Developing English Learning Materials for Graphic Visual Designers at Petak Umpet Advertising Company, Yogyakarta

Muhamad Hilmi Ainunnajih, , Indonesia


The objectives of this research were 1) to describe the target needs of the graphic designers of Petak Umpet Advertising Company Yogyakarta in learning English, 2) to describe the learning needs of the graphic designers of Petak Umpet Advertising Company, Yogyakarta, and 3) to develop appropriate English learning materials for the graphic visual designers of Petak Umpet Advertising Company Yogyakarta. This research was a Research and Development (R & D) study. The procedure of this research followed the materials development process proposed by Jolly and Bolitho (1998) with some adaptations. The steps of the research were: 1) conducting needs analysis: 2) developing syllabus; 3) designing learning materials; 4) getting evaluation from expert judgmentt; and 5) revising and producing the final draft. The data collection techniques used in needs analysis were distributing questionnaires and conducting an informal interview to the respondents. The data collection instruments were questionnaires. They were applied to collect the needs analysis data and the materials appropriateness data. The needs analysis data were analyzed by using frequency and precentage and the data from the materials evaluation were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. The additional data from the expert were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the needs analysis show that the learners prefered to have materials which were related to their job in graphic design, and they wanted the teacher to be a guide and facilitator in doing their tasks and activities of learning English. The length of the text that they wanted was no more than 250 words. Based on the expert judgment, the three units of the materials were appropriate as the English learning materials for graphic visual designers. It was shown by the appropriateness of all aspects, in terms of content, language, presentation, and layout, with a mean score of 2.78 which was categorized as “Good” which means that the materials were appropriate despite some revisions.

Full Text:



  • There are currently no refbacks.