[17].Subsequently,ProfessorAlisterCumming,alongwithscholarssuchasProfessorCharlenePoliofromMichiganStateUniversity,proposedapplyingPOAtoTeachingChineseasaForeignLanguage.Insummary,domesticresearchontheProduction-OrientedApproachisbroaderandmorein-depththanforeignstudies.ThefocushasshiftedfromitsapplicabilitytoEnglishandotherlanguageteachingtohowitcanbebetterintegratedandadvancedinsuchcontexts.Inthepresent,whetherabroadordomestically,researchontheProduction-OrientedApproachstillrequiresfurtherexploration.2.3.3DevelopmentTrendsEvenbeforetheformalproposalofPOA,extensiveresearchhadbeenconducteddomesticallyandinternationallyontheoutput-drivenhypothesis.SincethedevelopmentofthePOAtheory,manyeducationexpertsandfrontlineteachershaveincreasinglystudiedit,andinnovativeteachingmethodshavebecomeapopulartopicformaster’sanddoctoraltheses.TheresearchtrendsofPOAhaveevolvedfrominitiallyfocusingonitsfeasibilitytodesigningteachingmodelsbasedonPOA,thenattemptingtointegrateitwithotherteachingmethods,andfinallyemphasizingitsapplicationinforeignlanguagelearning.However,whetherPOAcangenuinelycultivatestudents’autonomousinput-outputabilitiesinEnglishteachingremainsatopicforfuturediscussion.Strengtheningexchangesandcollaborationbetweendomesticandinternationalscholarsisessentialtocontinuouslyrefiningandpromotingitglobally.ThisstudyprimarilyexploreswhetherstudentscanadapttoPOAinEnglishwritinginstructionandwhetherPOAcaneffectivelyenhancetheirwritingoutputskillsandperformance.3ResearchDesign3.1ResearchQuestionsThisstudyisbasedontheInputHypothesis,OutputHypothesis,andtheOutput-DrivenandInput-EnabledHypothesis,usingPOAasthetheoreticalframeworktoanalyzeitsapplicationinjuniorhighschoolEnglishwritingteaching.Itaimstoanswerthefollowingthreeresearchquestions:CanstudentsadapttoPOA-basedwritinginstruction?CanPOAstimulatestudents’interestinwritingandenrichtheirexperientiallearning?CanPOAimprovestudents’writingskillsandperformance?3.2ResearchSubjectsThestudyinvolvestwoparallelclassesoffirst-yearjuniorhighschoolstudentsinSuqian,eachconsistingof51students—specifically,Class1(3)andClass1(4).TheresearcherrandomlydesignatedClass1(3)astheexperimentalgroup,wherePOAwasimplemented,andClass1(4)asthecontrolgroup,wherethePWP(Pre-Writing,Writing,Post-Writing)methodwasapplied.Beforetheexperiment,awritingproficiencytestwasconductedacrossalltenclassesintheschool.SPSSwasusedtoanalyzetheEnglishwritingscoresoftheseclasses,andtwoclasseswithnosignificantdifferenceinwritingproficiencywereselectedforatwo-monthexperimentalstudy.3.3ResearchInstrumentsThisstudyappliesPOAtojuniorhighschoolEnglishwritingteaching.Aftertheexperiment,questionnairesweredistributedtoassessstudents’perceptionsofPOA’sfeasibilityandeffectiveness.EnglishwritingtestswereadministeredtoevaluatetheimpactofPOAonstudents’writingperformance.3.3.1QuestionnaireAftertheexperiment,ananonymousquestionnairetitled“JuniorHighSchoolStudents’PerceptionsoftheApplicationofPOAinEnglishWritingTeaching”wasdistributedtoallstudentsinClass1(3).ThequestionnairecoversmultipledimensionsofPOAandincludessingle-choice,multiple-choice,ranking,andopen-endedquestions,totaling20items(seeAppendixA).Thisallowsforacomprehensiveunderstandingofstudents’viewsonPOA.Thequestionnaire’sreliabilitywasconfirmedbyCronbach’salphacoefficient(α=0.82),indicatinggoodconsistency.ThedimensionsofthequestionnairearepresentedinREF_Ref10532\hTable3-1:Table3-