IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN USING MODAL VERB

“SHOULD AND MUST” IN VARIOUS CONTEXT THROUGH

CONTEXTUAL LEARNING IN EIGHTH OF SMP NEGERI 1 SINGARAJA
Arief baskoro, S.Pd
English Education Department
Ganesha University of Education
[email protected]

Abstrak

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan kemampuan di dalam modal

verb” must dan should dalam berbagai konteks menggunakan CTL. Penelitian ini
diterapkan pada siswa kelas VIII A7 SMP Negeri 1 Singaraja tahun ajaran
2018/2019 yang terdiri atas 32 siswa. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada data awal yang
menununjukan bahwa siswa memiliki kendala dengan kemampuan berbicara. Ini
merupakan Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) yang dilakukan dalam dua siklus.
Instrumen yang digunakan adalah tes (pra dan pasca), dan kuisioner. Hasilnya
menunjukan adanya peningkatan dalam kemampuan berbicara siswa dan mampu
mancapai KKM (78) pada akhir siklus kedua. Hasil mean score meningkat dari 44,68
(pre-test) ke 54,84 (sikuls 1) and 80,93 (sikuls 2). Persentasi kelulusan siswa juga
meningkat 36.25% (80,93 – 44.68) dari pretest 22.16% (80,93 – 54.84) dari
posttest 1

Keywords: CTL, Modal verb, various context..

Abstract

This study aimed to improve students’ ability in using modal verb “must and
should” in various context through CTL. The subject of this study was the students
of class VIIIA7 Negeri 1 Singaraja academic year 2018/2019 which consisted of 32
students. The study was made based on the prelimenary observation which
indicated that students had problem in using modal verb “must and should”. The type
of the study was Classroom Action Research and conducted on two cycles. Each
cycle divided into planning, action, observation, and reflection. The intruments used
on this research were tests (pre-test, post test I, post test 2) and observation sheet.
The result showed improvement in students’ speaking skill and achievement in
passing the standart score (78) on the second cycle. The mean score improved from
44,68 (pre-test) into 54,84 (post test 1) and 80,93 (post test 2). The class
percentage shows the improvement 36.25% (80,93 – 44.68) from the pretest or
22.16% (80,93 – 54.84) from the posttest 1.

Keywords: CTL, Modal verb, various context..

INSTRUCTION
Nowadays, language plays a very usually used by people to communicate with
important role in human life. Language is others. There are a lot of languages can be

1
used by people in order to communicate with the lowest achievement gained score 2.
others but, the most popular language used Next, the percentage of the students who
by people to communicate with others in this passed the KKM was 12,5 %
era is English. English plays a very essential To solve student’s problem, the
role in this era. It can be seen in any aspects writer tries to find solution an appropriate
such as technology, entertainment, way to improve students’ ability in using
education and any others aspect. That is modal auxiliary verbs especially on must and
why English is also known as an should, that is through Contextual Teaching
international language. and Learning (CTL) method. According to
To master English, students should Johnson (2008) “Contextual teaching and
master four English basic skills and learning is an educational process that aims
language components. The four English to help student see meaning in the academic
basic skills are listening, reading, speaking subject with the context of their daily lives,
and writing. Meanwhile, the language which is with the context of their personal,
components are vocabulary, grammar, and social, and cultural circumstances”
pronunciation. As one of the language Modals auxiliary and semi modals
components, grammar should be mastered can be grouped into five categories based on
by students because grammar enables them the meanings (Swan, 1982). Those are
to use the language accurately. Without a certainty, probability, weak probability,
correct grammar, it is hardly to arrange habitual possibility, and conditional certainty
words into a sentence, sentences into a or possibility.
paragraph and paragraphs into a passage. Contextual teaching is teaching that
According to Ur (1988) “Grammar be enables students to reinforce, expand, and
roughly defined as the way language apply their academic knowledge and skills in
manipulates and combine word in order to a variety of in-school and out-of school
form longer units of meaning. There are settings in order to solve the stimulated or
many aspects should be learnt by the real-world problems (Nurhadi, 2015)
students in grammar such as structure the writer chooses Classroom Action
sentence. It consists subject and verb. One Research (CAR) to conduct a research.
kind of verbs is modal auxiliary. The study of According to Mills (2003) action research is
modal auxiliary expresses such as any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher
obligation, suggestion, prohibition and etc. researchers, principals, school counselors,
On the contrary, the students at or other stakeholders in the
eighth of SMP N 1 Singaraja still make some teaching/learning environment to gather
mistake in learning modal auxiliary verb information about how their particular school
especially must and should or to achieve operates, how they teach, and how well their
score 78 (seventy-eight) as the minimal students learn. This information gathered
mastery criteria or Kriteria Ketuntasan with the goals of gaining insight, developing
Minimal (KKM). reflective practice, effective positives
Based on the pretest which is done changes in the school environment, and
in 8A7 on Monday, September 10th 2018. It improving student outcomes and the lives of
is clearly shown that most of the students are those involved.
unable to meet Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal In conducting the research, the writer
(KKM). the data showed that the mean score had chosen CAR design of Kurt Lewin which
of pre-tests was 44,68 there were 4 students consists of, two cycles. Each cycle consists
who derived the score above the minimum of four phases. These are planning, acting,
mastery criterion (KKM) meanwhile the other observing, and reflecting. The design as
28 students were below that criteria where following:

