The particular dialect or language that a person chooses to use on any occasion is called a code 711 Copyright © 2025 The Author IDEAS is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License Issued by English study program of IAIN Palopo IDEAS Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) Volume 13, Number 1, June 2025 pp.711 - 727 Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model Andi Emy Hardianti1, Sultan Baa2 1,2Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Makassar E-mail: sultan7304@unm.ac.id Received: 2025-05-01 Accepted: 2025-05-20 DOI: 10.24256/ideas. v13i1.6744 Abstract This research aimed to analyze: (1) the effectiveness of using the brain writing model in improving students' narrative writing skills. (2) EFL students’ perceptions on the use of brain writing model in improving their narrative writing skill. The method employed was quantitative, using a pre-experimental design consisting of a one-group pretest and posttest design. This research was conducted at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar academic year 2022/2023. The sampling technique used was random sampling with 18 students. Writing tests and questionnaires were utilized as research instruments. The data were analyzed using SPSS v.26. The findings revealed that brain writing model was effective in improving students' skill to write narrative texts. It was shown by the score of pre-test and post-test increased by 49%. The mean of pre-test score was 53.67, whereas the mean post-test score was 80.06. Next, N-Gain score from pre-test and post-test was 0.5632 and it was categorized as medium effective. Furthermore, the T value was 0.000 < 0.05 which mean significant. On the other side, post-test scores of students' narrative writing outcomes concluded that around 72% of students passed the minimum completeness criteria and 28% did not pass it. Besides, the other findings indicated that students showed positive perceptions related to benefits, interests, activities, and implementation on the use of brain writing model in improving narrative writing skill. Keywords: Narrative writing skill, Brain writing model, Students’ perception http://u.lipi.go.id/1457703302 mailto:sultan7304@unm.ac.id Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 712 Introduction English as foreign language (EFL) had been taught formally at school to all around the world. The students were required to masters all English skills including speaking, writing, reading and listening. However, writing was considered as the most crucial skill. Writing was a helpful practice for other abilities like speaking, reading, and listening, according to . Furthermore, it was essentially an activity to express ideas in written form, a medium of communication and suggestions for social relations with other people (Litcanu et al., 2015). In compiling a good writing, it was necessary to suit the title and content of the writing, the accuracy of the use of spelling and punctuation, the accuracy of the sentence structure as well as the cohesiveness and completeness in each paragraph. Besides, to create a coherent writing, writing skills and creativity were needed to compose the writing. English learning had been allocated by the government since the first curriculum in 1947 to the 2013 curriculum from elementary to university level However, in the 2013 curriculum, the allocation for learning English was reduced compared to the previous curriculum (Alfarisy, 2021). The reduction in learning foreign languages, especially English also affected their level of language proficiency. According to English Proficiency Index (EPI) survey conducted by Education First (2022), Indonesia ranked 81st out of 111 countries in the low proficiency category with a score of 469. In Indonesia itself, the city of Makassar was categorized as low proficiency with a score of 458. This showed that learning English was still very low and it affected student’s English mastery especially writing because it was a bridge to possess and practice to another skill such as speaking, reading and writing. Therefore, it was important to teach writing at school from early age. One type of writing which was taught at school was narrative. Writing a narrative obviously must contain certain stories and events which used a narrative language style. The fact was that in learning narrative text students often encounter obstacles and challenges in writing stories such as being confused about determining themes, characters, settings, plots and points of view. Besides, students were still lack of vocabulary so they were confused in writing a story. In addition, students also discovered difficulties in generating and organizing the idea and constructing it into a paragraph. In line with these problems, Toba and Noor (2019) on their findings of current issues of Indonesian Student’s writing skill discovered students struggle with writing components such as topic, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. Their reasons for experiencing these problems included not only a lack of knowledge of writing aspects and the comparison and contrast essay itself, but also personal reasons such as a lack of writing practice, a dislike for writing, writing anxiety, a negative writing perception, a lack of writing motivation, insufficient time given in the writing test, and insufficient teaching writing process taught by their IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 713 teacher. Some previous researchers said that there were possible solutions to overcome the weaknesses of students in writing narrative such using computer game authoring in Robertson and Good (2004), series picture technique in Gutie rrez, Puello, and Galvis (2015), 5W1H concept in Shabir (2015), Movie in Aziz and Fathiyyaturrizqi (2016), a visual image in Listyani (2019), whatssapp in Suhaimi, Mohamad, and Yamat (2019), digital storytelling in Azmi Zakaria and Aziz (2019) and direct writing in Habibi et al. (2020). Although there had been many studies to improve narrative writing skills using various media but the results were not really effective. Therefore, another model was introduced and implemented by a researcher D. Y. Sari (2018) which was brain writing model in order to improve student’s achievements in writing narrative text. She had been analyzed the effect of brain writing model on the student’s achievements in writing narrative text and it revealed that there was significant improvement in student’s narrative writing skill. Similarly, some prior researchers also used this model to investigate students’ writing skill. It can be seen on E. K. Sari and Fitrawati (2018). In her research showed the significant results of brain writing in helping students to generate ideas. Another research conducted by Yulianti, Nuraeni, and Parmawati (2019) showed that brain writing could be implemented in improving student’s skill in writing descriptive text. Besides, the researcher also tried to test the effectiveness of brain writing in improving student’s skill to write recount text as the research conducted by Dewi (2015). As results, student’s skill in writing recount text was improved. On other fields, brain writing was also used to improve the skill to write Sundanese local poetry which was called as Wawangsalan as researched by Sumartini and Hernawan (2019). The results of this research revealed that there was significant difference between the skill to write Wawangsalan before and after using brain writing model. Same as local language, brain writing was also used to improve students’ creativity in writing short stories. This research conveyed that the students were active having same opportunity in contributing ideas. From the previous researchers, it was emphasized that to improve students’ writing skill especially narrative writing skill and to overcome the students’ weakness in writing, a creative and innovative model was needed. Thus, brain writing model was introduced to motivate students in writing and be creatively oriented. Brain writing, according to Litcanu, Prostean, Oros, and Mnerie (2015), was an alternative method to brainstorming. It was especially useful with a group of people who were reserved and unlikely to contribute many ideas in an open group session such as brainstorming. Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 714 This model could help students to write without noticing to the grammar, because it was a teaching strategy used by a teacher in uttering certain problems for students to respond without worrying about making mistakes so that it became a useful learning process. Besides, this model was quite useful for generating as many ideas as possible from a group of students. Another advantage in this model was avoiding gaps between students. Students who had introverted personalities who were usually insecure and more silent would had the same opportunity as students who had extroverted personalities by expressing their ideas in written form. Based on the explanation above, the researcher thought that research in this field especially in improving students’ narrative writing skill needed to be carried out and it was quite limited to my knowledge. Hence, the researcher was motivated to test whether brain writing could improve students' skill to write narrative texts or not in research. Based on the background, the researcher formulated research questions by focusing in two research questions: 1. Is brain writing model effective to improve EFL students’ narrative writing skill? 2. What are EFL students’ perceptions on the use of brain writing model in improving their narrative writing skill? Method This research used quantitative approach. Quantitative research was a method of numerically summarizing the data. This research was based on the scientific realism principle, which stated that there was one reality which could be explained by numbers (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). This research applied a pre-experimental design in the form of a one group pretest and posttest design where the researcher measured a group on the dependent variable (𝑂1) , then introduced experimental manipulation (χ). After the experimental treatment, it was again measured group attitude (𝑂2) and calculated the difference between the pretest and posttest scores with reference to the effect of X. This research investigated two variables therefore the selection of the sample from the population was taken randomly from eighth grade SMP IT Al-Fatih Makassar. The amount of the sample was about 18 students. The data were collected from 4 to 26 of May 2023 with the total of six meetings. Pre- test was given to investigate the student’s prior writing skill before applying brain writing model. Next, it was applied brain