SEQTable3-\*ARABIC1QuestionnaireItemDimensionDistributionDimensionItemnumberJuniorhighschoolstudents'perceptionsofPOA5items:1、5、9、10、19Students'adaptabilitytoPOA5items:6、7、15、16、17Stimulatingwritinginterestandexperienceaccumulation4items:3、4、11、14Improvingwritingcompetenceandperformance4items:2、8、12、133.3.2WritingTestPapersInadditiontothequestionnairemethod,twoexaminationmethodswereadoptedbeforeandaftertheexperimenttotestwhetherPOAaffectsjuniorhighschoolstudents’writingperformance.Thefirsttestwasconductedbeforetheexperimentbegan,uniformlytestingstudentsfromtenfirst-gradeclasses,withthemainpurposeofselectingtwowithnosignificantdifferenceinwritingperformanceastheexperimentalandcontrolclasses.Thesecondtestwasconductedafterthetwo-monthexperiment.Toensurethescientificvalidityoftheresearch,thetestquestionsselectedforbothtestswerefrompreviousyears’highschoolentranceexaminationquestionswithmoderatedifficulty(seeAppendixBandAppendixC),andthedifficultylevelmatchedthestudents’actualabilitiesandproficiency.ThewritingscoringcriteriawereadoptedfromtheEnglishwritingscoringstandardsofSuqian’shighschoolentranceexamination.3.4ResearchProcessThissectionintroducestheresearchprocessofthisappliedresearch.Theresearchlastedfortwomonthsandwasroughlydividedintothreestages:pre-experiment,while-experiment,andpost-experiment,aswellasdatacollectionandanalysis3.4.1ExperimentalPreparationStageThefirststagewasthepre-testbeforetheexperiment.TheauthorconductedaunifiedtestfortengradesinamiddleschoolinSuqian,usingtheEnglishtestquestionsofthe2023Suqianhighschoolentranceexamination.Basedonthescoreanalysis,twoparallelclasseswithnosignificantdifferenceinEnglishwritingperformancewereselectedtosetuptheexperimentalandcontrolclasses,andthewritingscoreswerecollectedforfutureanalysisofpre-experimentaldata.3.4.2ExperimentalImplementationStageThesecondstagewastheapplicationofPOAinEnglishwritingteaching,whichlastedfornineweeks.Duringthisstage,fourEnglishwritinglessonsweredesigned.TheexperimentalclassadoptedthePOA,followingthePOAteachingprocessofmotivating,enabling,andassessing.ThecontrolclassadoptedthecommonlyusedPWP.Exceptforthedifferenceinteachingmethods,theteachingcontentandteachersofthetwoclassesremainedthesame.TheEnglishtextbookusedwasthesecondvolumeoftheseventhgrade,publishedbyYilinPress.Thewritingtopicswerebasedonthethemeofeachunit.Thewritingcontentwasarrangedasfollows:inthesecondweek,Unit1wasstudied,withthethemeofintroducingone’sownhome;inthefourthweek,Unit3wasstudied,withthethemeofintroducingone’shometown;inthesixthweek,Unit4wasstudied,withthethemeofone’sfavoritetraditionalcraft;intheeighthweek,Unit5wasstudied,withthethemeofcallingoneveryonetoprotectanimals.TheexperimentalclassadoptedPOAforteaching,whilethecontrolclassadoptedPWPforteaching.Theteachingprocessoftheexperimentalclasswasasfollows:StepOne:MotivatingTheteacherpresentsthecommunicativecontexttostudents.Theteacherfirstintroducesthecommunicativecontextofthecurrentoutputtasktohelpstudentsunderstanditstheme.Then,byconnectingwithstudents’dailylives,theteacherassignsthetasktostimulatetheirinterest.Thecommunicativecontextshouldincludetheme,identity,setting,andpurpose.Studentscompletetheoutputtaskassignedbytheteacher.Afterthetaskisassigned,theteacherasksstudentstothinkindependently.Then,studentsaredividedintodifferentgroupsfordiscussion,recordkeywordsandsentences,andattempttocompletethecurrentoutputtask.Theteacherevaluatesstudents’taskcompletion.Afterthediscussion,theteacherinvitesgroupmemberstopresenttheirdiscussionresultsandevaluateseachgroup’soutput.Theteachersummarizesstudents’shortcomings,stimulatestheirlearningmotivation,andhelpsthemdevelopastronginterestinthetheme,therebyachievingthemotivatingeffect.StepTwo:EnablingTheteacherbuilds“scaffolding”forstudents.Theteachershouldidentifygapsinstudents’understandingofthethemeandprovidehigh-qualityinputmaterialsrelatedtothetask,includingtargetlanguageformsandculturalknowledge.Theteachercanbreakdownawritingproblemintoseveralsub-questionsandelaborateoneachpartofthetasktoguidestudentsintheirsubsequentselectivelearning.Studentsengageinselectivelearning.Basedonthetaskrequirements,studentsselectkeylanguageformsfromtheinputmaterialsprovidedbytheteachertobuildtheirowncomprehensiveknowledgebaseandwritingframework.Theteachershouldexplaindifficultpointstostudents.Studentscompletethewritingtask.Withtheteacher’sguidanceandafterestablishingtheirwritingframework,studentscompletethewritingaccordingtowhattheyhavelearnedandthetaskrequirements.Duringthestudents’independentoutputprocess,theteachershouldprovidetimelyfeedbacktohelpthemcompletethewritingtask.StepThree:AssessingTheassessmentpartincludesteacherevaluation,peerevaluation,andself-reflection.Whilestudentsarewriting,theteachercanprovidetimelyguidancetohelpthemcompletetheirwritingbetter.Aftercompletingtheirwriting,studentscanfirstconductself-evaluationbasedontheassessmentcriteria,thenexchangetheircompositionswithclassmatestoevaluateeachother’sworkusingtheknowledgetheyhavelearnedandshareopinions.Duringtheteachingprocess,theteachercanselectseveralmodelessaystodemonstratehowtoevaluateacomposition,helpingstudentsestablishcorrectevaluationstandards.Afterpeerevaluation,studentsreceivetheircompositionsagainforself-reflection,summarizingtheirstrengthsandweaknesses,andthenrevisetheircompositionstocompleteaseconddraft.Finally,allcompositionsaresubmitted,andtheteacherscoresstudents’compositionsbasedonlanguageaccuracy,fluency,andcomplexity.3.4.3ExperimentalConclusionStageTheexperimentalconclusionstageprimarilyconsistsoftwoaspects:first,aftercompletingtheexperimentalstudyintheexperimentalandcontrolclasses,theresearcherconductedapost-testinEnglishwritingtoassesswhetherstudents’writingperformancehadimproved.Second,theresearcherdistributedquestionnairestostudentsintheexperimentalclasstocollecttheirperspectivesonthefeasibilityandeffectivenessofPOAafterexperiencingthisteachingmethod,andwhetheritgenuinelyenhancedtheirwritinginterestandperformance.3.5DataCollectionandOrganizationThisstudyinvolvestwotypesofdata:thefirstisquestionnairedata,andthesecondiswritingtestdata.Duetothedifferingnatureofthedata,distinctanalysismethodswillbeemployed.Fromthequestionnairedata,theresearchergatheredfeedbackfromtheexperimentalclassaftertwomonthsofPOAimplementationinEnglishwritinginstructiontounderstandwhetherjuniorhighschoolstudentscouldadapttothePOAteachingmethod,whetherPOAcouldstimulatetheirwritinginterest,andwhetheritcouldimprovetheirwritingperformance.Thisprovidedauthenticexperimentalfeedbacktoguidetheresearcherinproposingmoretargetedteachingpracticerecommendations.Fromthewritingtestdata,theresearcherconductedstatisticalanalysesonthetwosetsofEnglishwritingscoresfromtheexperimentalandcontrolclassesusingExcelandSPSS27.0.Independentsamplest-testsandpairedsamplest-testswereemployedtoexaminewhetherthereweresignificantdifferencesinpre-testandpost-testscoresbetweentheexperimentalandcontrolclasses.4ExperimentalDataAnalysisontheApplicationofPOAinJuniorHighSchoolEnglishWritingTeachingThischapterprimarilyanalyzestheimpactofPOAonjuniorhighschoolstudentsinEnglishwritingteachingthroughacomparativeexaminationofpre-testandpost-testresultsfromexperimentalandcontrolclasses,andthequestionnairedata.RegardingthePOA’sinfluenceonstudents’Englishwritingperformancebasedonpre-testandpost-testwritingscores.Concerningstudents’perceptionsofPOA’seffectivenessandfeasibilitybasedonquestionnaireresponses.4.1StatisticalAnalysisofPre-testandPost-testScoresbetweenExperimentalandControlClassesBeforetheexperiment,aunifiedwritingpre-testwasadministeredtoalltenfirst-yearclassesusingthe2023SuqianHighSchoolEntranceExaminationEnglishtest.Thewritingsectionwasworth15points,withscoresdeterminedbytwoexperiencedEnglishteachersfromtheschool.FinalscoreswereprocessedusingSPSS27.0toselecttwoclasseswithnosignificantdifferenceinwritingproficiencyasresearchsubjects.Anindependentsamplest-testwasconductedonthepre-testwritingscoresoftheexperimentalandcontrolclasses.AnalysisofPre-testWritingScoresbetweenExperimentalandControlClassesTheresearcherconducteddescriptivestatisticalanalysisonthepre-testwritingscoresofbothclasses.AsshowninREF_Ref10771\hTable4-1,theexperimentalclass’saveragepre-testscorewas7.892,whilethecontrolclassaveraged7.784,resultinginameandifferenceof0.108—anegligiblegap.Thisindicatesthatthewritingperformancedistributionbetweenthetwoclasseswassimilar,confirmingtheircomparabilityasresearchsubjects.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC1DescriptiveStatisticsofPre-testResultsforExperimentalandControlClassesClassNMeanSDSEMPre-test3517.8923.7193.52084517.7843.9803.5573Meanwhile,tofurtherexaminetheoverallEnglishwritingperformanceofbothclassesbeforetheexperimentandensurethevalidityoftheresearch,theauthorconductedanindependentsamplest-testforcomparativeanalysis.TheresultsarepresentedinREF_Ref10921\hTable4-2:thet-valueis0.141withasignificancevalueof0.888(p>0.05),indicatingnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroups.Therefore,theseresultsdemonstratethattheEnglishwritingscoresdistributionbetweenthetwoclasseswassimilar,confirmingthattheselectedclasseswerecomparableandmettheprerequisiteconditionsforconductingtheexperimentalstudy.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC2IndependentSamplesT-testofPre-testResultsBetweenExperimentalandControlClassesLevene'sTestofHomogeneityofVarianceIndependentSamplest-TestforMeanEqualityFSig.tdfSig.(2-tailed)MDSEDMD=2.15,95%CI[1.23,3.07]LowerboundUpperboundPre-testHomoscedasticityassumed1.037.311.141100.888.1078.7628-1.40551.6212Heteroscedasticityallowed.14199.544.888.1078.7628-1.40561.6213AnalysisofPost-testWritingScoresbetweenExperimentalandControlClassesTheauthorconductedacomparativeanalysisofthepost-testscorestounderstandthechangesinEnglishwritingperformancebetweentheexperimentalandcontrolclassesaftertheexperiment.Thepost-testusedthe2024SuqianHighSchoolEntranceExaminationEnglishtestpaper,withthewritingsectiontotaling15points.ThewritingscoreswereassessedbytwoseniorEnglishteachersfromtheschool.TheauthorperformedacomparativeanalysisusingSPSS27.0.REF_Ref11019\hTable4-3presentsthedescriptiveanalysisofthepost-testscoresfortheexperimentalandcontrolclasses.Inthetable,theexperimentalclasshadanaveragepost-testscoreof9.961.Thecontrolclasshadanaveragepost-testscoreof7.980.Themeandifferencebetweenthetwoclasses’post-testscoreswas1.981.ThesignificantdifferencebetweenthesescoresdemonstratesthatafterimplementingPOA-basedEnglishwritinginstruction,theexperimentalclass’saveragewritingscorewassubstantiallyhigherthanthatofthecontrolclass.