit number followed by the unit title in the upper front of the unit
(in page 1). In this page, the students would also find a big picture covering
75% of the page. This picture usually gives the students the first image for
imagination to what would be given in the unit. Next, in page 2, the students
can find another big picture representing the theme of the unit. Under the
picture, there are two or three paragraphs describing what the students are
going to learn in the unit. Meanwhile,
in page 3 students are provided with reading tasks organized in each
feature. The icon and color of each
feature and task are always consistent. Besides, among the tasks in Let’s Read, students can also find a
page having a box containing wise words in the lower end of the page.
Evaluation results
Based on the
tryout and the evaluation data, it is found that Unit 1 is appropriate, with the
total means score of 4.13 (from the colleagues) and
4.14 (from the students). The layout and graphic of the unit is categorized as
very appropriate, with the means score of 4.33. Moreover, the language,
content, activity, language skill, and support of Unit 1 are categorized as
appropriate, with means score ranging from 3.92 - 4.13. However, some revision on
the grammar and spelling are made. In addition, some improvements are made in Task 2, Task 5, Task
7, Task 8, Task 11, Task 13 and Task 16. The researcher also revised the explanation on the
passive voice in this unit.
Next, Unit 2 is also
categorized as appropriate unit with total means score of 4.16 (from the
colleagues) and 3.89 (from the students). The layout and graphic, language,
content, activity, language skill, and support of Unit 2 are categorized as
appropriate, with means score ranging from 3.84 - 4.56. However, some
improvements are made in
Task 6, Task 7, Task 8 and Task 10. The researcher also revised the activities
in order to support the learning of passive voice, grammar, skimming and mind
mapping.
Then, Unit 3 is categorized
as appropriate unit, with total means score of 4.07 (from the
colleagues) and 4.02 (from the students). The layout and graphic, language,
content, activity, language skill, and support of Unit 3 are also categorized as appropriate,
with means score ranging from
3.92 – 4.21. However, some
improvements are made in Task 9, Task10 and Task 16.
At last, Unit 4 is found as
appropriate unit, with total means score of 4.23 (from the colleagues) and
4.03 (from the students). The layout and graphic, language, content, activity,
language skill, and support of Unit 4 are also categorized as appropriate, with
means ranging from 3.84 – 4.44. However,
some improvements are made in Task 7, Task 8, Task 9, Task 14 and Task 17. The
researcher also revised the texts in Unit 4 in order that the language level of
the texts suits the students’ level of learning.
Analysis of vocabulary and
micro skills of
reading
As summarized, based
on the evaluation questionnaires the developed reading learning materials have
appropriate layout and graphic, language, content, activity, language skill,
and support. However, an analysis on the language skills which are planned to
be developed by the learning materials should be carried out. The language
skills that should be analyzed include the micro skill and vocabulary. Thus, it is necessary to
evaluate how the learning materials can help learners develop the needed micro
skills and the vocabulary.
Regarding the vocabulary mastery, McCarten (2007: 2) states
“students need to be self-sufficient learners. It is unlikely that teachers can
cover in class the huge number of vocabulary items that the students will need
to use or understand, so it is equally important to help students with how to learn vocabulary as well as with what to learn.” In line with this idea,
the researcher adapted the texts used in the learning materials in order
that the words can be understood by the learners, or in other words, at least
the words used in the texts are included in the 3000 high frequency words.
However, the researcher still needed to
introduce some essential new words outside the 3000 high frequency words, which
are needed in order to comprehend the substances or ideas being delivered by
the text. Nevertheless, the learners will still be able to understand what the
text is talking about as some other new words are substituted to their synonyms
or restructured by other phrases or clauses to ease the learners.
To evaluate both micro skill and vocabulary, a table containing the tasks, micro skills and reading
strategies developed in the units of materials were made. Besides, words
learned through vocabulary lists in the units were also summarized. Then, both
documents were analyzed and summarized. First, the evaluation should see how
well the distribution of the micro skills is, and second, how well the
distribution of part of speech is in the
word lists in each unit. Both documents are presented in the appendix.
Based
on the analysis, it is found that the distribution of the reading
micro skills in each unit is somehow unequal as in Unit 1 and Unit 2 there are
11 micro skills, while in Unit 3 there are 13 micro skills and in Unit 4 there
are 9 micro skills. It shows that some revision can be made to the existing
learning materials in order that the learners can focus on micro skills of
reading which the learners rarely used and they really need in comprehending
English texts. Table 69 presents the results of the analysis on micro skills.
