Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 155 ELT FORUM 6 (2) (2017) Journal of English Language Teaching http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MIND MAPPING- SILENT CARD SHUFFLE COMBINATION IN TEACHING WRITING NARRATIVE TEXT Puspa Merah Rahmawati, Indrawati, Sri Wuli Fitriati  English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Article History: Received in October 2017 Approved in November 2017 Published in December 2017 ________________ Keywords: mind mapping- silent card shuffle, writing, quasi-experimental research. ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ This paper is based on the quasi-experimental research which aims to find out the effectiveness of mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination to improve students’ achievement in narrative writing skill. The subject of this study was the eighth grade students of a state junior high school in Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016. The sample consisted of 64 students from two classes. The data were derived from test, interview, and documentation. The data were then measured and analyzed by the statistical and interpretation. The result showed that after the students were given treatment by using mind mapping- silent card shuffle combination,the mean scores of the experimental group increased about 28.49%. The t- test showed that tvalue (3.839) was higher than ttable (1.998). It can be concluded that the working hypothesis (Ha) which states that “There is a significant difference of effectiveness and learning achievement in writing narrative story of students who are taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique and those who are not taught by using that technique” is accepted. Therefore, a mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique is effective for students to improve their achievement in narrative writing skill. © 2017 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Correspondent Address: ISSN 2252-6706 B3 Building FBS Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 E-mail: unnes_english@yahoo.com P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 156 INTRODUCTION In Indonesia, English is taught as a foreign language (EFL) and it is implemented inside its education curriculum. Even though most of the Indonesian students are EFL learners, they are demanded to keep in touch with English so that the goal of learning English that is for communication can be gained. For the sake of communication, the way people communicate nowadays is not only from speaking, but from a written form as well. According to Harmer (2011:4), writing is used for a variety of purposes and produced in many different forms. They can communicate through their writing in many forms of text according to its aim. However, writing is the most complex skill to develop. Heaton (1990:135) mentions that, “The writing skills are complex and difficult to teach, requiring mastery not only of grammatical and rhetorical devices but also of conceptual and judgment elements”. Writing needs a long process from finding out the ideas, deciding the genre and text construction, generating it and exploring knowledge through that. Writing always involves making choices about how best to get one’s meanings across effectively to particular readers by writing in ways they will recognize and understand (Hyland, 2004:88). The writer must have a clear purpose in stating the idea through writing so that the readers can understand it well. Thus, the aim of the communication in a written form between the writer and the readers can be attained. In terms of teaching writing for students, Harmer (2011:32) asserts that, “Writing has always been used as a means of reinforcing language that has been taught.” It means that sometimes teachers use writing as a tool to measure students’ understanding of a certain material in language teaching and learning. Usually, in the classroom the teachers will ask the students to do the writing activity after they are explained about a certain topic; for example, they have to write some grammatical sentences, or even a wider task such as a paragraph or simple essay writing. The students also will understand that to have the ability in writing, they need to expose themselves with the writing activities and use the target language in writing as much as possible. Furthermore, the writing skill is needed in each stage of education level. Especially in junior high school; according to the School-Based Curriculum 2006 or KTSP 2006 (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) the students are demanded to write some genres of text such as procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative, and report text. A genre can be defined as a culturally specific text-type which results from using language (written or spoken) to (help) accomplish something (Gerot & Wignell, 1994:17). In this research, I concern with teaching and learning narrative text. This text is chosen because through this genre, the junior high school students who are in the teenage stage can extend their imagination. The narrative text contains narration which entertains them and it will, of course, attract their attention to be focused on. Anderson & Anderson (1997:8) explain narrative text as a piece of text which tells a story and, in doing so, entertains or informs the reader or listener. Narrative text has four generic structures. They are: 1) Orientation: the introduction of the characters, setting, and time of the story; 2) Complication: the stage when the problems arise; 3) Resolution: the