Home⇛International Journal of Transformative Multidisciplinary Studies⇛vol. 2 no. 2 (2026)

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Writing Intervention in Enhancing Elementary Students’ Composition Skills: A Sequential Explanatory Mixed-Methods Study

Dame Francis Louise Ersando

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

1 University of San Jose-Recoletos, Cebu, Philippines * dersando@usjr. edu.ph Volume 2, Issue 2, June 2026 This study examined the effectiveness of a one-week web- based learning intervention on Grade 6 pupils' composition writing in a face-to-face classroom. Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, thirty pupils participated in scaffolded digital lessons targeting main idea, supporting detail, spelling, grammar, organization, and punctuation. Paired samples t-test results showed a significant improvement in overall writing performance (M_pre = 2.66, SD = 0.75; M_post = 3.30, SD = 0.63; t(29) = 15.44, p < .001), with the largest gains observed in spelling and supporting detail. Shapiro- Wilk results indicated normal distribution (p > .05). Thematic analysis further revealed increased engagement, confidence, and motivation among students. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they reflect short-term outcomes from a small, purposively selected sample within a single classroom context. As such, the results are context-specific and cannot be generalized to other educational settings without further validation through larger and more diverse studies. Overall, the findings suggest that structured web-based instruction may serve as a promising approach for supporting writing development in blended elementary classrooms.



References:

  1. Bouwer, R., Koster, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2018). Effects of a strategy-focused instructional program on the writing quality of upper elementary students in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000206
  2. Cordewener, K. A. H., Verhoeven, L., & Bosman, A. M. T. (2016). Improving spelling performance and spelling consciousness. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 48–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.963213
  3. De Smedt, F., Merchie, E., Barendse, M., Rosseel, Y., & Van Keer, H. (2018). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: Studying the relation with writing performance across students’ gender and achievement level. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.193
  4. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  5. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185
  6. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
  7. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44613
  8. Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (the 3rd edition). Cambridge University. https://cambridge.org/highereducation/books/multimedialearning/FB7E79A165D24D47CEACEB4D2C426ECD
  9. Muhammad, A. A., Beck, J., & Kurt, S. (2022). Assessing writing in online environments: Challenges and opportunities. Assessing Writing, 51, 100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100590
  10. Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640
  11. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
  12. Philippakos, Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (2016). The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth- and fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.149
  13. Wijekumar, K., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Lei, P.-W. (2022). A teacher technology tango shoes strong results on 5-th graders persuasive writing. Educational Technology Research & Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED620523.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  14. Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004
  15. Zheng, B., Lawrence, J., Warschauer, M., & Lin, C.-H. (2015). Middle school students’ writing and feedback in a cloud-based classroom environment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9239-z
  16. Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading and Writing, 29(2), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic