Syntax Literate : Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p�ISSN:
2541-0849
����� e-ISSN:
2548-1398
����� Vol.4,
No.5 Mei 2019
%20Oke%20Joss,%2064-79.%20_files/image001.png){kind=small}
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MIND MAPPING AND BRAINSTORMING TECHNIQUES TO TEACH WRITING TO VISUAL AND READ WRITE LEARNING STYLE STUDENTS
Fiki Setiawan
Akademi
Analis Kesehatan An Nasher Cirebon
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
This research was conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of Mind Mapping and Brainstorming technique used by students with visual and read-write learning
style.
The subject of the study was the students of Akademi Analis Kesehatan An
Nasher in academic year 2018/2019. The subjects
were the students of class A and B,�
divided into two parts of learning style namely visual and read-write.
This research uses 2x2 factorial experimental design. The object of this
research was the teaching of analytical exposition text. The instruments used
were a test, questionnaire, and
observation. The finding of this research indicates that mind mapping and
brainstorming strategies were effective in teaching writing to the students
with visual and read-write learning
style. The result showed that the score of mind mapping strategy was higher
than brainstorming strategy. The conclusion of this research has proven that
mind mapping technique and brainstorming technique can help and improve the
students in writing skill for both students with visual and read-write learning style. It can be concluded
that mind mapping strategy was more effective than brainstorming strategy and
there was interaction among the technique, writing skill, and students learning
style. It is hoped that the students and the teacher can use that technique in teaching and learning
process.
Keywords: Brainstorming,
Mind Mapping, Visual and Read Write Learning Style
Introduction
English is
used in many countries as a means of communication. It plays an important role
in the world of politics, business, trade, and diplomatic circle. Furthermore, a great deal of works of science, commerce, economy, and technology is written in
English. Considering those reasons, Indonesia decided to include English in the
school curriculum. In Indonesia English have to teach from elementary school up
to university. The purpose of teaching English is to enable
the student to master English, so they can apply it in communication.
For English, there is a slight different perspective for teachers to interpret competences from psychomotor domains, specific competencies derived from language system
(linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and
strategic competence), macro-skills (productive; speaking and writing, and
receptive skills; listening and reading) and micro-skills or the elements of
language (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and spelling). All these should be
addressed and covered in integrative manners in all KI and KD.
In teaching and learning English as a
foreign or second language especially to young learners, the four English
skills, writing, listening, speaking, and reading, should not be separated one
another. Among the four language skills mentioned a, writing skill is one of
the two skills which are tested in the final evaluation. Writing as the
productive skill is considered to be more difficult than any other productive skill. Students face
difficulties and commit errors in many different writing skills, especially in
mechanics (Abdusalam & Mujiyanto,
2017). Therefore, it can be assumed that writing skill is one of the
most important skills in the teaching of English in Indonesia.
In terms of writing in Indonesian
pedagogical contexts, writing is one of the four language skills that should be
taught and mastered in order to acquire English well. Teaching writing at a
university level aims to lead the students to gain some competencies which
require them to able to express their ideas in written form. In everyday
teaching and learning experience, spoken and written languages used are not
separated and isolated from each other, but they come together in communication
experience. It is likely listening may precede speaking and reading may precede
writing. In this case, English teachers must be able to master those basic language skills very well. They are required
to comprehend the language (listening and reading) and produce the language (speaking and writing) among the four
language skills taught in school. Writing includes the ability to express the students'
opinion or taught clearly and effectively in written
form. These abilities can be achieved only if the learner can master some technique of writing such as how to
gathering ideas about what s/he will write on, how to express them in sequence of sentence, how to organize
them chronologically and coherently and how to review and then to revise the
composition until the writing is well-built.
In teaching and learning process, the
students face many difficulties in writing proficiency.
They might think that writing is difficult because writing skills are complex
and difficult to teach. It means that English students should master written
English but they find many difficulties how to learn writing. Because we found
that the students have difficulty to write a text well based on genre. Especially in analytical exposition, the
students face difficulties because of reluctance to question or less motivation, difficult to build and develop their ideas, using of grammar
and confusing in determining the generic
structure of the text.
