This quasi-experimental study examines the impact of the production-oriented approach (POA) on the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) of Chinese college students and their English achievement. Conducted over 8 weeks in four classes (N = 108) at a public university in Shandong Province, the study compares two experimental groups exposed to POA-based instruction with two control groups following traditional teaching methods. Data were collected via a validated 40-item L2MSS questionnaire and three English achievement tests administered in Weeks 1, 4, and 8. Statistical analyses, including independent t-tests, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), revealed that POA significantly enhanced students’ overall second-language (L2) motivation and English achievement, with the most consistent improvements observed in the ideal L2 self and the L2 learning experience, whereas the ought-to L2 self showed comparatively smaller change.
Abdi TabariM.HiverP.NorouzianR. (2024). Interactions between task complexity, task repetition, and task motivation in L2 writing. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241286661
2.
AldrupK.CarstensenB.KlusmannU. (2022). Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1177–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y
3.
Al-HoorieA.H. (2018). The l2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/SSLLT.2018.8.4.2
4.
Al-MurtadhaM. (2025). Motivating second language learners with a possible selves intervention program. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 24(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2022.2075874
5.
AmirovaN. (2025). Traditional vs. Non-traditional teaching in secondary education: A comparative analysis. Porta Universorum, 1(3), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.69760/portuni.010309
6.
AmraiK.MotlaghS.E.ZalaniH.A.ParhonH. (2011). The relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.111
7.
BhardwajV.ZhangS.TanY.Q.PandeyV. (2025). Redefining learning: Student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1518602. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602
8.
ChenH.WenQ. (2020). A study on nominalization instruction in academic English writing based on the Production-Oriented Approach: Taking the enabling phase as an example [In Chinese]. Foreign Language Education in China, 3(1), 15–23.
9.
DörnyeiZ. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.
10.
DörnyeiZ. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the l2 learning experience, the cinderella of the L2 motivational self system. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.2
11.
GaoY.WangH. (2023). Developing Chinese university students’ academic literacies in English language classrooms via a production-oriented approach: An action research perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1189555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1189555
12.
García-ArroyoJ.Cárdenas MoncayoI.Gómez GarcíaA.R.Osca SegoviaA. (2020). Understanding the relationship between situational strength and burnout: A multi-sample analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010162
13.
GrahamS.WijekumarK.HarrisK.R.LeiP.-W.FishmanE.RayA.B.HoustonJ. (2019). Writing skills, knowledge, motivation, and strategic behavior predict students’ persuasive writing performance in the context of robust writing instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 119(3), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/701720
14.
HairJ.F.Jr.MatthewsL.M.MatthewsR.L.SarstedtM. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
15.
KocamanO. (2025). Understanding what makes every language learner unique: Individual differences in language learning. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 7(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.47156/jide.1680621
16.
LambM.ArisandyF.E. (2020). The impact of online use of English on motivation to learn. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1–2), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1545670
LiX.HanJ. (2024). What motivates Korean language learners to learn? Motivational characteristics and their relationships with learning engagement. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00726-0
19.
LiuJ.LinT.WuW.DuoH.TianC. (2025). The Chinese-adapted jefferson scale of empathy - medical student version for assessing the level of empathy in medical students: A study of the reliability and validity. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 16, 943–952. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S514231
20.
LiuS.GaoS.JiX. (2023). Beyond borders: exploring the impact of augmented reality on intercultural competence and L2 learning motivation in EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1234905. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234905
21.
LiuS.SunH. (2024). The teaching of reading to English majors in China (1950–2020): Historical development, current predicament and potential solutions. International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 3(5), Article 632699.
22.
LiuY.ZhangJ. (2021). English writing course designs integrating into ideology and politics based on product-oriented approach. Creative Education, 12(2), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.122024
23.
MacIntyreP.D.DörnyeiZ.ClémentR.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
24.
MartinovićA. (2018). The L2 motivational self-system: Differences among learners. Jezikoslovlje, 19(1), 133–157.
25.
McClellandN.Larson-HallJ. (2025). Why you should stop using the ideal L2 self and the L2 motivational self-system to measure motivation (Reaction to Al-Hoorie, Hiver & In’nami, 2024). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(4), 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000779
26.
MendozaA.PhungH. (2019). Motivation to learn languages other than English: A critical research synthesis. Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12380
27.
MeniadoJ.C. (2016). Metacognitive reading strategies, motivation, and reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 117. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p117
28.
MoskovskyC.AssulaimaniT.RachevaS.HarkinsJ. (2016). The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340
RenJ.WangN. (2018). A survey of students’ motivation in college English learning under production-oriented approach in NCEPU. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 199. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n12p199
31.
ShabbirS.AyubM.A.KhanF.A.DavisJ. (2021). Short-term and long-term learners’ motivation modeling in Web-based educational systems. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2020-0207
32.
Shafiee RadH.AlipourJ. (2023). Writing skills in CALL: Effects of L2MSS vision-inspired instruction on L2 students’ motivation and achievement. System, 115, 103063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103063
33.
SharmaA. (1985). Krashen, Stephen S. Writing: Research, theory and applications. Pergamon: 1984. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(1), 135–137. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.42.1.135
34.
ShuJ. (2022). A POA theory-based network teaching mode for English course in higher vocational college. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(1), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i01.28459
35.
SnelgroveR.SelvaratnamV.WoodL.PotwarkaL.R. (2022). Distinguishing participants and non-participants in campus recreation: The roles of knowledge and motivations. Recreational Sports Journal, 46(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/15588661221125206
36.
SongM.-J.SuhB.-R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36(2), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.006
37.
SunL.AsmawiA. (2021). A literature review of studies on Production-Oriented Approach (POA) in China. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(6), 74–81https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt
38.
SwainM. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158
39.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495–508). Routledge.
40.
WenQ. (2015). Developing a theoretical system of Production-Oriented approach in language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (Bimonthly), 47, 547–558.
41.
WenQ. (2017). The production oriented approach: A pedagogical innovation in university English teaching in China. In WongL.HylandK. (Eds.), Faces of English: Students, teachers, and pedagogy (pp. 91–106). Routledge.
42.
WenQ. (2018). The production-oriented approach to teaching university students English in China. Language Teaching, 51(4), 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481600001X
43.
WenQ.BiZ. (2020). A review of the similarities and differences between production-oriented approach and task-based language teaching. Foreign Language Education, 41(4), 1000-5544(2020)04-0041–06. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2020.04.008
44.
WiddowsonH.SeidlhoferB. (2018). POA and issues of pedagogic principle. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 238–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2018-0015
45.
YouC. (Julia)DörnyeiZ. (2016). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a large-scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu046
46.
ZengR.LiQ. (2019). The application and evaluation of the “Production-Oriented Approach” in College English Teaching. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1423(1), 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1423/1/012015
47.
ZhaiM. (2021). The analysis on blended teaching in college EFL writing course based on the Production-Oriented Approach. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (ICSSHE 2021). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (Vol. 598, pp. 454–458). Atlantis Press.
48.
ZhangL. (2020). Teaching design and practice of intensive reading course based on BOPPPS. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(3), 503. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1103.21
49.
ZhangW. (2016). Applying production-oriented approach to college English classrooms: A teaching experiment. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2, 106–114.
50.
ZhouY.PapiM. (2023). The role of future L2 selves in L2 speech development: A longitudinal study in an instructional setting. System, 119, 103156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103156