writing model for about four meetings in order to write various kinds of narratives. Each meeting, the students made different kinds of narratives such as folklore, legend, fairytales, fable and so on by applying brain writing model. After giving treatment, it was conducted post-test to record the students’ achievements in writing narrative by applying brain writing model. After IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 715 all stages had been completed, a questionnaire was distributed to students in order to find out their perceptions about the use of brain writing model in improving their narrative writing skill. Those acquired data was analyzed using the SPSS v.26 for windows computer program (Statistical Product and Service Solution). Data analysis for both pre-test and post-test was performed using two approaches. The first was descriptive statistics, which involved describing the data obtained. Descriptive statistics included data presentation in tables, such as mean, standard deviation of the N- Gain score and students’ learning outcomes based on the Minimum Completeness Criteria of Learning English or KKM at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar. Inferential statistics, which comprised a normality test and a t-test (paired sample T-test) were the second method. Furthermore, the questionnaire was analyzed by calculating the frequency and percentage of students' perceptions based on four Damayanti et al. (2023) variables and categorized it based on perception categorization proposed by Sugiyono (2017). Results a. The Effect of Brain Writing Model on EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill. The N-Gain score was used to assess the impact of Brain Writing Model in improving students’ narrative writing skill. N-gain was defined as a broad area of a course's efficacy in enhancing theoretical comprehension. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of N-Gain Score N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation NGain_Score 18 .42 .65 .5632 .06475 NGain_Percent 18 42.42 65.15 56.3248 6.47504 Valid N (listwise) 18 Table 2 Category of N-Gain Score by Hake in Wahab et al. (2021) N-Gain Category g > 0,7 High 0,3 ≤ g ≤ 0,7 Medium 0 < g < 0,3 Low g ≤ 0 Fail Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 716 The data shown on Table 1 revealed that the mean of N-Gain score from pre- test and post-test was 0.5632. It was categorized as medium as stated Hake in Wahab, Junaedi, and Azhar (2021). Medium mean brain writing model was quite effective in improving students’ narrative writing skill. The parametric test was performed next. Normality test was used to determine if the distribution of data in a set of data or variables was normally distributed or not. Due to the fact that the amount of data in this research was fewer than 30, the Shapiro-Wilk test was required to confirm it. Table 3 Tests of Normality Shapiro-Wilk test was used as a normal distribution determinant. According to the data in the table above, the significant value of the pre-test was 0.353 > 0.05 and post-test’s significant value was 0.424 > 0.05. In conclusion, the data of pre- test and post-test were normally distributed. The t-test employed in this investigation was the paired-samples t-test. They were shown in the table below: Table 4 T-Test Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Pretest - Posttest -26.389 9.463 2.230 - 31.095 -21.683 - 11.831 17 .000 According to the table above, the activeness of students in learning before and after treatment with the 6-3-5 brain writing model was -26.389. A T test was performed to assess the efficacy of the average activeness score. According to the T column, the T count is -11.831 and the T value (Sig 2-tailed) was 0.000. The T value was 0.000 < 0.05. It could be interpreted that hypothesis negative (H0) was rejected and hypothesis positive (Ha) was accepted. As a result, it was possible to conclude Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Pretest .102 18 .200* .945 18 .353 Posttest .127 18 .200* .950 18 .424 *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. a. Lilliefors Significance Correction IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 717 that the brain writing model significantly improved students' ability to create narrative texts. The last part in assessing the effectiveness of the brain writing model wass assessing student work based on the minimum completeness criteria of learning English or KKM at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar. Table 5 Completeness Percentage of Students’ Learning Outcomes Based on the Minimum Completeness Criteria of Learning English or KKM at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar. Score Interval Frequency Percentage Category ≥78 13 72 % Complete <78 5 28 % Incomplete Total 18 100% Based on the post-test scores of students' narrative writing outcomes, it was possible to conclude that around 72% or 13 students who had scores between ≥78 and met the minimum completeness criteria. Meanwhile there were only 28% or 5 students who had scores <78 and did not pass the minimum completeness criteria. b. Students’ Perception on the Use of Brain Writing Model in Improving Narrative Writing Skill Students' perceptions about the use of brain writing models in improving narrative writing skills were the questionnaire comprised of 20 positive and negative comments separated into four primary indicators adapted from Damayanti et al. (2023), including the advantages, interest, activities, and implementation. The students’ perception results were then classified using the score classification suggested by Sugiyono (2017). Table 6 Students’ Perceptions of the Benefits on the Use of Brain Writing Model No Statements SA A U D SD Total 1. Brain writing model makes students more active in narrative writing learning process. 1 16 1 0 0 18 Total Score 5 64 3 0 0 72 Percentage 5.6 88.89 5.6 0 0 100 2. Brain writing model reduces my 1 0 8 7 2 18 Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 718 The findings from student perceptions through benefits indicators showed positive results. The students agreed that they became more active in narrative writing learning process. This could be proven by the highest percentage in the first statement of 88.89 %. Besides that, the students also agree that writing narrative text by using brain writing model gave them a lot of benefits and it made them more creative in writing a narrative text. This could be seen with the other highest percentage in the third and fifth statement of 66.7%. Table 7 Students’ Perceptions of the Interest on the Use of Brain Writing Model No Statements SA A U D SD Total 6. I am not happy to write a narrative text using brain writing model because the situation is too fast. 0 1 13 2 2 18 Total Score 0 2 39 8 10 59 Percentage 0 5.6 72.2 11.1 11.1 100 7. I am interested to write a narrative text by using brain writing model. 2 7 9 0 0 18 Total Score 10 28 27 65 Percentage 11.1 38.9 50.0 100 concentration when I am writing a narrative text. Total Score 1 0 24 28 10 63 Percentage 5.6 0 44.4 38.9 11.1 100 3. I get many vocabularies from narrative writing by using brain writing model. 3 12 3 0 0 18 Total Score 15 48 9 0 0 72 Percentage 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 0 100 4. Narrative writing by using brain writing model improves my grammar understanding. 1 11 5 0 1 18 Total Score 5 44 15 0 1 65 Percentage 5.6 61.1 27.8 0 5.6 100 5. I become more creative in writing a narrative text by using brain writing model. 1 12 4 0 1 19 Total Score 5 48 12 0 1 66 Percentage 5.6 66.7 22.2 0 5.6 100 IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 719 8. Writing a narrative text using brain writing model makes me bored. 1 1 12 2 2 18 Total Score 1 2 36 8 10 57 Percentage 5.6 5.6 66.7 11.1 11.1 100 9. For me brain writing model is very fun so I can share findings with my friends 3 9 6 0 0 18 Total Score 15 36 18 0 0 69 Percentage 16.7 50.0 33.3 0 0 100 10. I am more motivated to discuss about narrative writing by using brain writing. 1 8 8 0 1 18 Total Score 5 32 24 0 1 62 Percentage 5.6 44.4 44.4 0 5.6 100 11. Brain writing model does not increase my interest in writing a narrative text. 0 3 6 7 2 18 Total Score 0 6 18 28 10 62 Percentage 0 16.7 33.3 38.9 11.1 100 Statistical data regarding students' perceptions of interest towards learning narrative texts using the brain writing model also indicated quite positive perceptions. It was shown from the highest percentage in the fourth statement of 50% agreed that brain writing model was very fun so they can share findings with their friends. It was also supported by another higher percentage from fifth statement which 44% students agreed that they were motivated to discuss about narrative writing by using brain writing model. In contrast, in the negative statement, as many as 72.2% chose undecided that they did not like using the brain writing model because the situation was too fast. Table 8 Students’ Perceptions of the Activities on the Use of Brain Writing Model No Statements SA A U D SD Total 12 Brain writing model does not increase my activity in writing a narrative text. 2 3 7 4 2 18 Total Score 2 6 21 16 10 55 Percentage 11.1 16.7 38.9 22.2 11.1 100 13. I immediately pay attention the components of writing especially 1 11 6 0 0 18 Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 720 narrative text. Total Score 5 44 18 0 0 67 Percentage 5.6 61.1 33.3 0 0 100 14. Writing a narrative text by using brain writing model makes students difficult to communicate with teacher. 1 0 6 6 5 18 Total Score 1 18 24 25 68 Percentage 5.6 33.3 33.3 27.8 100 15. I diligently sorted important information’s and noted the parts that I don’t understand when learning narrative text and by using brain writing model. 0 12 6 0 0 18 Total Score 0 48 18 0 0 66 Percentage 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 100 16. Writing a narrative text using brain writing model does not give me an opportunity to write more English. 0 3 5 8 2 18 Total Score 0 6 15 32 10 63 Percentage 0 16.7 27.8 44.4 11.1 100 The data distribution of students’ perception to activity indicator revealed that most of students agreed that they diligently sorted important information and noted the parts that they didn’t understand when learning narrative text by using brain writing model. It was represented 66.7 %, the highest percentage between other indicators. Furthermore, another higher percentage shown by the second statement which had 61.1 % agreed that they immediately paid attention the components of writing after learning narrative texts by using brain writing model. Table 9 Students’ Perception of the Implementation on the Use of Brain Writing Model No Statements SA A U D SD Total 17. After gaining knowledge about brain writing, I apply it in every lesson. 0 4 8 4 2 18 Total Score 0 16 24 8 2 50 Percentage 0 22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1 100 IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 721 18. Writing a narrative text using brain writing model does not help me understand narrative text material. 2 0 7 7 2 18 Total Score 2 0 21 28 10 61 Percentage 11.1 0 38.9 38.9 11.1 100 19. Brain writing model prevents me to generate ideas in writing a narrative text. 0 1 6 8 3 18 Total Score 0 2 18 32 15 67 Percentage 0 5.6 33.3 44.4 16.7 100 20. Writing a narrative text using brain writing model should not be applied. 0 1 4 8 5 18 Total Score 0 2 12 32 25 71 Percentage 0 5.6 22.2 44.4 27.8 100 As data presented in table 4.17, positive statement from the seventeenth statement showed 44.4% students choose undecided that brain writing model can be applied in other lessons. While the other highest percentage shown by nineteenth and twentieth of negative statements where they disagreed that brain writing model prevents students to generate ideas in writing a narrative text and this model should not be applied. Table 10 Percentage of Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Brain Writing Model in Improving Narrative Writing Skill According to the statistics provided above, the 16 questionnaire statements had a total score between 61-80 and 4 items had a score between 41-60. The percentage of positive perception which is 80% is higher than the fair perception which is only 40%. Therefore, it could be concluded that the students' perception Score Category Frequency Percentage (%) 81-100 Very Positive Perception - 61-80 Positive Perception 16 80 41-60 Fair Perception 4 20 21-40 Negative Perception - 0-20 Very Negative Perception - Total 20 100 Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 722 of the use of the brain writing model in improving the ability to write narrative text was positive. Discussion The results of this study indicate that there are significant differences in the scores of students' pre-test and post-test. After receiving treatment, student scores increased in the post-test. To test the effectiveness of the brain writing model in improving students' skill to write narrative texts, it was analyzed three indicators, namely the T test, the N-Gain score and the minimum completeness criteria of the samples taken. As presented on table 4.7, the result of the T value (Sig 2-tailed) was 0.000. Based on the decision-making guidelines in the T test, 0.000 was lower than significant value (α) 0.05. The analysis showed that hypothesis negative ( H0 ) was rejected and hypothesis positive (Ha) was accepted. This indicated that the brain writing model significantly improved students' skill to write narrative texts. Furthermore, according to the data in table of the mean N-Gain score from the pre-test and post- test was 0.5632, in which this value was less than 0.7. As a result, this value was classified as medium effective based on Hake classification in Wahab et al. (2021). Medium mean that brain writing model was considered quite effective in improving students' narrative writing skill. The last indicator was to the assess completeness of student learning outcomes based on the minimum completeness criteria of learning English or KKM at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar. Based on table 4.11 it revealed that from the results of the post test scores, as many as 13 people or 72% of the 18 students passed the minimum completeness criteria compared to 5 students or 28% who did not achieve the minimum completeness criteria. Therefore, it could be concluded that the brain writing model was effective in improving students' narrative writing skill. In conclusion, the three indicators showed significant results. It could be determined that the brain writing model was effective in improving students' ability to write narrative texts. After the sample had received a treatment in the form of learning narrative text using brain writing model, then it was examined students' perception on the use of brain writing models to write narrative texts by giving a questionnaire. The questionnaire model was a Likert scale with five response options namely strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The total of the statements was 20 statement in which it consists of four indicators namely the benefits, the interest, the activities and the implementation. Table 4.18 revealed that 16 statements or 80 % of the 20 favorable and unfavorable questions was classified as positive perception, while 4 statements or 20 % of the 20 favorable and unfavorable questions was classified as fair perception. As a result, the dominant answers chosen by students were positive perception. It indicated that students received several benefits by applying brain IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 723 writing models to write narrative texts, interest in learning it, gained activities and implemented what they had learnt. Conclusion According to the research findings and discussion about the use of the brain writing model in improving EFL Junior Secondary students’ narrative writing skill at SMPIT Al-Fatih Makassar, the following conclusions could be drawn: 1. Brain writing model was effective to improve EFL Junior Secondary students’ narrative writing skill. There was a significant improvement in students’ scores. This was evident from the pre-test and post-test scores, which increased by 49%. Then it was validated by the T test findings, which revealed that the T test (sig) 0.000 was lower than the significant value (α) 0.05. This implied significant improvement. In addition, the mean N-Gain score from the pre-test and post-test was 0.5632, which was less than 0.7. As a consequence, this value was categorized as medium effective, indicating that it was quite effective in improving students’ narrative writing skill. Furthermore, the findings of the students' post-test scores revealed that 80% of students complete the SMPIT AL-Fatih Makassar's minimum completeness criteria. In conclusion, brain writing model was effective to improve students’ narrative writing skill. 