themselves have to decide what of this activity. In this research, writer will
language to use and how the conversation focus on the use of unscripted role play. This
should develop. In order to do this activity, is because the use of this technique will give
good preparation from teacher and students another benefit related with the
is really necessary (Camerun, 2001). The spontaneous.
spontaneous and improvisation are the key

2
 Several research about this This means that the same technique
technique had been conducted and proved will possibly bring the same result if it is
to bring positive impact toward the student. applied to another community. SMP N 1
Chontirat and Sinwongsuwat (2012) had Singaraja was chosen to observe the
concluded the unscripted role play had given possibility of skill improvement in speaking
good impact to the Thai college after the unscripted role play
students. Dewi (2014) also conducted the implementation. Especially because there is
same research using unscripted role play in no similar study was conducted in Bali using
Bandung and showed the same result where senior high school student as its participant.
the unscripted role play had increased the
speaking skill of the participant.
RESEARCH METODOLOGY analyze learning problem and also find its
The research was conducted as solution.
Classroom Action Research. Classroom The participant of this research is
action research is research used to solve a class VIII A7 of SMP N 1 Singaraja academic
specific classroom or school problem, year 2018/2019 with the total student of 32
improve teaching and other educational as the main participant. It was held on
strategies or making a decision at a specific September to October 2018 using Model
level (Santrock, 2004). Based on the from Kurt Lewinon Suharmini Arikunto,(
explanation above, CAR can be used to 2009:21) in several cycles based on the
result of each cycle.

Figure 3.1: Action Research Spiral, Model from Kurt Lewin

on Suharmini Arikunto,( 2009:21)

There are four stage in conducting qualitative data and quantitative data.
this research using Kurt Lewin’s design, they Qualitative data included observation,
are planning, acting, observing, and questionnaire and test. Meanwhile,
reflecting as can be seen on Figure 1. quantitative data included a post- test and
pre-test Table 1. The instrument used in this
In collecting the data, the writer used study are observation sheets (to note the
two techniques of collecting data, there are; real

3
 Table 1. Instrument and Analysis
No Research Method Instrument Analysis
Question  Pre test score  Rating
Pre Test  Pre- score
questionnaire  Scoring
can the contextual
analysis
learning improve
students’ ability in  Post Test  Rating
1 using modal verb Post Test score score
should and must  Pre-  Scoring
in various questionnaire analysis
context?
Observation Notes  Note

condition in teaching learning activities) and calculation components, they are class
test (pre-test and post-test) which consists of percentage (P), total percentage Score (F),
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and number of students (n) with formula:
fluency, and comprehension. 𝐹𝑥
𝑃 = 𝑛 x 100%
The calculation of data analysis in
The calculation of student
finding the mean score use several
improvement will be conducted using
component, they are mean (X ), number of
several element such as percentage of
student (n), and individual score (x) using the
students’ improvement (P), pre-test result
formula:
∑𝑋 (y), and post-test result (y1) using formula:
𝑋= 𝑛
𝑌1−𝑌
While in calculating the precentageof 𝑃= x 100%
𝑦
passing student, writer will use three