Writing is an integrative skill and an
important, constructive, and a complex process (Faridi, 2017). The reason why
the students still get low achievement in
writing is not only from students themselves
but also from the teacher. The conventional learning method that teacher
applied in teaching writing skills is not effective. During learning activities
in the classroom, the teacher only asks the students to read the text,
translate the text by using a dictionary
and rewrite the translation. The students are not asked to practice their
writing ability. In addition, the teacher never makes a variation in teaching and learning process. The teacher has to
create interesting activities in the
classroom so that the students can develop their idea in writing.
Methodology
This research is a quantitative research, which
tried to find the significant result about the use of one teaching technique.
According to Muijs (2004:1) �Quantitative research is explaining phenomena by
collecting numerical data that are analyzed
using mathematically based method (in particular statistics)�.
In
obtaining the data needed for this
research, the writer will determine the population and the sample as the
subject of this research. The writer
separates the sample into two group, the experimental and the control group.
Both of group will be given a pre-test
and post-test. The experimental group
will be treated to apply Mind Mapping for 6 weeks continuously and the
control group will be treated to apply Brainstorming
for 6 weeks continuously also.
In this research, a factorial design
will be used to gain the data. As stated by Fraenkel & Wallen (2005: 280)
that factorial designs extend the number of relationships that may be examined
in an experimental study. They are essentially modifications of either the
posttest-only control group or pretest-posttest
control group design (with or without random assignment), which permit the
investigation of additional independent variables. Another value of a factorial
design is that it allows a researcher to investigate the interaction of an
independent variable with one or more other variables, sometimes called
moderator variables. Referring to this
research, the moderator variable is visual and read-write
learning style. The method of
collecting data in this research, the researcher used written test. The test
was used to collect data on students�
writing skill and to know the students�achievement.
Results And Discussions
After dividing the class into two group, experiment
class one and experiment class two, the students got the pre-test. In here the
pre-test was used to determine whether the writing ability of both classes was same. The students also should answer the
questionnaire in order to know their learning style. After getting the
pre-test, the students got the treatment. Experiment class one got the
treatment by using mind mapping technique and experiment class two got the
treatment by using brainstorming technique. After the treatment had been given
to the students, the researcher gave post-test. The result of mind mapping and
brainstorming technique in pre-test and post-test could be seen in the following tables.
Table 1.
Pre-test
score of experiment class one and experiment class two
|
Pre-experiment |
Min. |
Max. |
Mean |
|
Class one
visual |
50 |
65 |
59.27 |
|
Class two
visual |
50 |
71 |
59.80 |
|
Class
one read-write |
50 |
69 |
58.70 |
|
Class two
read-write |
59 |
67 |
63.57 |
From the data of
pre-test score, the result revealed that the mean score of experiment class one
with visual and read-write learning style
is lower than the mean score of experiment class two with visual and read-write learning style which ranges from 58.98 to 61.57. The pre-test was
used to measure the students� writing skill before getting the treatment
applied. After applying the pre-test, the researcher gave the different
treatment to both experiment classes.
Table 2.
�Post-test score of experiment class one and
experiment class two
|
Post experiment |
Min. |
Max. |
Mean |
|
Class one
visual |
70 |
79 |
74.57 |
|
Class two
visual |
71 |
77 |
74.00 |
|
Class
one read-write |
72 |
75 |
73.60 |
|
Class two
read-write |
71 |
77 |
73.29 |
Based on the
data of post-test score, the mean score
of post-test increased from the pre-test. The score of post-test in experiment
class one is higher than experiment class two. It means that mind mapping
technique is more effective than brainstorming technique.
After that, the score of pre-test was
calculated by using the statistical calculation in order to know the homogeneity and the normality. The normality test is used to know
whether the data is distributed normally
or not.� If the score is not normal, the treatment cannot be applied because it means that two classes are not equal in their writing
skill. The data showed that the significant value of pre-test score in experimental class one was higher than 0.05
(0.200, 0.189, 0.200, 0.200 > 0.05).). In experiment
class two the significant value was
also
higher than 0.05 (0.200,
0.200, 0.200, 0.200 > 0.05). Hence, it can be concluded
that
all the data were
distributed normally.
Table 3.