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC3DescriptiveStatisticsofPost-testResultsforExperimentalandControlClassesClassNMeanSDSEMPost-test3519.9612.9645.41514517.9803.7443.5243REF_Ref11081\hTable4-4showsthattheindependentsamplest-testyieldedat-valueof2.961withasignificancevalueof0.004(p<0.05).The95%confidenceintervalforthedifferencerangedfrom0.6536(lowerbound)to3.3072(upperbound).Therefore,wecanconcludethatafterimplementingthePOA-basedEnglishwritinginstructionexperiment,thewritingscoresoftheexperimentalclassweresignificantlyhigherthanthoseofthecontrolclass,demonstratingastatisticallysignificantdifference.ThisindicatesthatPOAcanimprovejuniorhighschoolstudents’Englishwritingscoresmoreeffectivelythantraditionalteachingmethods.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC4IndependentSamplesT-testofPost-testResultsBetweenExperimentalandControlClassesLevene'sTestofHomogeneityofVarianceIndependentSamplest-TestforMeanEqualityFSig.tdfSig.(2-tailed)MDSEDMD=2.15,95%CI[1.23,3.07]LowerboundUpperboundPost-testHomoscedasticityassumed5.324.0232.961100.0041.9804.6687.65363.3072Heteroscedasticityallowed2.96195.002.0041.9804.6687.65283.3080ComparativeAnalysisofPre-testandPost-testWritingScoresintheExperimentalClassToenhancethepersuasivenessoftheexperimentalresults,theauthorconductedapairedsamplest-testontheexperimentalclass’swritingscoresbeforeandaftertheinterventiontoensuretheoverallaccuracyofthefindings.TheresultsarepresentedinREF_Ref11231\hTable4-5:theexperimentalclass’saveragepre-testwritingscorewas7.892.Theaveragepost-testwritingscoreimprovedto9.961.Thisrepresentsanoverallimprovementofapproximately2.0689points.Thet-valuewas-3.307withasignificancevalueof0.002(p<0.05).Thisindicatesastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenpre-testandpost-testresults.Thesefindingsdemonstratethattheexperimentalclass’spost-testwritingscoressignificantlyimprovedfromtheirpre-testscores.POA-basedEnglishwritingteachinghasasubstantialpositiveimpactonimprovingjuniorhighschoolstudents’Englishwritingscores.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC5PairedSamplesT-testforExperimentalClassatPre-testandPost-testPairedDifferencestdfSig.(2-tailed)MeanSDSEMMD=2.15,95%CI[1.23,3.07]LowerboundUpperboundPaired1Pre-Post-2.06864.4677.6256-3.3252-.8121-3.30750.002ComparativeAnalysisofPre-testandPost-testWritingScoresintheControlClassTofurtherdeterminewhetherthepre-testandpost-testwritingscoreresultsmetthelevelofstatisticalsignificance,theauthoralsoconductedapairedsamplest-test.TheresultsareshowninREF_Ref11329\hTable4-6:thecontrolclass’saveragepre-testwritingscorewas7.784,whiletheaveragepost-testwritingscorewas7.980,showinganoverallimprovementofapproximately0.196points—aminimalchangeinscore.Thet-valuewas-0.295withasignificancevalueof0.769(p>0.05).Fromtheseresults,itcanbeconcludedthataftertraditionalwritingteaching,therewaslittledifferenceinthecontrolclass’swritingperformancebeforeandaftertheexperiment.Thatistosay,thecontrolclassshowedaslightimprovementinEnglishwritingscoresaftertheexperiment,buttheeffectwasnotsignificant.