Crafting Better Academic Writing: Enhancing the Writing Performance of Second-Year BS-IT Students Through the 4Cs Writing Framework
Abstract
Effective academic writing requires more than grammatical accuracy; students must also organize ideas clearly, use language correctly, communicate efficiently, and sustain reader engagement. This study examined changes in the writing performance of second-year Bachelor of Science in Information Technology (BS-IT) students at Opol Community College following the implementation of a researcher-developed 4Cs Writing Framework focused on Clarity, Correctness, Conciseness, and Compellingness. A quantitative classroom action-research approach with a one-group pretest-posttest design was used. The analytic sample consisted of 87 students who completed both writing assessments. Pre- and post-intervention essays were rated on a five-point 4Cs rubric by three evaluators. Frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, paired-samples t tests, and Cohen's dz were used to summarize and compare performance. Before the intervention, all dimensions were classified as Needs Improvement: clarity M = 2.08 (SD = 0.87), correctness M = 2.01 (SD = 0.82), conciseness M = 1.98 (SD = 0.85), and compellingness M = 2.08 (SD = 0.90). After the intervention, all dimensions reached the Satisfactory level: clarity M = 3.16 (SD = 0.94), correctness M = 3.28 (SD = 0.83), conciseness M = 3.34 (SD = 0.91), and compellingness M = 3.36 (SD = 1.01). Paired comparisons were significant for clarity, t (86) = -21.76, p < .001, dz = 2.33; correctness, t (86) = -23.86, p < .001, dz = 2.56; conciseness, t (86) = -23.97, p < .001, dz = 2.57; and compellingness, t (86) = -23.02, p < .001, dz = 2.47. The findings indicate substantial pre-post gains associated with the 4Cs intervention. Because the study used a single group without a control condition, the results should be interpreted as evidence of improvement during the intervention rather than definitive causal proof. Continued structured practice, formative feedback, and peer-supported revision are recommended.