In speaking assessment, the writer agreed that a research could be said

uses speaking rubric by Heaton. Heaton successful when there was an improvement
presented the sample of an oral English of the result of the test at least 70% of
rating scale that used 1-6 points. The frame students who pass the Kriteria Ketuntasan
of Heaton’s oral English rating scale can be Minimum (KKM) which is 78, begin from the
found in Table 2. The scoring rubric focuses pre-test until the second post-test in cycle
on several main aspects such as fluency, two. According to Sukidin (2007) an action is
vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. called have an improvement if there was an
In this study the research will improvement condition after implementing
succeed if 100 % of students can achieve Classroom Action Research (CAR) and the
the target score (KKM) with the target score condition before Classroom Action
In determining the criterion of a Research (CAR)
successful, the writer and the teacher

RESULT AND FINDINGS The pre-questionnaire was

This part will concern with the conducted to know about the students’
description of the data in every stage, and response about English lesson especially in
consists of the findings before implementing learning grammar. The questionnaire used
the classroom action research, findings in this study was open questionnaire. The
during the implementation of Classroom questionnaire was given to the students on
Action Research, and findings after Monday, September 10th 2018. The
implementing the Classroom Action questionnaire had five questions. The
Research. description of the pre-questionnaire as follow

4
 :

Table 2. pre-questionnaire

Score Percentage
No Question
a b c d e a b c d e
1. Question 1 8 9 14 1 - 25 28,1 44 3,1 -
2. Question 2 3 14 8 7 - 9,3 44 25 21,8 -
3. Question 3 4 19 9 - - 12,5 59 28,5 - -
4. Question 4 3 8 15 4 - 9,3 25 46,8 12,5 -
5. Question 5 8 16 8 - - 25 50 25 - -

The writer had done pre-test before CAR. It 2018. It started at 8A.M. there are actually
was conducted Monday, September 10th 10 questions in multiple-choice

Table 3. pre-test before CAR

Students’ Students’
No number Pretest No number Pretest
1 S1 70 17 S 17 10
2 S2 30 18 S 18 80*
3 S3 50 19 S 19 80*
4 S4 40 20 S 20 30
5 S5 60 21 S 21 40
6 S6 60 22 S 22 40
7 S7 40 23 S 23 30
8 S8 60 24 S 24 50
9 S9 50 25 S 25 80*
10 S 10 30 26 S 26 10
11 S 11 10 27 S 27 40
12 S 12 40 28 S 28 40
13 S 13 60 29 S 29 20
14 S 14 10 30 S 30 40
15 S 15 80* 31 S 31 70
16 S 16 10 32 S 32 70
Mean 44,68

Based on the result of the pre-test on that criteria where the lowest achievement
the table, the data showed that the mean gained score 2. Next, the percentage of the
score of pre-tests was 44,68 there were 4 students who passed the KKM was 12,5 %.
students who derived the score above the From that analyzing, it could be seen that
minimum mastery criterion (KKM) almost of the eighth students’ grammar
meanwhile the other 28 students were below modal verbs “should and must” was still low.

The implementation of the The action of the first cycle was

Classroom Action Research in this study conducted on September 12th 2018. In the
consist of cycle I and cycle 2. Each cycle was section, writer applied the overal lesson plan
divided into four section starting from which had been created on the previous
planning, acting, observing, and the last is stage. In this section, writer also conducted
reflecting. A new cycle was made if the posttest for cycle I.
conducted cycle did not achieve target.

