Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aimed to determine whether the Jolly Phonics method could improve KG 1 students’ understanding of English letters and sounds at Kiddos Preschool Gianyar, and to describe how the learning process contributed to that improvement. This research used a Classroom Action Research (CAR) design following Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon (2014), comprising planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, over two cycles of four sessions each. The subjects were 20 students aged 4 to 5 yeard from Moonlight Class, focusing on Group 1 letter sounds (s, a, t, p, i, n). Data were collected through a scored pre-test and post-test instrument (maximum score 72) covering letter shape recognition, sound production, and Jolly Phonics action response, complemented by qualitative observation of letter formation. Results showed a consistent increase in class mean score, from 24,1 at the pre-test to 39,55 at the end of Cycle 1 and 52,1 at the end of Cycle 2, with students reaching the Good category or above rising from 0% to 80%, exceeding the 75% Criteria of Success. These findings indicate that Jolly Phonics was effective in improving students’ understanding of Group 1 English letter sounds and letter formation skills, achieved through a progressively interactive multisensory learning model.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Urip et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: