Main Article Content

Abstract

Contemporary College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) writing instruction faces significant challenges in accurately predicting student performance and providing timely pedagogical interventions. This study develops and validates the Production-Oriented Approach Multi-Dimensional Learning Analytics Framework for Student Performance (POA-MLSP) for predicting CET-4 writing performance across five dimensions through systematic integration of Production-Oriented Approach (POA) theory and Self-Determination Theory (SDT)-based engagement modeling. The framework implements a four-layer architecture incorporating Feature Adaptive Selection Mechanism and SDT-Based Engagement Dynamic Modeling algorithms. Validation involves 124 students during a 16-week semester, collecting multi-source data including Jacobs' five-dimensional assessments, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student (UWES-S) engagement measurements, classroom observations, and digital platform interactions across experimental and control groups. POA-MLSP achieves R² = 0.75 overall prediction accuracy, outperforming linear regression (R² = 0.58), random forest (R² = 0.66), and support vector machines (R² = 0.63) by 17-29%. Content prediction reaches highest accuracy (R² = 0.78), while the framework identifies five distinct engagement profiles and achieves 78.4% ± 2.1% early warning accuracy with 79.8% ± 2.9% teacher satisfaction. Educational theory-guided algorithms significantly enhance prediction performance while maintaining pedagogical interpretability, enabling proactive intervention through early warning systems with minimal implementation burden for authentic educational applications.

Keywords

Production-oriented approach Multi-dimensional learning analytics CET-4 writing performance prediction Student engagement patterns Self-determination theory

Article Details

Author Biographies

Yu Li, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Yu Li is currently pursuing the Ph.D's degree with the education,Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Selangor, Malaysia. Her research interests in English education of teaching and learning.

Nur Ainil BT. Sulaiman, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Dr. Nur Ainil BT. Sulaiman is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and currently serves as the postgraduate coordinator at the Centre for Research on Learning & Teaching Innovation. Her main research interests lie in TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language), with a focus on second language acquisition, English teaching strategies, academic writing, and speaking skills.

Halizah BT. Omar, Pusat Pengajian Citra Universiti, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Dr. Halizah BT. Omar is a prominent English language educator at UKM’s Centre for University Citra Studies, and her research expertise is broadly focused on the field of Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL), with particular strength in digital language learning and the development of communicative competence.

How to Cite
Li, Y., Ainil BT. Sulaiman, N., & BT. Omar, H. (2025). POA-MLSP: a multi-dimensional learning analytics framework for predicting CET4 writing performance based on a production-oriented approach and student engagement patterns. Future Technology, 4(4), 100–116. Retrieved from https://fupubco.com/futech/article/view/462
Bookmark and Share