5
 In this phase, the writer made a that idea that something is necessary.
planning for the Action Research based Prohibition expresses the idea that
upon the problems faced by students toward something is not necessary. In the lesson
grammar. In this case, the writer determined plan, it was design to compare using must
selected material and exercises into lesson and must not in obligation and prohibition.
plan. Based on syllabus, there are some Teaching media used such as power point
kinds of using must in various context. Must and conversation video. The students made
can express obligation and prohibition. group discussion and finally, the students
According to Azzar (1989) must expresses presented their result of discussion.
The result of field notes revealed that students more enthusiastic and more active
the teaching learning has done well although during teaching learning process. In this
the class still had some problems such as: case, the writer decided to use situation and
First, some students had problem in looking video based contextual, picture and dialogue
for vocabulary and correct grammar. in the next lesson plan. Hopefully, by using
Second, some students looked difficult in situation and video based contextual, picture
following the class activities. Third, some and dialogue, the students could understand
students looked lack serious and some the material of modal auxiliary verbs easily.
students still had difficulty in grammar, In the first meeting, the students
The result of posttest 1 showed that created group that consisted 5 students.
the mean score of the class derived 54,84 in Students observed the video to identify using
which there were 9 students who passed the should in giving advice. The students asked
Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria question to teacher if any problem that they
Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 78 (sixty). The found. The teacher explained about
data showed that the mean score of posttest sentence pattern that they found in video
1 was. There were only nine students or and the students analyzed the next sentence
28,12 % of the students who got the score pattern. Then, students gave situation
above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- combine with picture and determine respond
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) based on the situation and finally students
meanwhile the other 19 students were below performed their task. The second meeting,
that criterion. It implied that the first criterion the students worked in pair and the teacher
has not fulfilled. gave situation contextual and make
Based on the result of the students’ dialogue. After finish their discussion, the
grammar in the cycle 1, there was a slight students performed dialogue in front of
improvement of students’ mean score from class. The third meeting, the student did the
the students’ writing on the preliminary study posttest 2 and post-questionnaire.
to the students’ writing on the first cycle. The The writer inferred that the picture
mean score of the previous score was 44.68 gave a good influence for the students, they
and the mean score of the students’ were not taking a long time in making a
grammar on the first cycle was 54.82. That sentence of dialogue because they were
means that there was 10.14% of mean score helped by the picture, the teacher spoke
improvement. rather fast in explaining the material, that is
The cycle II was conducted on on why the students could get clear
September 19th, 24th, and October1st 2018. understanding about the material. Then,
After reflecting the teaching learning process related to the students’ responses the
of cycle 1, the writer and the teacher decided observer said that the students were more
to conduct the next cycle. To get the better active in teaching learning process, although
result in the next cycle, the writer modified a there were several students’ who still
previous lesson plan in order to make ashamed in expressing their ideas

6
 The calculation of the mean of
students’ score in writing posttest 2 gained 𝐹
𝑃 = 𝑁 𝑋100%
80.93. It was derived from: 23
𝑃 = 32 𝑋100%
P = 71.87%
Finally, the calculation of the
2590 improvement percentage is gained from the
𝑋= 32
𝑋100 following formula:
𝑌2 − 𝑌
X = 80.93 % P= 𝑋100%
𝑌
80,93 − 44,68
Then, the calculation of class P= 𝑋100%
44,68
percentage about the students who passed P = 81.13%
the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM)
Based on the result of the students’ into class percentage. It indicated that the
grammar exercise, there was better first criterion of success has been achieved
improvement of students’ mean score in the The post-questionnaire was
preliminary study to the students’ writing in conducted to know about the students’
the second cycle. The mean score for the response after learning grammar through
first one was 44.68 and the mean score of contextual teaching and learning. The
writing posttest 2 in the second cycle was questionnaire used in this study was open
80,93. It means that there was 36.25% of questionnaire. The questionnaire was given
mean score improvement. The students who to the students in the 8A7 of SMP N 1
passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Singaraja on Monday, October 1st 2018. This
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) questionnaire has five questions. The
were 23 students or 71.87% if it calculated following was the description of the result of
post questionnaire
.
Table 4. the result of post questionnaire
Score Percentage
No Question
a b c d e a b c d e
1. Question 1 2 24 6 - - 6,2 75 18,7 -
2. Question 2 6 26 - - 18,7 81,3 -
3. Question 3 3 27 2 - - 9,3 84,3 4,4 -
4. Question 4 1 20 11 - - 3,1 62,5 34,4 -
5. Question 5 3 23 6 - - 9,3 72 18,7 -

