<![CDATA[Scientific writing is a core academic competency in vocational higher education, yet instructional support remains inconsistent in Indonesia's Diploma-4 (D4) programmes, which favour applied and technical competencies. This paper reports Cycle 1 of a Design-Based Research project that aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a six-stage scaffolding workflow (P1–P6) embedded in the Indonesian Language course across three D4 programmes (accounting, engineering, and tourism) at a single vocational polytechnic in Indonesia. Data comprised 26 fully coded artefacts from six purposively selected focal groups and one additional stage-specific comparative artefact, field notes, and a reflection questionnaire completed by 72 of 180 enrolled students (40% response rate), analysed through qualitative content analysis supported by peer debriefing with one independent reviewer. The scaffold supported students through the structural sequence of mini-research writing but did not yet adequately scaffold claim calibration, variable operationalisation, and peer evaluation. Premature causal, correlational, and significance claims appeared in 12 of 26 coded artefacts (46%), concentrated at the interpretation stage, while indicator-item misalignment emerged as a persistent operationalisation bottleneck. Students rated the initial framing stage as least demanding, yet artefact analysis suggested it may be analytically the most consequential for later claim-calibration difficulties, tentatively termed the P1 paradox. Perceptions data suggest peer-review quality may have been constrained by inadequate feedback architecture, though the data cannot rule out a competence deficit as a contributing explanation. Five tentative design principles for Cycle 2 are proposed, targeting claim calibration, phenomenon framing, indicator traceability, peer-review criteria, and worked-example fading.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