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC6PairedSamplesT-testforControlClassatPre-testandPost-testPairedDifferencestdfSig.(2-tailed)MeanSDSEMMD=2.15,95%CI[1.23,3.07]LowerboundUpperboundPaired1Pre-Post-.19614.7424.6641-1.52991.1378-.29550.769Tosummarize,afteratwo-monthEnglishwritingteachingexperiment,horizontalandverticalcomparativeanalysisofstudents’pre-testandpost-testwritingscoresshowedthattheexperimentalandcontrolclasseshadimprovedinwritingproficiency.However,POA-basedEnglishwritingteachingledtomoresignificanteffectsonenhancingstudents’writingperformance,withmoreremarkablescoreimprovements.Beforetheexperiment,anindependentsamplest-testofthetwoclasses’pre-testwritingscoresconfirmednosignificantdifferenceintheirinitialwritingproficiencylevels.Aftertheexperiment,apairedsamplest-testcomparingthetwoclasses’post-testwritingscoresrevealedthatPOA-basedEnglishwritingteachingwasmoreeffectiveinimprovingthescores.TheunderlyingreasonsarethatPOA,unliketraditionalwritinginstruction,which“emphasizesinputoveroutput”,focusesonstudentoutput,stimulatestheirexploratoryinterest,enrichestheirknowledgeaccumulation,andmobilizestheirinitiativeandenthusiasm.Thisapproachtransformsstudentsfrompassiverecipientstoactiveparticipants,effectivelyenhancingtheirEnglishwritingperformance.4.2QuestionnaireResultsAnalysisThisstudyconductedaquestionnairesurveyaimedatunderstandingjuniorhighschoolstudents’viewsontheeffectivenessandfeasibilityofPOAaftertheexperiment,aswellastheimpactofPOAontheirwritingabilityimprovementandchangesintheirwritinginterest.ThesurveytargetedallstudentsintheexperimentalclassthatreceivedPOA,and51questionnaireswerecollected.Thequestionnaireswereadministeredanonymouslytoobtainmoreaccurateinformation.Theauthorconducteddescriptivestatisticalanalysisonthecollectedquestionnaireresults.AnalysisofPOA’sFeasibilityandEffectivenessQuestionsrelatedtotheanalysisofPOA’sfeasibilityandeffectivenessincludeditems1,5,6,7,9,10,15,16,17,and19.SpecificdataareshowninREF_Ref11453\hTable4-7:beforetheexperiment,only33.33%ofstudentsintheexperimentalclasshadheardofPOA.Aftertheexperiment,78.4%ofstudentsbelievedPOAwasmoreeffectivethantraditionalwritinginstruction.66.7%ofstudentswere“verysatisfied”withPOA,31.4%were“satisfied”withPOA,and88.2%werewillingtocontinueusingPOAinEnglishwriting.TheseresultsindicateahighacceptanceofPOAamongjuniorhighschoolstudents,demonstratingitsfeasibility.RegardingtheeffectivenessofPOA-basedwritingteaching,82.4%ofstudentsfoundPOAeasytounderstand,and92.2%ofstudentsbelievedPOAwassuitableforjuniorhighschoolstudents.ThesefindingsconfirmedthatPOAiseffectiveandcanhelpstudentsimprovetheirwritingskills.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC7FrequencyStatisticsofPOAFeasibilityandEffectivenessQuestionnaireResultsQuestionChoiceFrequencyPercent1.HaveyoupreviouslybeenexposedtothePOAinEnglishwritingclasses?ANo3466.7BYes1733.35.Comparedwithtraditionalwritinginstruction,whichismoreeffective?APOA4078.4BPWP1121.66.WhenusingthePOA,didyoufindthewritingtasksmorechallenging?AYes3670.6BNo1529.47.DoyouthinktheteachingmethodofthePOAiseasytounderstand?AYes4282.4BNo917.69.AreyouwillingtocontinueusingPOAinEnglishwriting?AYes4588.2BNo611.815.DoyouthinkthePOAissuitableforstudentsofyouragegroup?AYes4792.2BNo47.816.DoyouthinktheteachingtimeallocatedtothePOAissufficient?AYes3670.6BNo1529.417.Doyoufeelpressurewhenwriting?AYes4180.4BNo1019.619.WhatisyouroverallsatisfactionwiththePOA?AVerySatisfied3466.7BSatisfied1631.4CDissatisfied11.9Question10wasamultiple-choicequestion,andREF_Ref11528\hTable4-8presentsjuniorhighschoolstudents’perspectivesontheadvantagesofPOA.Asshowninthetable,88.24%ofstudentsselected“Improveswritingability”,60.78%chose“Stimulateswritinginterest”,56.86%selected“Enhancesclassroominteraction”,and7.84%optedfor“Other”.TheseresultsdemonstratedthatPOAcouldenhancewritingskills,stimulateinterestinwriting,andimproveclassroominteraction.Italsoofferedadditionalbenefitsthatpromotejuniorhighschoolstudents’progress.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC8FrequencyStatisticsofJuniorHighStudents'PerceptionsonPOAAdvantagesQuestionChoiceFrequencyPercent10.WhatdoyouthinkisthebiggestadvantageofthePOA?AImproveswritingskills4588.24BStimulatesinterestinwriting3160.78CEnhancesclassroominteraction2956.86DOther(pleasespecify)47.84TheImpactofPOAonJuniorHighSchoolStudents’WritingInterestandExperienceAccumulationQuestionsregardingPOA’seffectonenhancingwritinginterestandenrichingexperienceaccumulationamongjuniorhighschoolstudentsincludeditems3,4,11,14,and18.SpecificdataareshowninREF_Ref11593\hTable4-9:78.4%ofstudentsfoundPOA-basedwritinginstructionveryinteresting,82.4%ofstudentsbelievedPOAcouldstimulatetheirwritinginterest,80.4%ofstudentsactivelyparticipatedinclassroomdiscussionsduringPOAlessons.TheseresultsdemonstratethatPOAcaneffectivelystimulatejuniorhighschoolstudents’interestinwritingandenablestudentstoacquiremoreknowledgeandexperiencethroughclassroominteractions.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC9FrequencyStatisticsofPOA'sImpactonJuniorHighStudents'WritingInterestandExperienceAccumulationQuestionChoiceFrequencyPercent3.DidyoufindtheteachingmethodofthePOAinteresting?AYes4078.4BNo1121.64.DoyouthinkPOAcanstimulateyourinterestinwriting?AYes4282.4BNo917.611.InthePOAclassroom,didyouactivelyparticipateindiscussions?AYes4180.4BNo1019.618.Areyouwillingtotryothernewwritingteachingmethods?AYes4588.2BNo611.8Question14wasarankingquestionthatrequiredstudentstoprioritizefactorsinfluencingtheirwritinginterestbyimportance.TheresultsareshowninREF_Ref11652\hTable4-10:amongthefourfactors,“Teacher’sinstructionalmethods”receivedacompositescoreof3.53,rankingasthemostimportantfactor;“Peerinteraction”rankedsecond;“Interestlevelofcoursecontent”rankedthird;“Personalwritinggoals”rankedlast.ThesefindingsdemonstratethatPOA,asateachingmethod,playsacrucialroleinwritingteaching,stimulatingstudentinterest,andmotivatingparticipation.Table4-SEQTable4-\*ARABIC10FrequencyStatisticsofFactorsInfluencingWritingInterestRankedbyJuniorHighStudentsComprehensiveScoreNo.1（Per）No.2（Per）No.3（Per）No.4（Per）ATeacher’steachingmethod3.5336(70.59)9(17.65)3(5.88)3(5.88)BPeerinteraction2.416(11.76)22(43.14)10(19.61)13(25.49)CInterestingcoursecontent2.253(5.88)14(27.45)27(52.94)7(13.73)DPersonalwritinggoals1.86(11.76)6(11.76)11(21.57)28(54.9)TheImpactofPOAonJuniorHighSchoolStudents’WritingAbilityandPerformanceQuestionsregardingPOA’seffectonjuniorhighschoolstudents’writingabilityandperformanceincludeditems2,8,12,and13.SpecificdataareshowninREF_Ref11721\hTable4-11:86.3%ofstudentsbelievedPOAcouldimprovetheirEnglishwritingability,70.6%ratedPOA’seffectivenessinenhancing