According to the pre-questionnaire Fortunately, the writer found the

result it could be concluded that students; significant improvement on students’
responses in learning English was not good. response to the teaching learning process.
Most of them did not like learn English In the post questionnaire it could be seen
grammar because they judged English that most of students’ felt motivated in
grammar as the complex material. Hence, learning modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ and
most of them had a low motivation in ‘should’ after the implementation of
learning English grammar. Consequently, contextual teaching learning in the teaching
those problems influenced their learning process. Students’ high motivation
understanding in learning modal auxiliary automatically affects their understanding to
verb ‘must’ and ‘should’. Most of them felt the modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ and ‘should’.
hard to understand the use and the formula Most of them could remember the modal
of modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ and ‘should’. auxiliary verb ‘must’ and ‘should’ easier than
before. Moreover, student’s ability in doing

7
the exercise of modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ whose score still below KKM. Although the
and ‘should’ shown a good improvement. result saw more improvement, but it was still
Beside of that, Students realized that the needed an improvement to reach the target
teaching learning process was better than of success CAR, which is 70% of the class
before the implementation of contextual percentage or at least could achieved the
teaching and learning (CTL). KKM
The writer would like to interpret the Then, in the second cycle the
data results among the pretest, the posttest students’ mean score of posttests 2 is 80.93.
of cycle 1 and the posttest of cycle 2 are as it was shown the improvement from the
following: In the pretest, the students’ mean posttest 1 (80,93 – 44.68) or 36.25%
score on modal auxiliary verbs ‘must’ and students’ improvement in the score
‘should’ test before carrying out CAR is percentage from the pretest or 22.16%
44.68. it meant the class percentages which students’ improvement from the posttest 1.
pass the KKM is 12,5 %. In other words, from Furthermore, the class percentage whose
the 32 students, there were only 4 students pass the KKM is 72.22%, in other words
who can pass the KKM (78) and the other 28 there are 23 students who pass the KKM and
students were out of target. the other 9 students were still out of target.
Next, the students mean score of The class percentage shows the
posttests 1 is 54.84 It saw the students’ improvement 36.25% (80,93 – 44.68) from
score improvements from the pretest that is the pretest or 22.16% (80,93 – 54.84) from
10.14 or 22.69%. Meanwhile, the class the posttest 1. Based on that calculation, it
percentage which passed the KKM I posttest could be said that the posttest 2 of CAR is
1 is 28,12%. It meant there were 9 students success. It was indicated by a number of
who passed the KKM and 23 students students who passed the KKM
the posttest 1, there were 9 or 28.12%
students who passed the KKM. And in the
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION result of cycle 2 there were 23 or 71.87%
students who passed the KKM in which their
After the implementation of mean score of modal auxiliary verb ‘should’
Classroom Action Research, the writer will and ‘must’ test derive 80.93%. Based on the
explain several conclusions related to the statement above, it could be concluded that
result of the action. The writer will also give Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL)
suggestions to make the more effective could improve students’ understanding of
learning process using CTL modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ and ‘should’ in
The conducted research is various context.
Classroom Action Research (CAR) which is In this part, the writer would like to
made in purpose to increase the speaking give some suggestions to be considered by
skill of the students in SMP N 1 Singaraja. English teacher
The research was conducted on grade VIII First, the teacher must be creative in
A7 of SMP N 1 Singaraja with 32 of total creating the teaching learning activities, the
observed student. In this research, the writer teacher should focus on teaching learning
implemented the Kurt Lewin’s theory which strategy not only focus on transferring
consist of four phases starting from planning, information. Second, Contextual Teaching
acting, observing, and reflecting. and Learning (CTL) is an appropriate
Related to the finding of this method to improve student’s ability in
research, it could be said that this research various context especially modal auxiliary
was success. It is proven by the test result, verb ‘must’ and ‘should’ So, the writer hopes
there was 36.25 improvements of students’ the teacher maintain the use of Contextual
mean score from pretest to the posttest in Teaching and Learning (CTL) in teaching
the second cycle. In the pretest, there were modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ and ‘should’ or
only 4 students who passed the KKM and another grammar material in the next new
the other 28 students were out of target. In academic year