As seen in Table 2, 18
micro skills were covered in the units of learning materials. The distribution, however, is not well managed. What can be seen to
cover in each unit is that there are seven micro skills which were developed,
they are: 1) skimming, 2) selectively extracting the relevant points from a text, 3) scanning to locate specifically required information, 4)
understanding explicitly stated information, 5) identifying the characteristics
of text types (e.g. narrative, news item, etc), 6) understanding the
communicative value (function) of written texts according to form and purpose,
and 7) understanding relations between the parts of a text through grammatical
cohesion devices.
To revise the learning materials in order that they have equally and
sufficiently distributed micro skills, the researcher decided to limit the
micro skills to those seven micro skills plus the four low frequency micro
skills mentioned in the table. The four additional skills were divided into
four, so each unit would be added by one additional micro skill of reading. Thus, in each unit there would be eight micro skills to develop.
Table 2. The Micro Skills of Reading from
Infrequently to Frequently Used
and Its
Coverage on the Developed Learning Materials
|
NO
|
Micro Skills of Reading
|
Usage Frequency
|
Unit
|
|
a
|
Transcoding
information to diagrammatic display
|
seldom
|
2
|
|
b
|
Understanding
information when not explicitly stated by inferring context
|
Sometimes
|
2,3
|
|
c
|
Understanding
relations between the parts of a text
through lexical cohesion devices
|
Sometimes
|
4
|
|
d
|
Connecting what they already know to new
information in the text to understand the text
|
Sometimes
|
2,3
|
|
e
|
Understanding
conceptual meaning
|
Sometimes
|
3
|
|
f
|
Skimming
the text
|
Sometimes
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
g
|
Understanding
relations within the sentence
|
Sometimes
|
3
|
|
h
|
Understanding
relations between the parts of a text through grammatical cohesion devices
|
Sometimes
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
i
|
Scanning
to locate specifically required information
|
Sometimes
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
j
|
Distinguishing
the main idea from supporting details
|
Sometimes
|
1,2
|
|
k
|
Using
basic reference skills
|
Sometimes
|
2
|
|
l
|
Selectively
extracting the relevant points from a text
|
Sometimes
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
m
|
Identifying
the main point or important information in a piece of discourse
|
Sometimes
|
1
|
|
n
|
Guessing
meaning of new words from context
|
Sometimes
|
1,3
|
|
o
|
Extracting
salient points to summarize
|
Often
|
3,4
|
|
p
|
Understanding
explicitly stated information
|
Often
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
q
|
Identifying
the characteristics of text types (e.g. News item or narrative,)
|
Often
|
1,2,3,4
|
|
r
|
Understanding
the communicative value (function) of written texts according to form and
purpose
|
often
|
1,2,3,4
|
Besides the micro
skills, the results of the analysis also reveal that the distribution of words
from different parts of speech is unequal. In each unit, there are 25 up
to 38 words that should be learned through the tasks. The
words include noun, verb, adjective, preposition, adverb, and conjunction.
Besides learning the words and their parts of speech, learners are also
provided with the phonetic transcription which are taken from the Cambridge Advance
Learner’s Dictionary (Cambridge, 2008) in order that they learn how
to pronoun the words correctly.
Analyzing
the proportion for each part of speech, however, Table 3 shows that the
words learned by the students are mostly nouns and verbs. The analysis results
says that the biggest proportion is on nouns which are 48% from
the total 121 words learned in the materials, and verbs which comprise 31% from the total
121 words. The other parts of speech, such as adjective, preposition, adverb
and conjunction, comprise less than 18%. As mentioned in Table 70, adjectives comprise 17%,
while adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions are at the least
proportion that is 1%-2%.
The
analysis result shows that the developed reading learning materials were revised in order
that the learners develop their vocabulary knowledge including various parts of
speech in moderate proportion. Finally, the vocabulary learning aims to
facilitate the learners with sufficient knowledge of the words which support
their skills in comprehending the texts. Meanwhile, as
students of Senior High Schools are on the intermediate learning level, they
should be helped to learn the 3000 high frequently words. Thus, an analysis was
also done to identify the vocabulary of texts appearing in the developed
reading learning materials.
The
analysis was done by identifying manually the word family (represented by
symbols) of each words appearing in the text. If a unit has four texts, it
might take five to ten minutes for each text to finish looking up the words
appearing in the text and match them with those on the Longman Communication 3000. Each word is
identified whether they have W1, W2, W3 and S1, S2, S3. Symbols W1,
W2, W3 for words that are in the top 1000, 2000, and 3000 frequent words in
written English, while symbols S1,S2,S3 for words that are in the top 1000,
2000, and 3000 frequent words in spoken English. After all of the words are
identified, some words which are not listed in the Longman Communication 3000 are identified.
