Improving Students’ Grammar Mastery by Using Index Card Match Strategy at SMP Budi Agung
Keywords:
Grammar mastery, Index card matchAbstract
This study aimed to determine if the implementation of the Index Card Match Strategy could significantly improve students' grammar mastery. This classroom action research (CAR) was conducted on 35 eighth-grade students at SMP Swasta Budi Agung Medan. The research was conducted over two cycles. The first cycle included four sessions, while the second cycle also comprised four sessions. The instruments used to collect quantitative data were multiple-choice tests, while qualitative data were gathered using daily field notes, observation sheets, and student activity notes. According to the analysis, students' grammar mastery improved in each test. In the pre-cycle I, none of students succeeded in passing the Minimum Passing Score and the average score obtained was 22.08. In test II of cycle I, after the implementation of the Index Card Match Strategy, 34.29% of students (12 out of 35 students) succeeded in passing the Minimum Passing Score with an average score of 64.85, and in test III of cycle II, 82.86% of students (29 out of 35 students) succeeded in passing the Minimum Passing Score with an average score of 88.14. From the qualitative data collected based on observation sheets, daily field notes, and student activity notes, it was determined that the instructional process went off without a hitch. Students showed greater engagement and enthusiasm during the teaching and learning process. It is concluded that the Index Card Match Strategy can improve students' mastery of grammar.
References
[1] Alfred. (2010). Inovasi Pendidikan. Salatiga: STAIN Salatiga.
[2] Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York,
USA: Pearson EducationInc.
[3] Chrystal, D. (2008). Towards a Philosophy of Language Management. Latin American Journal of Content Language Integrated Learning, 1(1), 43–53.
[4] De Saussure, F. (2021). Nature of the Linguistic Sign and Synchronic and Diachronic Law [1916]. Readings
for a History of Anthropological Theory, 85.
[5] Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Review
Press.
[6] Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
[7] Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice. Learning, 46(2), 327-69.
[8] Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching Grammar.Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language(3rd ed., pp. 251-266)..
[9] Mintzberg, H. (1979). Patterns in Strategy Formation. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 9(3), 67-86.
[10] Ohmae, K. (1982). The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business. McGraw-Hill.
[11] Porter, M. E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
[12] Pullum, G. K. (1982). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Basil Blackwell Oxford/Harvard University
Press, Cambridge MA.
[13] Silberman, M. (2004). Active Learning 101: Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif. Bandung: Nusa Media..
[14]Styaningrum, E. D. (2019). "The Effects of Grammar Mastery Towards Student's Grammar
Comprehension in Expository Text." Wanastra: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 11(1), 89–
100.
[15] Werner, P. K., & Nelson, J. P. (1985). Mosaic II: A Content-Based Grammar. New York:
Random House Inc.