complication may be resolved for better or worse; 4) Re-orientation: it is optional. Anderson and Anderson (1997) also mention the language features of narrative text. They focused on specific characters, time words that connect events to tell when they occur, verbs to show the actions that occur in the story, descriptive words to portray the characters and setting. The language features and generic structures are developed as the part that need to be focused on making narrative to be a text which is not merely entertaining but also based on the construction. So, it is important for the students to build their understanding in the aspect of generic structure of the text and language features. But, the students still find that to write this genre is not that easy. They need to engage in the step by step process to produce a good narrative work. P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 157 However, based on my experience during the teaching internship program in a state junior high school in Semarang, I also found that most of the students faced some difficulties in writing. It happened when they were given an essay assignment. They ran out of idea and said that they did not know what they should write, or how to start their writing. The students learn only from classical class teaching and learning process and most of the teachers ask them to directly make a product of writing without giving guidance, let alone an interesting technique which can attract their interest to write. In addition, the students were drilled only from doing the assignments on the copied handout or students worksheets. That thing may lead the students into the monotonous activity which later on can limit their potential in learning English especially in developing their writing skills. Meanwhile, the teachers should not see writing as a finished product, which means they need to integrate this skill in the form of a writing process that involved many aspects. They can decide what genre will be used, tenses will be applied, and also sources which can help them boosting their knowledge and material for their writing. Students should learn to plan, draft, revise, edit, present and also evaluate their writing. It is also mentioned in Department for Education and Employment (2000:11) that effective teaching will focus on particular aspects of the process, e.g. planning a story, an explanation, an argument, or revising a draft to change or improve it. So, it is clear that any good paragraph or essay goes through many stages before it is finished (Meyers, 2005:2). Besides, the teachers can also combine the process approach with the genre learning approach. The concept of genre enables teachers to look beyond content, composing processes, and textual forms to use writing as an attempt to communicate with readers (Hyland, 2004:5). By looking through genre, the writers or students are able to learn that they are not just writing but also trying to achieve the purposes of writing itself in order to convey the meaning to the readers. The genre-process approach will make students write step by step from planning to editing and also know more about the genre by imitating the given text, reading some examples of the same genre, and exploring different kinds of model. The teachers also can lead students to be more focused in a certain genre when they are writing with this approach. So that by teaching using genre-process approach the effectiveness of the two approaches can be applied in the classroom. The challenge is teachers should be able to control the class because this approach will create a different atmosphere than the classical writing class. The students will engage in some steps which need their active self-learning, cooperation, and of course teachers’ contribution to guide them. To realize the implementation of genre-process approach to teach writing in the class, teachers need a technique to facilitate them teaching writing genre and encouraging students to start writing. Hyland (2004:89) views that by working with others in activities that have a purpose, students come to see that the target language is a resource they can use to make meanings when they write. The students can work in a kind of group activity which can help them boosting their ability and eagerness to start and involve in the writing process. They also must be supported to use the target language during the process of their activities. So, cooperative learning can be the best solution to help students to learn better with their partner or group. It is defined by Mandal (2009:97) that cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. There are many of cooperative learning which are introduced as techniques of learning. Some examples of them are: Jigsaw, Three-Step Interview, Think-Pair-Share, Solve-Pair-Share, Number-Heads Together, Round Table, Team-Pair-Solo, Round Robin Brainstorming, Talking Chips, Group Grid, and Silent Card Shuffle. Nevertheless, the cooperative learning is usually applied as a single technique and students still find themselves get bored with that. The role of teachers to actualize the interesting technique is really needed here. P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 158 In this study, I consider the combination of mind mapping and silent card shuffle to solve the students’ problem in writing. Mind mapping is a technique which helps students arranging their ideas and concept from the main topic spreading into the major subtopics. According to Murley (2007) in Fiktorius (2013:2), “Mind map is a visual tool that can be used to take