Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 11, 2026
Published
June 7, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study evaluates students’ English writing achievement based on Minimum Mastery Criteria (Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal/KKM) in an Indonesian Islamic elementary school. The study addresses the need to critically examine whether students’ attainment of mastery criteria reflects actual writing competence among young learners. Employing a quantitative descriptive evaluation design, the study involved 22 second-grade students whose writing scores were collected through classroom-based assessment records. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques, including mean score calculation, score distribution analysis, and mastery percentage evaluation. The findings reveal that all students achieved the Minimum Mastery Criteria of 75, resulting in a 100% mastery rate with a mean score of 87.36. However, further analysis demonstrates variation in achievement levels, with students distributed across minimum, moderate, and high achievement categories. These findings indicate that although all students met the established mastery threshold, writing competence remained differentiated across learners. The study concludes that KKM-based evaluation is useful for measuring baseline achievement but should not be interpreted as a comprehensive indicator of writing proficiency. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to complement mastery-based assessment with broader evaluation approaches to capture more complex dimensions of students’ writing development.

Keywords

English writing achievement minimum mastery criteria classroom-based ssessment young learners Islamic elementary school

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Amalia, H., Abdullah, F., & Fatimah, A. S. (2021). Teaching writing to junior high school students: A focus on challenges and solutions. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17, 794–810. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.904066
  2. Ariyanti. (2025). Writing Self-Efficacy in English Language Learning: A Study of University Students’ Academic Achievement and Motivational Factors. Borneo Educational Journal (Borju). https://doi.org/10.24903/bej.v7i2.2095
  3. Artini, L. P. (2017). Rich Language Learning Environment And Young Learners ’ Literacy Skills In English. 11(May), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v11i1.1587
  4. Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
  5. Block, J. H., & Airasian, P. W. (1971). Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=OSCdAAAAMAAJ
  6. Chong, S. W., & Isaacs, T. (2023). An Ecological Perspective on Classroom‐Based Assessment. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3201
  7. Cooper, P. (1984). The Assessment Of Writing Ability: A Review Of Research. ETS Research Report Series, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1984.tb00052.x
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell David, J. (2018). Fifth Edition: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. In Sage (fifth). SAGE Publication. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429469237-3
  9. Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2019). An Applied Guide to Research Designs : Quantitative , Qualitative , and Mixed Methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publication, Inc.
  10. Furidha, B. W. (2024). Comprehension Of The Descriptive Qualitative Research Method: A Critical Assessment Of The Literature. Journal Of Multidisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.56943/jmr.v2i4.443
  11. Hamdani, M., & Abid, N. (2025). Indonesian Efl Students’ Writing Challenges: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. Getsempena English Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.46244/geej.v12i1.3091
  12. Kim, Y., Yang, D., Reyes, M., & Connor, C. (2021). Writing Instruction Improves Students’ Writing Skills Differentially Depending on Focal Instruction and Children: A Meta-Analysis for Primary Grade Students. Educational Research Review, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100408
  13. Kusumastiti, W. (2025). The Role Of English Literacy In Enhancing Students’ Reading And Writing Skills. Jurnal Review Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran. https://doi.org/10.31004/jrpp.v8i2.47136
  14. Lim, Weng Marc. (2025). What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
  15. Mason, L., Davison, M., Hammer, C. S., Miller, C., & Glutting, J. (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading and Writing, 26, 1133–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0
  16. McMillan, J. H. (2012). SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  17. Moses, R. N., & Mohamad, M. (2019). Challenges Faced by Students and Teachers on Writing Skills in ESL Contexts: A Literature Review. Creative Education. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1013260
  18. Praseeda. (2025). Beyond Time-Based Metrics: Authentic Assessment in Competency-Driven Learning Environments. International Journal of Teacher Education Research Studies (IJTERS). https://doi.org/10.63090/ijters/3049.1614.0022
  19. Rahim, A., & Mustakim, M. (2025). Peningkatan Akurasi Model Untuk Prediksi KKM Siswa Sekolah Dasar Menggunakan Supervised Machine Learning dengan Integrasi Faktor Internal dan Eksternal. Euler : Jurnal Ilmiah Matematika, Sains Dan Teknologi. https://doi.org/10.37905/euler.v13i3.34577
  20. Rennert Ariev, P. (2020). A theoretical model for the authentic assessment of teaching. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 2. https://consensus.app/papers/a-theoretical-model-for-the-authentic-assessment-of-rennert-ariev/92324c6d94465dbab0cdf8012606300f/
  21. Stoynoff, S. (2012). Looking backward and forward at classroom-based language assessment. Elt Journal, 66, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs041
  22. Tang, X., Chen, H., Lin, D., & Li, K. (2024). Harnessing LLMs for multi-dimensional writing assessment: Reliability and alignment with human judgments. Heliyon, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34262
  23. Udu, T. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards reading and writing: Do they correlate to students’ achievement in English? Studies in English Language and Education. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17524
  24. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2024). A systematic literature review on authentic assessment in higher education: Best practices for the development of 21st century skills, and policy considerations. Studies in Educational Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101425