Homogeneity
Test of Pre-test
|
Test of Homogeneity of Variances |
|||
|
Pre-test. |
|||
|
Levene Statistic |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
|
.011 |
1 |
40 |
.918 |
Table 4.
Homogeneity
Test of Post-test
|
Test of Homogeneity of Variances |
|||
|
Post-test. |
|||
|
Levene Statistic |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
|
3.244 |
1 |
40 |
.079 |
The value of
Levene Statistic is 0.011 and significant value is more than 0.05 (0.918 >
0.05), it means that the data in the pre-test is homogeneous. While the post-test, the value of Levene Statistic is
3.244 and significant value is more than 0.05 (0.79 > 0.05), it means that
the data in the post-test is homogeneous. From the two table above, the
significant value of both pre-test and post-test score are more than 0.05. It
can be concluded that the variance of the data in the pre-test and post-test is
homogeneous. Because all the
data
was normal and homogeneous, so the instruments
were
appropriate to be given to the students.
Table 5.
Paired
Samples Statistic of� Experiment Class
One with Visual Learning Style
|
Paired Samples Statistics |
|||||
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
P1 |
Pre-test |
59.27 |
15 |
5.338 |
1.378 |
|
Post-test |
74.57 |
15 |
2.625 |
.678 |
|
The result revealed that the mind mapping strategy was effective to enhance students writing skills with
visual learning style in experiment class one.
The results also showed that the mean score of
posttest in the experiment class one with visual learning style (74.57) was higher
than
the pretest of the experiment class one with visual
learning style (59.27).� The N was the same between the pre-test
experiment class one with visual learning style and post-test experiment class
one with visual learning style. Then the standard deviation of post-test
experiment class one with visual learning style is lower than the pre-test
experiment class one with visual learning style. While standard error means of
the post-test experiment class one with visual learning style is lower than the
pre-test experiment class one with visual learning style. It means that the
students with visual learning style have the high score and showed
improvement.From the table of paired samples t-test, it can be
seen that the significant value was 0.000. It was < α (0.05). It means that it was significantly different
from using mind mapping to teach writing with a visual learning style in the experiment
class one.
Table 6.
Paired
Samples Statistic of Experiment Class One with Read
Write Learning Style
|
Paired Samples Statistics |
|||||
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
P1 |
Pre-test |
58.70 |
5 |
7.050 |
3.153 |
|
Post-test |
73.60 |
5 |
1.342 |
.600 |
|
Based on the results, mind mapping strategy was also effective to use in teaching writing to students with read-write learning
style. The score
of pretest in experiment class one of the students with
read-write learning style (58.70) was lower than the score of posttest (73.60). The
N is 5 in both of pre-test and post-test in experiment class one with read-write learning style students. Then, the
standard deviation of the post-test was lower than in the pre-test. While the
standard error means in the post-test is lower than in the pre-test. From the
paired sample t-test, the significant value was 0.014. It shows that 0.014 <
0.05. It means that there is a significant difference in the read-write learning style students skill
between pre-test and post-test of experiment class one. It means that there was an
improvement from the pretest score to
posttest score.�
Therefore, it can be concluded that there was a significant result of using mind mapping technique in teaching writing for visual and read-write learning style students in experiment class one.
|
Table 7. Paired Sample Statistic of Experiment
Class Two with Visual Learning Style Paired Samples Statistics |
|||||
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
P1 |
Pre-test |
59.80 |
15 |
4.902 |
1.266 |
|
Post_test |
74.00 |
15 |
1.890 |
.488 |
|
The mean of post-test
of students with visual learning
style by using brainstorming
strategy was (74.00). It was higher than that of the pre-test. The N was the same between the pre-test
experiment class two with visual learning style and post-test experiment class
two with visual learning style. Then the standard deviation of post-test
experiment class two with visual learning style is lower than the pre-test
experiment class one with visual learning style. While standard error means of
the post-test experiment class two with visual learning style is lower than the
pre-test experiment class two with visual learning style. The significant
value was 0.000. It was < α. It means that there is a
significant difference in students writing skill of class two of students with
visual learning style between pre-test and post-test.
Table 8.