References

  1. Qiu, L., Enabling in the production-oriented approach: Theoretical principles and classroom implementation. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2020. 43(3): p. 284-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0019
  2. Zhang, W., Effects of the production-oriented approach on EFL learners’ writing performance in China’s tertiary education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2020. 43(3): p. 323-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0021
  3. Liu, G. and H. Cao, The application of poa-based reciprocal teaching model in Chinese senior high school English writing class. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2021. 11(8): p. 891-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1108.04
  4. Xie, Q., Using production-oriented approach in business English courses: perceptions of China’s English-major and non-English-major undergraduates. Sage Open, 2021. 11(2): p. 21582440211016553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016553
  5. Zhao, Y., N. Ainil Sulaiman, and W. Wahi, Exploring the Impact of the Production-Oriented Approach on Chinese University Students' Motivation for English Learning: A Mixed Methods Study. Arab World English Journal, 2024. 15(3): p. 10.24093. http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no3.7
  6. Cheng, J. Blended learning reform in English viewing, listening and speaking course based on the POA in the post-pandemic era. in Frontiers in Education. 2025. Frontiers Media SA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/icosihess-19.2019.9
  7. He, T. and C. Li, An empirical study on the teaching mode of cultural translation in college English based on the Production Oriented Approach (POA). PloS one, 2025. 20(6): p. e0326127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326127
  8. Zhang, L. and Y. Kong, Integrating Production-Oriented Approach (POA) in Flipped Classrooms: An Action Research on Enhancing Spoken English Instruction for English Majors in China. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 2025. 7(2): p. 117–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i2.8136
  9. Yibin, H., Reconstructing “Learning-Application Integration” Practical Training Courses for English Teacher Trainees From the POA Perspective. US-China Education Review A, 2025. 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2025.04.005
  10. Noels, K.A., et al., Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning, in The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. 2020, Springer. p. 95-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_5
  11. Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci, Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 2020. 61: p. 101860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000234
  12. Chiu, T.K., Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 2021. 124: p. 106909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
  13. Chiu, T.K., Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 2022. 54(sup1): p. S14-S30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998
  14. Li, H., Impact of collaborative learning on student engagement in college English programs: Mediating effect of peer support and moderating role of group size. Frontiers in Psychology, 2025. 16: p. 1525192. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1525192
  15. Liu, H., Y. Wang, and H. Wang, Exploring the mediating roles of motivation and boredom in basic psychological needs and behavioural engagement in English learning: a self-determination theory perspective. BMC psychology, 2025. 13(1): p. 179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02524-3
  16. Yang, Y., J. Chen, and X. Zhuang, Self-determination theory and the influence of social support, self-regulated learning, and flow experience on student learning engagement in self-directed e-learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 2025. 16: p. 1545980. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1545980
  17. Namoun, A. and A. Alshanqiti, Predicting student performance using data mining and learning analytics techniques: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 2020. 11(1): p. 237. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11010237
  18. Zhang, Y., et al., Educational data mining techniques for student performance prediction: method review and comparison analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 2021. 12: p. 698490. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698490
  19. Yağcı, M., Educational data mining: prediction of students' academic performance using machine learning algorithms. Smart Learning Environments, 2022. 9(1): p. 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00192-z
  20. Lin, C.-C., A.Y. Huang, and O.H. Lu, Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: a systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 2023. 10(1): p. 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y
  21. Sghir, N., A. Adadi, and M. Lahmer, Recent advances in Predictive Learning Analytics: A decade systematic review (2012–2022). Education and information technologies, 2023. 28(7): p. 8299-8333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11536-0
  22. Wang, S., et al., Artificial intelligence in education: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 2024. 252: p. 124167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124167
  23. Malik, S., et al., Advancing educational data mining for enhanced student performance prediction: a fusion of feature selection algorithms and classification techniques with dynamic feature ensemble evolution. Scientific Reports, 2025. 15(1): p. 8738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92324-x
  24. Angeioplastis, A., et al., Predicting student performance and enhancing learning outcomes: a data-driven approach using educational data mining techniques. Computers, 2025. 14(3): p. 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/computers14030083
  25. Zhao, C. and J. Huang, The impact of the scoring system of a large-scale standardized EFL writing assessment on its score variability and reliability: Implications for assessment policy makers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2020. 67: p. 100911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100911
  26. Chen, H. and J. Pan, Computer or human: A comparative study of automated evaluation scoring and instructors’ feedback on Chinese college students’ English writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2022. 7(1): p. 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00171-4
  27. Huang, C., Assessing reading comprehension in CET-4: A cross-sectional case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 2023. 31(10): p. 7149-7158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2061012
  28. Li, K., et al. Test fairness of the in-house College English examination for Chinese non-English major undergraduates: a case study. in Frontiers in Education. 2025. Frontiers Media SA. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1518315
  29. Sun, Q., F. Chen, and S. Yin, The role and features of peer assessment feedback in college English writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023. 13: p. 1070618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532220927487
  30. Wu, C., Y.-W. Zhang, and A.W. Li, Peer feedback and Chinese medical students’ English academic writing development: a longitudinal intervention study. BMC Medical Education, 2023. 23(1): p. 578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04574-w
  31. de Caux, B.C. and L. Pretorius, Learning together through collaborative writing: The power of peer feedback and discussion in doctoral writing groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2024. 83: p. 101379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101379
  32. Peungcharoenkun, T. and B. Waluyo, Students’ affective engagements in peer feedback across offline and online English learning environments in Thai higher education. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2024. 9(1): p. 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00286-w
  33. Wang, W. and C. Lyu, The Effectiveness of Production-Oriented Approach on Students’ English Language Skills: A Meta-Analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 2025. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-025-00990-2
  34. Liew, P.Y. and I.K. Tan. On Automated Essay Grading using Large Language Models. in Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3709026.3709030
  35. Misgna, H., et al., A survey on deep learning-based automated essay scoring and feedback generation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2024. 58(2): p. 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-11017-5
  36. Merino-Campos, C., The impact of artificial intelligence on personalized learning in higher education: A systematic review. Trends in Higher Education, 2025. 4(2): p. 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4020017
  37. Huang, T., et al., The Effect of Production-Oriented Approach on Chinese University Students’ Foreign Language Writing Anxiety and English Writing Performance: Evidence From a Longitudinal Study. SAGE Open, 2025. 15(2): p. 21582440251344016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440251344016
  38. Sun, L., H.H. Ismail, and A.A. Aziz, Current English Language Teaching Using Production-Oriented Approach: A Systematic Review. World Journal of English Language, 2024. 14(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n4p101
  39. Zheng, X. and J. Zhang, The usage of a transformer based and artificial intelligence driven multidimensional feedback system in english writing instruction. Scientific Reports, 2025. 15(1): p. 19268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05026-9
  40. Shi, H., et al., Comparing the effects of ChatGPT and automated writing evaluation on students’ writing and ideal L2 writing self. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2025: p. 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541