Based
on the analysis result, each unit of learning
material has different numbers of words to list. For the
learners, more words are listed in the table, the more difficult the text to
comprehend, because they should encounter more words which they do not know the
meaning. It can be seen that from Unit 1 to Unit 4 learners encounter at least
21 to 71 words which are not listed in the Longman
Communication 3000. As seen on the table, Unit 3 and Unit 4 require the
learners to work with 12-17 unfamiliar words in each text in order to
comprehend the text. This situation may become a problem for the learners when
they had limited time to work with the task in which the text is on.
As in
the developed reading learning materials there are still relatively more words
which are outside the 3000 word list, the researcher revised the texts in order
that the learners can understand the text better. To revise them, some of the
words which are outside the 3000 word list were substituted
by phrases or clauses which are easy to understand, while some core words which
initiate ideas of the texts would be introduced.
Table 3. The Distribution of Parts of Speech in the Vocabulary
Learning Tasks
|
No
|
Parts of Speech
|
Unit 1
|
Unit 2
|
Unit 3
|
Unit 4
|
Total
|
Percentage
|
|
1
|
Noun
|
15
|
12
|
11
|
20
|
58
|
0.48
|
|
2
|
Verb
|
9
|
7
|
13
|
9
|
38
|
0.31
|
|
3
|
Adjective
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
20
|
0.17
|
|
4
|
Preposition
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0.01
|
|
5
|
Adverb
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
3
|
0.02
|
|
6
|
Conjunction
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0.01
|
Finally,
in each unit, there would be five to twenty words outside the 3000 word list
which are introduced in the vocabulary learning tasks. Besides,
there are also findings on words outside the 3000 high frequency words, such as
subsidy, detective, and smartphone
which may not included in every vocabulary learning task because the learners
were already understand the meaning of these words from their Indonesian
language. Thus, such words in this category may be skipped in the vocabulary
learning tasks when they are emerge on new texts.
To
summarize, the final reading learning materials were developed by revising 1)
the vocabulary used in the texts, 2) the tasks in which the micro skills were
developed, 3) the words learned in the vocabulary lists. Therefore, finally the
final reading learning materials were expected to be able to develop the
desired or needed micro skills, vocabulary and knowledge on the subject matters
being discussed.
Conclusion
and Recommendation
In
reference to the results of the data analysis, this study has successfully
achieved the objective of the research. First, it is found that characteristics
of the reading learning materials needed by the Grade X students of SMA N 1
Seyegan in the academic year of 2012/2013 include the A4-sized paper-based
reading learning materials which
cover topics such as technology, entertainment, love and adventure. Second, as
stated in the
finding and discussion,
the Grade X students and the colleagues who evaluated the learning materials,
as well as the English teacher perceive that the developed reading learning
materials are appropriate to use. The four units of reading learning materials
are found to have appropriate layout and graphic, language, content, activity,
language skill, and support. The units of reading learning materials also enable
the students to develop
their reading
skills as well as encourage them in using reading strategies.
Based
on the micro skill and vocabulary analysis, however, the developed reading
learning materials still have unequally distributed micro skills and words from
various parts of speech. Moreover, there are some words in the texts which are
not listed in the 3000 high frequency words. These analysis results imply that
the learning materials need some revision. However, the final products of this
study were already managed
to cover all the revisions suggested by the results of the analysis.
Thus, the results of this study recommend all material developers and material
evaluators to investagate closely their learning materials on its vocabulary
(distribution and word frequency class) and the coverage of the micro skills
being developed throughout the tasks as these two main points are essentials
for the students when they are using the learning materials.
References
Brown, J. D. 1995. The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative
action research for English language teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Depdiknas. 2006. Permendiknas No. 22 tahun
2006 tentang standar isi untuk satuan pendidikan dasar
dan menengah. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Hutchinson, T., and Waters, A. 1987. English for specific purposes: a
learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitao,
K. April 1997. Selecting and developing teaching/learning materials. The Internet TESL Journal, 4, 4, retrieved on November 27, 2012 at 11.30 a.m from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html
Longman. 2009. Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5th ed.) New York: Pearson Education Limited.
McCarten, J. 2007. Teaching
vocabulary lesson from the corpus, lesson from the classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. 2010. Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Priyana,
J. et. al. 2008.
Interlanguage: English for Senior High School students X. Jakarta: Pusat
Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan nasional.
Richards, JC 2001. Curriculum
development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, B (ed). 1998. Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