�Paired Samples Statistic of Experiment Class
Two with Read-Write Learning Style
|
Paired Samples Statistics |
|||||
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
P1 |
Pre-test |
63.57 |
7 |
2.573 |
.972 |
|
Post-test |
73.29 |
7 |
1.704 |
.644 |
|
The mean
score of pre-test of students
with read-write learning style by using
brainstorming technique was (63.57). It was lower than that of posttest
(73.29). The table shows that the mean score of pre-test is lower than the
post-test. The N is 7 in both of pre-test and post-test in experiment class two
with read-write learning style students.
Then, the standard deviation of the post-test was lower than in the pre-test.
While the standard error means in the post-test is lower than in the
pre-test.From paired sample t-test, it can be seen that the significant value
was 0.000. It shows that 0.000 < 0.05. It means that there is a significant
difference in the read-write learning
style students skill between pre-test and post-test of experiment class two.
|
Table 9. �Group Statistic Descriptive Statistics |
||||
|
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
|
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
|
|
|
Experiment class one |
74.33 |
.531 |
2.375 |
|
|
Experiment class two |
73.77 |
.389 |
1.824 |
|
The mean score
of experiment class one is 74.33 and the mean score of class two is 73.77. The table of group statistic between two
classes above showed the comparison experimental class one and experiment class
two. The standard deviation of each group was 2.375� for experiment class one and 1.824 for
experiment class two. While standard mean error experiment class one was 0.531
and that for experiment class two was 0.389. it is clearly stated that the mean
score of post-test of experiment class one is higher than experiment class two.
It means that mind mapping technique is
more effective rather than brainstorming
technique in teaching writing for visual
learning style students. Then, it is also
explained by the mean score of visual and
read-write learning style student for
each group. In order to clear the finding of the mean score, here is the chart.
%20Oke%20Joss,%2064-79.%20_files/image003.png)
Chart
1 The Mean Score of Post-test
Based on the
chart, it is clearly stated that the mean score of post-test of experiment
class one is higher than experiment class two. It means that mind mapping technique is more effective rather than brainstorming technique in teaching writing fo visual learning style students. Then, it is also explained by
the mean score of visual and read-write
learning style student for each group.
From the data, the mean score of students with visual
learning style of experiment class one is 74.57. The mean score of students
with read-write learning style of
experiment class one is 73.60. While the mean score of students with visual
learning style of experiment class two is 74.00. The mean score of students with
read-write learning style of experiment
class two is 73.29. The following chart shows clearly the effectiveness of
technique for teaching writing to visual
and read-write learning style students.
%20Oke%20Joss,%2064-79.%20_files/image005.png)
Chart 2.
The Mean Score of Visual and Read Write Learning Style Students in Experiment
Class One and Experiment Class Two
The mean score
of visual learning style students in experiment class one is higher than the
mean score of visual learning style students in experiment class two. The mean
score of read-write learning style
students in experiment class one also higher than the mean score of read-write learning style students in
experiment class two. Based on the chart above, it can be seen that mind
mapping technique is more effective than
brainstorming technique to teach writing
to students with visual and read-write
learning style.
Table 10
The Significant Calculation of Visual and Read Write Learning Style Students�
Score
|
Univariate
Tests |
|||||
|
Dependent
Variable:�� Score� |
|||||
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Contrast |
5.934 |
1 |
5.934 |
1.318 |
.258 |
|
Error |
171.062 |
38 |
4.502 |
|
|
|
The F tests the effect of Learning Style.
This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the
estimated marginal means. |
|||||
Based on the
output of SPSS version 24 above, the significant value is 0.258. It is more
than 0.05. It means that Ho is
accepted and HI is rejected. The result of hypothesis shows that
there is no significant difference between students writing skills of those who
were taught by using mind mapping technique and those who were taught by using
brainstorming technique.
In order to
measure the interaction among technique,
learning style and writing skill of
students of Akademi Analis Kesehatan An Nasher, ANOVA was used to analyze the
result.
Based on
Analysis of Variance significant value is 0.864 more than 0.05. It can be
concluded that there is no significant interaction between mind mapping
technique and brainstorming technique in enhancing students writing skill of
students with visual learning style and read-write
learning style. The interaction among technique, students writing skill and
students� learning style can be seen in the following chart.