notes, generate idea, organize thinking, and develop concepts.” Mind map is an effective way to take notes and brainstorm essay topic. Consequently, mind mapping technique seems to be particularly suited to helping students in planning their writing as the approach encourages students to reach for and adopt a deeper level of understanding of the writing topics (Fiktorius, 2013:14). In brainstorming the writing, students can use symbols, keywords, and also pictures to display the story. It must be arranged properly and flow in sequences of correct structure. In addition, the teachers can create the teamwork in the mind mapping activity by arranging it as a group work. By doing the different stage in group mind mapping, students can feel different atmosphere of learning compared with usual individual mind mapping work. The creativity may develop better and the level of understanding the material may increase because they solve the problem inside mind mapping together. Additionally, for the flexibility in application, Goodnough & Woods (2002:10) suggest mind maps may be combined with other approaches such as cooperative learning, on-line learning, and computer-assisted learning. Thus, the teacher can realize the combination technique by combine a mind mapping with an appropriate cooperative learning. Meanwhile, New Zealand curriculum (2010:1) in Safitri (2014:3) explains that, “Silent card shuffle is a learned centered, cooperative strategy useful for classroom activities that require small group to classify, sort, sequence, map and match.” There are five steps in the process of Silent Card Shuffle technique: 1) Silent Card Shuffle, 2) Justify and Refine, 3) Circle and Observe, 4) Return and Refine, and 5) Teacher Debriefing. Generally the silent card shuffle deals with the classification, sequencing, and mapping the cards. But, the technique can be modified by replacing the cards with the topics and branches of mind mapping. Then, in justify and refine stage, the students must arrange them in the form of mind map. Thus it is not merely classifying or mapping the card, but creating a whole mind map. So, the combination happens there. Moreover the cards which usually stand for pictures and vocabularies now are replaced not only as pictures but also phrases, keywords, and symbols in mind mapping. Then, the steps of combination technique are described as following: 1) Silent Card Shuffle: the cards are spread and arranged but the members may not talk; 2) Justify and Refine: the members may talk to each other and ask for an explanation or justification for the positioning of mind map. 3) Circle and Observe: one member stays, other members must move and visit other groups; 4) Return and Refine: return to the home table, make a refinement based on the observation; 5) Teacher Debriefing: teacher shows the correct arrangement of the mind map. So, according to the reasons of the similarity and flexibility of the two techniques they are combined for the betterment of application. This paper describes the process of implementing the combination of mind mapping and silent card shuffle in improving the narrative writing skill of the eighth grade of a state junior high school in Semarang and find out how effective the mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique in developing students’ narrative writing skill. According to the explanation above, hopefully the mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination can solve the problems of students in writing narrative text. METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH This study was a quasi-experimental research. Particularly, the pre-and posttest design was chosen as the research design. In this design, subjects were assigned to the control group and experimental group. The research was conducted with the eighth grade students of a state junior high school in Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016 as the subject of the study. There were eight P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 159 classes of the eighth grade and each class consisted of 32 students. Two classes were chosen as the sample. The sample was chosen by the technique of simple cluster random sampling. This technique requires groups or clusters in taking the sample based on the groups that have already existed in the population. This technique was chosen based on the some considerations: (1) the students were taught by the same English teacher, and (2) the placement of the students in each class were set randomly without considering the level, gender, or strata. Then, to determine the control and experimental group I chose it randomly. The first class was VIII E as the control group and VIII F as the experimental group. The experimental group (VIII F) was taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination, meanwhile the control group (VIII E) was taught by the teacher by using pair group activity. In this study, the written test, interview, and documentation were used as the instruments of data collection. Then, the result of the test (pre-test and post-test) was analyzed by using t-test formula. The t-test was calculated to find out the significant difference of effectiveness and learning achievement in writing a narrative text of students who are taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique and those who are not taught by using that technique. If the tvalue is higher than ttable, it means that there is a significant difference between the two means. But, if tvalue is lower than ttable, it means that there is no significant difference between two means. Before computing the t-test value, I had to find the normality and homogeneity of experimental group and control group pre-test and post-test to find out that the data were normally distributed and homogenous. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Results of the Test The data were obtained from the students’ score in writing narrative text. The scoring guidance was adopted from Heaton (1990) and Brown’s analytic scale (2004:244-245) for rating composition task. There are some aspects that were used to consider the score: 1) Grammar which refers to appropriate tenses and conjunction, 2) Vocabulary which refers to diction and reference, 3) Mechanic which refers to the use of capitalization and punctuation, 4) Fluency which refers to the style and quality of expression, 5) Relevance which refers to the structure and content in relation to the task demand of the students. Group Mean of Pre-test Mean of Post- test The Improvement of Pre-test and Post-test (%) Experimental 63.19 81.19 28.49% Control 60.50 74.69 23.45% Table 3.1 The Result of Pre-test and Post-test Mean Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Table 1 showed the information about the mean score of pre-test of experimental group was 63.19 and the mean score of post-test was 81.19. Meanwhile, in the control group, the mean score of pre-test was 60.50 and the mean score of post-test was 74.69. The difference of mean scores and also the improvement between both groups were shown in the following chart : P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 160 Diagram 3.1 Mean Score Difference between Experimental and Control Group The chart 1 described the result of post-test of both groups increased. The chart above showed that the mean score of the pre-test in the experimental group was 63.19. Besides, the mean score of the post-test was 81.19. The percentage of the students’ improvement in the experimental group was 28.49%. Therefore, there was a significant improvement between the pre-test and post-test scores of students in the experimental group. On the other hand, the mean scores of control group also showed an improvement. The pre-test was 60.50 and the post-test was 74.69. In the control group, there was less improvement than the experimental group. The improvement was only 23.45%. It can be inferred that the difference of mean score in the experimental group was higher than in the control group. Thus, I concluded that there was better improvement of experimental group’s achievement after they received treatment by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique in writing narrative text. After analyzing the improvement of mean scores of both groups, the normality of the data was analyzed in order to know whether the data had normal distribution or not. Based on the pre-test data in the experimental group, the X2value was 8.6025 and X2table was 11.070. Since X2value was lower than X2table (8.6025 11.070), then the pre-test of experimental group was said to be normally distributed. Besides, based on the pre-test data in the control group, the X2value was 3.5727 and X2table was 11.070. Since X2value was lower than X2table (3.5727 11.070), so the pre-test of control group also was said to be normally distributed. Furthermore, I also computed the normality of both groups’ post-test. The post-test normality computation of experimental group showed X2 value was 4.9169 and X2table with = 5% and df = 6 – 1, was 11.070. Since X2 value was lower than (4.9619 < 11.070), the post-test of experimental group was considered to be normally distributed. In the control group, the normality computation showed X2 value was 2.8610 and X2table with = 5% and df = 6 – 1, was 11.070. Since X2 value was lower than X2 table (2.8610 < 11.070), the post-test of control group was considered to be normally distributed P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 161 After finding out if the test is distributed normally or not, it is important to know whether the test is homogenous. The homogeneity (F) was used to measure the equality of two groups in pre-test and post-test. If Fvalue ≤ F table it means that both groups were homogeneous. From the pre-test homogeneity computation of both groups, I found the Fvalue was 1.184 and Ftable was 1.822. Since Fvalue (1.184) Ftable (1.822), it could be concluded that the population between experimental and control group were homogenous. It meant that the study could be continued. The homogeneity of the two groups could be caused by the similar characteristics of both groups since they came from the same level. Meanwhile, from the post-test homogeneity of both groups, the Fvalue was 1.238 and Ftable was 1.822. The result of the post-test homogeneity computation showed that the experimental group and the control group were homogenous since Fvalue was lower than Ftable (1.238 1.822). By considering the homogeneity of the post test result, I concluded that the population of both groups was homogenous. Thus the t-test could be counted. T-test formula was used to examine the hypotheses of this study because the significant improvement of the experimental and control group needed to be tested. The result of t-test becomes the quantitative proof whether there is significant difference of two groups’ results or not. Before analyzing t-test, the standard deviation of experimental group and control group should be counted first. The calculation showed the standard deviation of post-test experimental group was 6.403 meanwhile the standard deviation of post-test control group was 7.123. The standard deviation of both groups also was counted and it resulted 6.773. Then, the result of standard deviation was inputted in the t-test formula. The calculation showed the result of tvalue was 3.839. Next, tvalue was consulted with ttable. Before that, I determined the score of df (degree of freedom). The number of participants in each group were 32, so df = 32 + 32 – 2 = 62, with the level of significance ( = 5%. Then, I got the ttable 1.998. Based on the criteria, if tvalue higher than ttable (tvalue ttable), it meant that there was a significant difference in writing ability achievement of experimental group and control group. Then, the tvalue exceeded the ttable (3.839 1.998). So, the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the working hypothesis (Ha) that states there was a significant difference of effectiveness and learning achievement in writing narrative story of students who were taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique and those who were not taught by using that technique, was accepted. Discussion The objective of this study was to find out whether the mind mapping-silent card shuffle technique was effective to improve students’ achievement and writing skill of narrative or not. After analyzing the quantitative and also qualitative data, it was proved that the students’ writing skill of narrative text improved significantly. Even though the initial data showed that most of them got bad score of narrative writing, later on after the implementation of mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique they made better result in their work. First, the qualitative data analysis which was the result of interview was discussed. From the result of interview with five students of experimental group, it was found that narrative was students’ most favorite text. However, the teacher used to teach them writing without giving any guidance so that they felt writing narrative text was not an interesting task to do and quite difficult. They also stated that before using the combination technique, it was quite hard for them to generate idea and to have a clear imagination about what they were going to write. Besides, they stated that it was not easy to connect one sentence into another one. It was also difficult to write by using past tense and determine the appropriate vocabulary when they were writing. But, after they were taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique, they said that there was an improvement in their writing skill. They started enjoying writing narrative text. They were easier to generate the P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 162 idea and arrange the plot because of pictures and symbols which helped a lot. Additionally, it made them easier to connect the sentences. They also said that it was an interesting technique because they liked how the pictures, symbols, and keywords were arranged and decorated. It was a fun group work. Thus, by using the technique they found themselves more practical to broaden their imagination and determine the generic structure when they were writing. So finally, they concluded that mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination was an effective technique which can help them writing narrative text with the better result. Meanwhile, it could also be seen from the result of student’s narrative writing work where there was an improvement from the pre-test to post-test. Their writing works were corrected based on the points of grammar, vocabulary, mechanic, relevance, and fluency. In the pre-test work the result showed that the student still found the difficulties with the grammar, therefore there were many mistakes in the simple past tense usage. But then in the post-test, the student could write the story with the better simple past tense and there were only several errors which did not obscure the meaning. Besides, it could also be found in the pre-test that the student had quite serious problem with diction and reference. The student chose some inappropriate words in the context. However, later in the post-test there were only fewer mistakes in the terms of vocabulary. There were several distracting errors in conjunction and capitalization of pre-test work and later lower errors of mechanic could be found in the post-test. The other aspect was fluency which consisted of style and quality of expression in the narrative text. It showed that the writing in the pre-test was confusing. On the other hand, in post-test result the writing was clear and the meaning was conveyed well. The last aspect was relevance which consisted of structure and content. In pre-test showed that the idea of the topic was incomplete. But then the post-test indicated that the idea was well developed and the sentences well linked. The post-test showed that the writing really had an improvement after the given treatment. From the post-test it can be seen that the student could write with correct generic structure and chronological order properly. Furthermore, the quantitative data analysis showed the statistical improvement of students’ writing skill before and after they got the treatment. In the pre-test both of groups got average scores which were not quite different. It was 63.19 for experimental group and 60.50 for control group. The average score of both groups score was slightly different and not too significant. It could be said that both of the groups had almost same ability in writing narrative text before the treatment. After the students received treatments, the average scores of the two groups were gradually increased. However, the mean score