Crafting Better Academic Writing: Enhancing the Writing Performance of Second-Year BS-IT Students Through the 4Cs Writing Framework

Allocation at minting

The anchored record

Canonical JSON (keys sorted, no spaces, UTF-8). Its SHA-256 is the hash on chain.

{"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.","abstract_source":"original","authors":["Kent Leo Estaura","Ian Rey M. Laid"],"date":"2026-09-27","doi":"10.70838/pemj.630503","id":10879,"issue":5,"journal":{"issn":"2822-4353","name":"Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal"},"pdf_sha256":"9ce79fcd39240a11741367adbf17f3a43ecbf532653b83e5a16e6ecded9c2c98","schema":"scimatic-article/1","title":"Crafting Better Academic Writing: Enhancing the Writing Performance of Second-Year BS-IT Students Through the 4Cs Writing Framework","volume":63}

Check it yourself

1. The record, from the token's own metadata:

printf '%s' "$(curl -s https://scimatic.org/nft/articles/10879.json | jq -r .canonical_record)" | sha256sum

2. The hash stored on chain (contentHash(10879)):

curl -s https://rpc.scimatic.net -H 'content-type: application/json' \
  -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"eth_call","params":[{"to":"0x0E596B4bb924937aA35D9b342A90347ed6F05eF8","data":"0xf3e0c2900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002a7f"},"latest"]}'

The two must be equal (the second with a 0x in front).