The authentic materials were selected upon the major findings of the NA and were put into verification for use in the intervention. The participants who were invited to the evaluation were three teachers, two tour guides and two foreign tourists (one Englishman and one American) who took part in the survey questionnaire and the semi-structured interview in the NA. Among the participants, two foreigners were both short-term visitors and teachers in Nha Trang. All the participants were asked to evaluate and provide detailed suggestions for improvement of the structure and content of the materials from their perspectives as well as their expectations.
In parallel with the verification of the proposed materials, a pilot course using the material was offered. According to Richards (2001: 281), piloting is an activity involving trying out the materials with a representative group of learners and teachers before they are made available for wider use in order to identify problems or faults that can be identified before they are used more widely. Hence, 12 tour guide undergraduates who were among the participants of the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews were invited to take part in the pilot. These students were at pre-intermediate level of the English language and non-randomly selected
from the tour guide undergraduates at Nha Trang College of Arts, Culture and Tourism. They studied English for tourism as a major for their job and they were in the same class. They had not had any knowledge of humour and jokes until they joined the survey. They all expressed needs to learn humour and jokes and wanted to tell good jokes in English.
2.2.2.2. Data collection instruments
A survey questionnaire was made for teachers and semi-structured interviews were conducted to the students. The questionnaire was made for verifying the draft of the materials (Appendix 6). This instrument was chosen in the second stage after NA because ―it is easy to design one‘s own questionnaire‖, ―give more reflective and meaningful feedback‖, and ―useful information to teaching staff which will allow them consistently to adapt and improve their teaching practice‖ (Moore, 2003: 8).
The questionnaire content was adapted from Richard (2001) in which the researchers also used a group of questions which were suitable for the evaluation of a kind of materials on humorous language using. However, the key standard characteristics of an assessing question were to make sure such as ―Do the materials address learners‘ needs?‖, ―Is the pacing of the materials appropriate?‖, ―Do the materials provide cultural awareness?‖ etc. The questionnaires then were handed out to the cohorts both by hand and by email in case the international tourists were not present in Nha Trang.
Semi-structured Interviews were used for piloting the materials. Actually, according to Davidson (1998: 184), piloting provides a feel for whether the materials are fulfilled;
whether it is appropriate in level, content, and approach; and whether it successfully promotes learning. It can be seen that piloting is for a better use and for improvable learning. Moreover, Richards (2001: 269) highlights that piloting involves trying out materials with a representative group of learners and teachers before they are made available for wider use in order to identify problems or faults in them that can be identified before they are used widely. Thus, interviews were appropriate and the
questions for the interviews were designed with the aim of getting students‘ comments on their experience with the materials after learning (Appendix 7).
2.2.2.3. Data collection procedure
After the proposed materials were completed by January 2015 based on the findings of NA, the survey questionnaire was handled. It could not organize a face-to-face meeting for the verification because the cohorts were not in the same jobs as teachers and their time was flexible. Moreover, the foreign tourists were not in Nha Trang at the time of the MV. Thus by the end of January 2015 the materials were sent to the participants by mail and by email. A set of compiled materials including the syllabus, students‘ textbook and teacher‘s guide were supplied for the participants. This verification met one disadvantage that the participants were different in disciplines, professions, nationality so it took time for them to read and some of them needed explanations. The researcher had to phone to make clear and confirm the submission. Three months later in March, 2015 all the questionnaire feedbacks were collected.
Then the materials were piloted in May 2015. It was the best time for the piloting course to operate when the TGU students returned home from their tour internship.
The course lasted one month in May 2015. By the end of the course, the students were interviewed about the effectiveness of the course and their self-assessment on the humour comprehension mostly for verifying the materials.
2.2.2.4. Data analysis
Following the mixed methods design, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected for the materials verification. The quantitative data came from the questionnaires and were expressed in a simple graph while the qualitative data were gathered from the interviews and grouped in themes. The two kinds of data were merged and accordingly interpreted to find out the weaknesses of the proposed materials so that they can be improved and adjusted for use in the intervention.