8
REFERENCES Hansen, Barbara. and Rebbeca McDonald,
Simplified Sentence Skills, Illinois: NTC
Akhmadi Ali. dan Ida Safrida. Smart Steps: Publishing Group, 1998.
The Smartest Way to Learn English. An
English Textbook for Junior High School Jhonson, Elaine B., Contextual Teaching
Grade VIII, Jakarta: Ganeca Exact, 2007 and Learning: what it is and why it’s here
to stay, California: Corwin Press, Inc, 2006.
Arikunto, Suharsimi, Penelitian Tindakan
Kelas, Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2009. Kesuma, Dharma, dkk., Contextual
Teaching And Learning; Sebuah Panduan
Arikunto, Suharsimi, Prosedur Penelitian Awal Dalam Pengembangan PBM,
Suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Jakarta: PT Yogyakarta: Rahayasa Research And
Rineka Cipta, 2002. Training, 2010.
Azzar, Betty S., Understanding and Using Krin, Elaine, Interactions 1 Grammar 4th
English Grammar: 3rd Edition, New Jersey: edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Prentice Hall Regents. 1989.
Kusumah, Wijaya, dan Dedi Dwitagama,
Bailey, Kathleen M., Learning about Mengenal Penelitian Tindakan Kelas,
Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Jakarta: Indeks, 2009.
Decisions,
and Direction, London: Heinle & Heinle Meltzer, David E., The Relationship
Publisher, 1998. between Mathematics Preparation and
Conceptual Learning Gains in Physics: A
Broukal, Milada. and Amy Parker, Grammar possible Hidden Variable in
Form and Function 3A, New York: McGraw- Diagnostic Pretest score, Iowa: Department
Hill, 2005. of Physics and Astronomy, 2008.
Devitis, G. De, L. Maniani, and K. O’Malley, Mills, Geoffrey E., Action Research: A
English Grammar for Communication, Guide for the Teacher Researcher, Ohio:
England: Longman Group UK Limited 1989. Merril Prentice hall, 2003.
Eugene J. Hall, Grammar for Use, USA: Murcia, Marriane Celce, and Sharon Hiles,
National Textbook Company. 1992. Techniques And Resources in Teaching
Ghony, Djunaidi, Penelitian Tindakan Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Kelas, Malang: UIN- Malang Press, 2008. 1987.

Greenbaum, Sidney. and Randolph Quirk. Nurhadi, Pembelajaran Kontekstual

Student’s Grammar of the English (Contextual Teaching and Learning) dan
Penerapannya Dalam KBK, Malang:
Language, London: Pearson Education
Limited, 1990. Universitas Negeri Malang, 2004.

Grondlund, Norman E., Costruction Pusat Kurikulum, Balitbang Depdiknas,

Achievement Test, New York: Prentice Hall, Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran
1982. Bahasa Inggris SMP dan Mts, Jakarta:
2003.
Hartoyo, Grammar in the Teaching of EFL
in Indonesia, Semarang: Universitas Negeri Riley, Kathryn. and Frank Parker, English
Semarang Press, 2006. Grammar: Prescriptive, Descriptive,
Generative, Minnesota: Pearson Education,
1998.

9
Sanjaya, Wina, Pembelajaran Dalam
Implementasi Kurikulum Berbasis
Kompetensi, Jakarta: Kencana Perdana
Media Group, 2008.

Sofyan, Ahmad, et.al., Evaluasi

Pembelajaran IPA Berbasis Kompetensi,
Jakarta: UIN Jakarta Press, 2006.

Sudijono, Anas, Pengantar Statistik

Pendidikan, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo
Persada, 2003. Sudjana, Metoda Statistika,
Bandung: PT. Tarsito, 2002.

Sukidin, Manajemen Penelitian Tindakan

Kelas, Jakarta: Insan Cendikia, 2007.

Swan, Michael, Practical English Usage,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Tambunan, Wilmar, Evaluation of Student

Achievement, Jakarta: Depdiknas, 1998.

Thomson, A.J., and A.V. Martinet, A

Practical English Grammar: Forth Edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Trijanto, Mendesain Pembelajaran Inovatif-

Progresif: Konsep, Landasan, dan
Implementasinya pada Kurikulum Tingkat
Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), Jakarta:
Prenada media group, 2009.

Trianto, Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif

Berorientasi Konstruktivistik, Jakarta:
Prestasi Pustaka, 2007.

Ur, Penny, Grammar Practice Activities: A

Practical Guide For Teachers, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Wallace, Michael J., Action Research For

Language Teachers, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998

Werner, Patricia K., Interaction 2 Grammar

4th Edition, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2002

10