%20Oke%20Joss,%2064-79.%20_files/image007.jpg)
Chart
2. The interaction among Technique,
Learning Style, and Writing Skill.
In the chart above, it can be seen that
the mean score of experiment class one is higher than experiment class two in
both levels of learning style (visual and read-write).
While the two line does not intersect. It means that there is no
interaction effect. There is no
interaction among the strategies, students� interest, and writing skill. As
a result, mind mapping technique is better than brainstorming technique but it
does not depend on the different learning style.
This part
presents the discussion of the research which was conducted to explain the
effectiveness of mind mapping and brainstorming technique to teach writing
skill to visual and read-write learning
style students, in order to know the technique that is more effective to use in
teaching writing skill to visual and read-write
learning style students, and to explain whether
there is interaction among technique, students� learning style, and writing skill.
Before the
treatment, the class was divided into two groups, students with visual and read-write learning style. The researcher gave
the questionnaire in order to determine the students� learning style. There are
four categories of learning style, they
are visual, audiolingual, read-write and kinesthetic. Visual and read-write learning style was used in this research because it has
a correlation to mind mapping and
brainstorming technique. The questionnaire contained several questions related
to their learning style in teaching and learning English. After answering the
questionnaire, the score of the questionnaire became the basis to determine
whether the students have visual or read-write
learning style in teaching and learning English.
Then, the
pre-test was given to experiment class one and experiment class two. It was
used to know whether their ability in writing was the same level or not. After
that, the score of pre-test was calculated by
using the statistical calculation in order to know the homogeneity and the
normality.The data showed that the significant value of pre-test in
experimental class one was higher than 0.05 (0.200 and 0.200 > 0.05). In
experiment class two the significant value was also higher than 0.05 (0.200 and
0.189� and 0.200 > 0.05). So, it can
be conducted that all the data were
distributed normally. From the post-test, it can be seen that the significant
value of experiment class one was higher than 0.05 (0.200 and 0.200 > 0.05).
In experiment class two, the significant value is also higher than 0.05 (0.200
and 0.200 > 0.05). It means that the data was normally distributed.
The Levene
statistic value of pre-test was 0.11 and the significant
value was 0.918. The significant values was more than 0.05 (0.918 >
0.05). It means that the data in the pre-test is homogenous. From the Levene
statistic value of pre-test and post-test, the variance of the data showed that
the characteristics were homogenous. The P-value from both pre-test and
post-test were > 0.05. So it can be concluded that the variance of the
classes was homogenous. Because all the data was normal and homogenous, so the
instruments were appropriate to be given to the students.
The technique
being applied are the main differences between experiment class one and
experiment class two. The detail description will be explained as follow.
The first hypothesis
is mind mapping technique is effective to teach writing to the students with
visual learning style. The research result reveals
that the mind mapping technique is effective to use in teaching writing to
visual learning style students. It is proven to
form the result that showed the mean score of post-test in the experiment class
one with visual learning style (74.57) was higher than the pre-test of the
experiment class one with visual learning style (59.27). From the table above
of paired sample t-test, it can be seen
significantly different from using mind mapping to teach writing with visual
learning style in the experiment class one.
The second
hypothesis is mind mapping technique is effective to teach writing to the
students with read-write learning style.
Based on the result, mind mapping technique was also effective to use in
teaching writing to the students with read-write
learning style. The score of pre-test in experiment class one of the students
with read-write learning style (58.70)
was lower than the score of post-test (73.60). Its meaning that there is an
improvement from the pre-test to post-test score. From the table paired sample
t-test, it can be stated that the
significant value was 0.000. It was less
than 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a significant result of using mind mapping technique in teaching
writing to read-write learning style in
experiment class one.
The third
hypothesis is brainstorming is effective to teach writing to students with
visual learning style. The mean score of post-test of the students with visual
learning style (74.00) was higher rather than pre-test. From the table 4.17, it
can be seen that the significant value was 0.000. It was < 0,05.Its meaning
that there was a significant result of using a brainstorming
technique to teach writing to the students with visual learning style.
The forth hypothesis is brainstorming technique is
effective to teach writing to the students with read-write
learning style. The mean score of post-test of the students with read-write learning style (73.29) was higher
than pre-test. The score increased from the pre-test to post-test. From the
table 4.20, it can be seen that the significant value was less than α
(0.000 < 0.05). It means that there was a significant result of using a brainstorming technique to teach writing to the
students with read-write learning style
in experiment class two.