of experimental group post-test was higher than the control group. The experimental group post-test score was 81.19 meanwhile the control group was meanwhile the control group was 74.69. The percentage of students’ improvement in experimental group was 28.49% and in control group was 23.45%. The score indicated that after getting a treatment by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique, the experimental group achieved a better result than the control group (See Table 1 and Chart 1). In the t-test, the tvalue was higher than ttable. Tvalue obtained 3.839 and ttable was 1.998. It meant that the use of mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique to improve students’ achievement in writing narrative text was effective. So, there was a significant difference between the group which was taught by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique and group which was taught by conventional pair group activity (single cooperative learning technique). The research findings revealed that the result of the treatment was contrary to the null hypothesis (Ho). Thus, the working hypothesis (Ha) which stated that “There is a significant difference of effectiveness and learning achievement in writing narrative story of students who are taught by using P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 163 mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique and those who are not taught by using that technique” was accepted. Finally, based on the result of quantitative data analysis, qualitative data analysis, and also the finding of the improvement in grammar, vocabulary, mechanic, relevance, and fluency of the student’s narrative text, the mind mapping-silent card shuffle was effective to develop the narrative writing skill of the eighth grade students of a state junior high school in Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016. CONCLUSIONS Based on the research findings, I conclude that the students of experimental and control groups have equal achievement in writing narrative text before getting treatment by using mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique. It could be seen by the slightly difference of the result of the experimental group and control group pre-test. Thus, the two groups were homogenous before getting the treatment. Secondly, after computing the t-test, it can be inferred that there was a significant difference of achievement in writing narrative text of the students who were taught by using the mind mapping- silent card shuffle combination technique and those who were not taught by using that technique. It was significant because the result of tvalue was higher than ttable. So, the null hypothesis (Ho) of this study was rejected and the working hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. The last, it can be concluded that the mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique gave a great significance to improve students’ achievement in writing a narrative text. It could be seen from the mean scores differences of both groups and also the result of interview. Then, the combination technique was very convenient for students. Moreover, they also improved their writing in terms of grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, relevance, and fluency. By comparing the mean score differences of the two groups and analyzing the result of interview, I come to a conclusion that the mind mapping-silent card shuffle combination technique was effective for teaching writing and improving students’ narrative writing skill. REFERENCES Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. 1997. Text Types in English 1. Australia: Macmilan Education Australia PTY LTD. Brown, H.D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education Department for Education and Employment. 2000. The Natioal Literacy Strategy: Grammar for Writing- Head teachers and Teachers at KS2. London: Crown. Online. Available at https://www.hamilton- trust.org.uk/system/files/page_files/ grammar_for_writing.pdf [accessed 27/03/16] Fiktorious, T. 2013. The Use of Mind Mapping Technique in the EFL Classroom: A Critique and Demonstration of Methods. Postgraduate Study of English Language Education Teacher Training and Education Faculty University of Tanjungpura, Pontianak. Online. Available at https://www.academia.edu/3823093 /The_use_of_mindmapping_techniq ue_in_the_EFL_classroom [accessed 20/10/15] Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Gerd Stabler. Goodnough, K., & Woods, R. 2002. Student and Teacher Perceptions of Mind Mapping: A Middle School Case Study. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, 10. Online. Available at http://digitalcommons.georgiasouth ern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1314&context=ij-sotl [accessed 08/01/16] Harmer, J. 2011. How to Teach Writing. London: Pearson Education Limited. P. Merah Rahmawati & Indrawati & S. Wuli Fitriati / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (2) (2017) 164 Heaton, J. B. 1990. Writing English Language Test. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited. Online. Available at: https://ipinjhon.files.wordpress.com /.../writing-english-language-tests-lon.pdf [accessed 15/01/16] Hyland, K. 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Mandal, R. R. 2009. Cooperative Learning Strategies to Enhance Writing Skill. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 94-102. Online. Available at: http://www.mjal.org/removedprofiles/2013/Coop.pdf [accessed 27/03/16] Meyers, Alan. 2005. Gateways to Academic Writing. New York: Pearson Education.