2. Students' perceptions of using the brain writing model showed positive perceptions. The results of perception analysis showed that 80% of positive perception was higher than 20% of fair perception. It indicated that the students gained various benefits, interests, activities and implementation by using this model including a better knowledge of the learning process and they believed that by using brain writing model, students could write narrative texts successfully. Suggestions The following are some suggestions made by the researcher in relation to this research: 1. For next researchers a. Brain writing model was a brainstorming variation that was used to assist students expressing ideas. This brain writing model, however, was still extremely infrequently employed in English learning. Therefore, next researchers should try to apply this model to various types of English learning material, such as report texts, news articles, explanation texts, analytical expositions, hortatory texts, spoof texts, and so on. b. Researchers may also study brain writing models using qualitative research in areas where the brain writing process occurs, allowing us to focus on student engagement in the learning process. Furthermore, researchers Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 724 could detect a more profound influence of employing brain writing models in the learning process using a qualitative way. 2. For teachers a. Teachers were expected to motivate students to enhance students' writing abilities and interests by establishing an engaged and pleasant learning environment for them. b. Teachers were obligated to know their students psychologically so that they may assist them overcome the challenges they confront, especially introverted ones. References Alfarisy, F. (2021). Kebijakan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia dalam perspektif pembentukan warga dunia dengan kompetensi antarbudaya. Jurnal Ilmiah Profesi Pendidikan, 6(3), 303-313. Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, A. E. (2014). Statistics for psychology (Sixth Edition ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Razavieh, A. A. (2009). Introduction to research in education (Eighth Edition ed.). United States of America: Wadsworth Publishing. Aziz, F., & Fathiyyaturrizqi, F. (2016, 5-6). Using movies to improve students' narrative writing skills. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 9), Bandung. Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. California: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2003). Language assessment, principles, and classroom practices. California: Longman. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education ESL. Damayanti, T., Baa, S., & Amin, F. H. (2023). Implementing discovery learning in teaching reading comprehension at senior high school. IDEAS Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 11(1), 77-91. Depari, M. Y., Devi, L. S., Sianipar, E., & Herman, H. (2022). Students’ perception of using Telegram in learning English at SMK Negeri 1 Bandar Masilam. Education and Human Development Journal, 7(2), 13-22. Dewi, F. H. (2015). The use of the brainwriting 6-3-5 technique to improve students’ writing ability of recount text (a classroom action research at eighth grade of SMP Negeri 18 Semarang in the academic year of 2014/2015). Walisongo State Islamic University. Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension strategy instruction: teaching narrative text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 161-167. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 725 Everitt, B. S. (2006). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (Third Edition ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. First, E. (2022). EF EPI 2022 regional fact sheet. Retrieved February 1st, 2023, from www.ef.com/epi Goldstein, E. B. (2014). Sensation and perception (Ninth Edition ed.). United States of America: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gutiérrez, K. G. C., Puello, M. N., & Galvis, L. A. P. (2015). Using the picture series technique to enhance narrative writing among ninth-grade students at Institución Educativa Simón Araujo. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 45-71. Habibi, Sukirno, Taufina, Sukma, E., Suriani, A., & Putera, R. F. (2020). Direct writing activity: a strategy in expanding narrative writing skills for elementary schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4374-4383. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. England: Pearson Education Limited. Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language tests. United States of America: Longman Group United Kingdom Limited. Hedge, T. (2005). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. United States of America: Cambridge University Press. Husnaini, H., Iksan, M., & Wiwin, W. (2023). Students’ Anxiety in Learning English Writing Skills at the Senior High School Level. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 93-110. Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, and grammar technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Landa, J. A. G. (2005). Narrative theory. University of Zaragoza. Online Edition. Listyani, L. (2019). The use of a visual image to promote narrative writing ability and creativity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 80, 193-223. Litcanu, M., Prostean, O., Oros, C., & Mnerie, A. V. (2015). Brainwriting vs. brainstorming case study for power engineering education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 387-390. Langi, N. T. (2024). Using a Picture of Luwu Culture Activity for Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching Methodology, 4(3), 482-488. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, A. K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research from theory to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mather, G. (2011). Essentials of sensation and perception. New York: Routledge. Mills, G. E., & Gay, A. L. R. (2016). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications (Eleventh Edition ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited. Masruddin, M., & Munawir, A. (2021). The Efficacy of Treasure Hunt Game With Luwu Local Culture Based on Teaching English Vocabulary and Introducing Cultural Heritages of Luwu at SMPIT Al Hafidz Kota Palopo. Kongres Internasional Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia, 204-208. Andi Emy Hardianti, Sultan Baa Developing EFL Junior Secondary School Students’ Narrative Writing Skill Using Brain Writing Model 726 Masruddin, Hartina, S., Arifin, M. A., & Langaji, A. (2024). Flipped learning: facilitating student engagement through repeated instruction and direct feedback. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2412500. Notion, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading & writing. United Kingdom: Routledge. Nurhayati, N. (2015). Model pembelajaran menulis cerita pendek dengan menggunakan teknik brainwriting yang berorientasi pada kreativitas siswa. Riksa Bahasa: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pembelajarannya, 1(1), 14-26. Qiong, O. (2017). A brief introduction to perception. CS Canada Studies in Literature and Language, 15(4), 18-28. Renandya, W. A., & Widodo, H. P. (2016). English language teaching today: an introduction. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Robertson, J., & Good, J. (2004). Children's narrative development through computer game authoring. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children: Building a Community, Maryland, United States of America. Rudrum, D. (2005). From narrative representation to narrative use: towards the limits of definition. Narrative, 13(2), 195-204. Ryan, M.-L. C. M. (2007). Toward a definition of narrative. The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed David Herman: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sari, D. Y. (2018). The effect of applying the brainwriting strategy on the students’ achievement in writing narrative text. University of Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara. Sari, E. K., & Fitrawati. (2018). Using 6-3-5 brainwriting helps senior high school students brainstorm in the writing process. Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(3), 531-537. Shabir, M. (2015). Enhancing students’ ability to extend ideas in narrative writing through the 5W1H concept. English, 17(2), 48-54. Sugiyono. (2017). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta. Suhaimi, N. D., Mohamad, M., & Yamat, H. (2019). The effects of WhatsApp in teaching narrative writing: a case study. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 590-602. Sumartini, H., & Hernawan, H. (2019). Model brainwriting dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis wawangsalan. LOKABASA, 10(2), 214-225. Toba, R., & Noor, W. N. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essays. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 57-73. VanGundy, A. B. (2005). 101 activities for teaching creativity and problem-solving. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Wahab, A., Junaedi, J., & Azhar, M. (2021). Efektivitas pembelajaran statistika IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 1, June 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 727 pendidikan menggunakan uji peningkatan N-Gain di PGMI. Jurnal Basicedu, 5(2), 1039-1045. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, C. (2013). Brainstorming and beyond-a user-centered design method. United Kingdom: Elsevier Inc. Yulianti, S., Nuraeni, S., & Parmawati, A. A. (2019). Improving students’ writing skills using the brainwriting strategy. Project (Professional Journal of English Education), 2(5), 714-721. Zakaria, M. A., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). The impact of digital storytelling on ESL narrative writing skills. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (5), 319-332.