The fifth
hypothesis is mind mapping technique is more effective to teach writing to the
students with visual learning style. The mean score of experiment class one of
the students with visual learning style
(74.57) was higher than the mean score of experiment class two of students with
visual learning style (74.00). It means that mind mapping technique is more
effective than brainstorming to use in
teaching writing to the students with visual learning style. So it can be
concluded that mind mapping technique is more effective than brainstorming
technique to use in teaching writing to the students with visual learning
style. Moreover, the significant value (0.258) in the table 4.24 is more than
0.05 which means it is significantly difference.
The values show that there is significantly difference
between student who were taught by using mind mapping technique and
those taught brainstorming technique.
The last
hypothesis of the research is there is interaction among technique, students�
learning style, and writing skill. In this research,
the researcher used ANOVA to analyze the result of the interaction among the
technique, students� learning style, and writing skill. From the calculation,
the significant value (0.864) was higher than 0.05. It means that there is no interaction among technique, students�
learning style, and writing skill. Mind mapping technique is more effective
than brainstorming technique to both visual and read-write
learning style, but it does not depend on the difference
of learning style.
Conclusion
The first result
indicated that there was a significant
difference in the mean score between pre-test and post-test of visual
learning style students taught by mind mapping technique. The result says mind
mapping was effective to use in teaching writing to the students with visual
learning style.
The second
result indicated that there was a significant
difference in the mean score between pre-test of experiment class one
with read-write learning style and post-test of experiment class one with read-write learning style. It means that mind
mapping technique is effective to use in teaching writing to the students with read-write learning style in experiment class
one.
The third result
showed that there was a significant difference
in the mean score between pre-test of experiment class two of students with
visual learning style and the post-test. It means that brainstorming technique
is effective to use in teaching writing to the students with visual learning
style.
The fourth result explained that there was a significant difference in the mean score
between the pre-test of experiment class two of students with read-write learning style and the post-test. It
means that brainstorming is effective to use in teaching writing to the students
with read-write learning style.
Answering the
fifth research questions, there was a significant
difference in the effectiveness of mind mapping technique and
brainstorming technique to teach writing to the students with visual learning
style. It can be seen from the mean score of students in experiment class one
with visual learning style which higher than experiment class two. It means
that mind mapping technique is more effective than brainstorming technique to
use in teaching writing to the students with visual learning style.
The last result
showed that there was no interaction among the technique, students� learning
style, and writing skill. Mind mapping
technique is better for both visual and read-write
learning style. Its meaning that mind mapping
technique is more effective rather than brainstorming, on the other hand, it depends on the students learning style and
their interest in writing.
From the whole
result, this research has proven that mind mapping technique and brainstorming
technique can help and improve the students in writing skill for both students
with visual and read-write learning
style.
REFERENCES
Ali, A. M., & Mujiyanto, Y. 2017. The
Influence of Cultural Identities in Second Language Aquisition: A Perspective
from Secondary Program (Semarang Multinational School). English Education Journal. 7 (1).
Retrieved from http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej
Abdusalam, A. S., & Mujiyanto, Y. 2017. Errors of Spelling,
Capitalization, and Punctuation Marks in
Writing Encountered by First Year College Students in Al-Merghib University
Libya. English Education Journal. 7 (2), 92-102. Retrieved from http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej
Brown,
D. H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An
Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Folse,
K. S., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E.V. 2010. Great Writing 2: Great
Paragraph. Boston: Heinle
Cengage Learning.
Fraenkl, J. R.,
& Wallen, Norman E. 2005. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Singapore: Mcgraw �
Hill.
Gerot,
L., & Wignell, P. 1994. Making
Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Srabler.
Hedge,
Tricia. 1988. Writing: Resource Books for Teachers. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Kelly,
C., & Gargagliano, A. 2000. Writing from Within. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Manikowati, & Bharati, D. A. L. 2017. The Effectiveness of Multimedia in Teaching Writing to Students with
Different Learning Styles. English Education Journal. 7 (2),
85-91. Retrieved from http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej