EVALUATING THE D-E-E-P COGNITIVE ESSAY WRITING FRAMEWORK AMONG CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION STUDENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i4.1352Keywords:
teaching innovation, critical thinking, student development, higher education, pedagogyAbstract
Essay writing remains one of the most widely used assessment methods in higher education, yet many students encounter difficulties in organizing ideas, developing arguments, and demonstrating critical thinking in examination settings. To address these challenges, this study introduced the D-E-E-P Cognitive Essay Writing Framework, a teaching innovation designed to guide students in constructing essay responses through four stages: Definition, Explanation, Example, and Point of Significance. The framework aims to provide a structured approach to essay writing while reducing cognitive burden during examinations. This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design involving 47 undergraduate students. Quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-intervention assessments conducted over one academic semester, while qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with seven students. The quantitative findings revealed an improvement in students’ essay-writing performance, with the overall mean score increasing from 2.96 to 3.20. The qualitative findings further indicated that the framework enhanced answer organization and structure, improved critical thinking and content elaboration, and increased confidence in examination writing. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative findings suggests that the D-E-E-P framework serves as an effective cognitive scaffold that supports students in producing more structured, analytical, and comprehensive examination essays. The study contributes to pedagogical innovation by offering a practical and transferable framework that can be applied across disciplines requiring essay-based assessments.
References
[1] Andreucci-Annunziata, P., Riedemann, A., Cortés, S., Mellado, A., del Río, M.T., Vega-Muñoz, A. (2023): Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: A systematic review of systematic reviews. – Frontiers in Education 8: 18p.
[2] Awalluddin, M.A. (2019): Human capital management in Malaysia: Issues and strategic measures. – İşletme Bilimi Dergisi 7(1): 201-219.
[3] Awalluddin, M.A., Maznorbalia, A.S., Mohd Arshad, M.R. (2026): Transforming HRM education through values-based pedagogy: The ADAB+ approach and corporate relevance. – Voice of Academia 22(1): 210-224.
[4] Baddeley, A.D., Eysenck, M.W., Anderson, M.C. (2020): Memory. – Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group 612p.
[5] Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006): Using thematic analysis in psychology. – Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77-101.
[6] Buckley, A. (2024): Are we answering the question that has been set? Exploring the gap between research and practice around examinations in higher education. – Studies in Higher Education 49(11): 1928-1944.
[7] Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D. (2018): Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. – SAGE Publications 304p.
[8] Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L. (2018): Designing and conducting mixed methods research. – SAGE Publications 520p.
[9] Fawzia, S., Karim, A. (2024): Exploring the connection between deep learning and learning assessments: A cross-disciplinary engineering education perspective. – Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11: 10p.
[10] Fiorella, L., Mayer, R.E. (2016): Eight ways to promote generative learning. – Educational Psychology Review 28(4): 717-741.
[11] Graham, S., Kiuhara, S.A., MacKay, M. (2020): The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. – Review of Educational Research 90(2): 179-226.
[12] Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K.R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., Talukdar, J. (2018): Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. – Review of Educational Research 88(2): 243-284.
[13] Graham, S., Sandmel, K. (2011): The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. – The Journal of Educational Research 104(6): 396-407.
[14] Halcomb, E.J. (2019): Mixed methods research: The issues beyond combining methods. – Journal of Advanced Nursing 75(3): 499-501.
[15] Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., van Driel, J. (2019): The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. – Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 44(6): 863-880.
[16] Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., Zambrano, J. (2018): From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. – International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13(2): 213-233.
[17] Li, F., Zhang, Y. (2026): A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of technology-assisted academic writing instruction in higher education. – Language Teaching Research 20p.
[18] Lin, V., Barrett, N.E., Liu, G.Z., Chen, H.H.J. (2023): A systematic review on inquiry-based writing instruction in tertiary settings. – Written Communication 40(1): 238-281.
[19] Mayer, R.E. (2020): Multimedia learning. – Cambridge University Press 450p.
[20] Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K.I., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., Sharma, H. (2024): Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools. – Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 7(1): 46-56.
[21] Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J. (2003): Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. – Educational Psychologist 38(1): 4p.
[22] Sandoval-Cárcamo, J., Arias-Roa, N., Arancibia-Gutiérrez, B.M. (2024): Cognitive skills and critical thinking interventions for the development of academic writing in higher education students: A systematic review. – Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología 4: 12p.
[23] Schunk, D.H., DiBenedetto, M.K. (2020): Motivation and social cognitive theory. – Contemporary Educational Psychology 60: 10p
[24] Skulmowski, A., Xu, K.M. (2022): Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. – Educational Psychology Review 34(1): 171-196.
[25] Sweller, J. (1988): Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. – Cognitive Science 12(2): 257-285.
[26] Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F. (2019): Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. – Educational Psychology Review 31(2): 261-292.
[27] Wingate, U. (2012): Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A literacy journey. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(1): 26-37.
[28] Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T.J., Chiu, T.K.F. (2024): A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education. – International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21: 22p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MUHAMMAD AIMAN AWALLUDDIN, ANISA SAFIAH MAZNORABLIA, FARHANA HANIM MOHSIN, MAY SAPURA MOHD SHAZILI, DIDING BAJURI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
