







































F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 
173-184 

173 

 

 

 

Article 

Optimizing blended learning through AI-powered 

analytics in digital education platforms: an 

empirical framework 
Fengrui Zhang*, I Wayan Subagia, Luh Putu Artini, Dessy Seri Wahyuni 

Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Jl. Udayana No.11, Banjar Tegal, Singaraja, Kabupaten Buleleng, Bali 81116, Indonesia 

A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 25 June 2025  
Received in revised form 
31 July 2025 
Accepted 19 August 2025 
 
Keywords:  
Blended learning, AI-powered analytics,  
Digital education platforms, 
Learning effectiveness, Predictive modelling, 
Student engagement 
 
*Corresponding author: Fengrui Zhang 
Email address: 
undiksha_fengrui@163.com 
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.15 

A B S T R A C T 
 

This study proposes an empirical framework for enhancing blended learning 
through Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered analytics in digital education 
platforms. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, examining 250 
undergraduate business students engaged in blended learning courses over one 
semester. Quantitative data from platform analytics, academic performance 
metrics, and structured questionnaires are analyzed using descriptive statistics, 
regression analysis, and machine learning algorithms. Results demonstrate 
significant improvements in learning outcomes, with overall academic 
performance increasing from 72.4% to 81.7% (p < 0.001). Critical thinking 
skills improve by 24.3%, collaborative abilities by 31.2%, and digital literacy by 
28.7%. Cluster analysis reveals three distinct learner profiles, with engagement 
patterns serving as strong predictors of academic success (R² = 0.584). AI-
powered predictive models achieve 83.7% accuracy in identifying at-risk 
students by week four, enabling targeted interventions that improve outcomes 
by 67%. Platform engagement frequency emerges as the strongest predictor (
β = 0.42, p < 0.001). Critical engagement periods occur during weeks 3-5 and 
10-12. The framework integrates multiple learning theories within AI-
enhanced contexts and provides practical guidance for platform optimization, 
instructional design, and policy development. Findings emphasize that 
successful blended learning requires purposeful technology integration with 
pedagogical principles, continuous engagement monitoring, and personalized 
support mechanisms. 

1. Introduction 

The transformation of global education has accelerated 
dramatically through the convergence of technological 
innovation and unprecedented societal disruptions. The 
COVID-19 crisis provoked an unprecedented change in 
learning delivery methods, forcing learning institutions to 
rapidly switch from traditional classroom-based learning to 
new models [1]. This sudden change highlighted extreme 
inequities between the hastily developed online teaching 
methods and the carefully crafted online learning models, 
thus highlighting the need for strategic approaches in digital 
pedagogy [2]. The learning processes in schools and 
universities around the globe, with a specific focus on the 
significant shifts in South African universities, shed light on 
the key requirements and opportunities involved in the rapid 
digital shift [3]. Modern teaching environments increasingly 
involve blended teaching models that combine digital 
approaches with traditional face-to-face teaching 
methodologies. Studies suggest that carefully constructed 

blended teaching strategies might be equally, if not more, 
effective than face-to-face teaching [4]. Developments of 
hybrid teaching styles aroused by the pandemic context in the 
aspects of teaching Chinese have provided valuable empirical 
insights into the nature and components of student 
acceptance [5]. Contextual factors also had a strong impact on 
the academic debate on hybrid online-offline teaching 
practices [6]. The development of online learning spaces has 
produced sophisticated environments specifically designed 
for regulating and enhancing teaching practices. The LMS has 
now evolved into an integrative environment having not only 
content management, but also measurement tools, 
communication tools, and data analytics [7]. Empirical 
studies under different cultural settings on the 
implementation of LMS highlight similar critical success 
conditions, even when contextual factors differ [8]. Research 
on e-learning systems' effectiveness finds that system quality, 
information quality, service quality, and user satisfaction are 
important predictors and determinants of the academic 

 

 Open Access Journal 

ISSN 2832-0379 

November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.15 

 

 

 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

Future Technology 

mailto:undiksha_fengrui@163.com
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.15
https://fupubco.com/futech


F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

174 

 

outcomes. Educational technology, and particularly its 
application using artificial intelligence, is an innovative game 
changer with the potential to bring about personalized school 
experiences and outcome improvements. Detailed reviews of 
applications of AI in school settings enumerate many different 
goals, such as intelligent tutoring systems, data mining, and 
prediction systems [9]. Applications of AI within teaching 
contexts consist of a range of theoretically-grounded lenses 
that provide insight into the nuances of students' interactions 
with intelligent agents [10]. A significant gap remains 
between idealistic peer-reviewed theory and applied use with 
respect to professional training for instructors and 
infrastructural sufficiency [11]. Correspondingly, guidelines 
for ethical AI incorporation in school environments have been 
codified [12]. The field of learning analytics has evolved as an 
important methodology for understanding and improving 
educational outcomes using insights based on data. 
Systematic reviews depict the ability of learning analytics to 
enhance learner achievements through the support of early 
detection of struggling students and delivery of evidence-
informed support interventions [13]. The application of data 
mining techniques in learning environments allows 
predictive modeling of student performance, thus enabling 
institutions to implement anticipatory intervention strategies 
[14]. These analytical methods are particularly relevant in 
evaluating the relative effectiveness of different pedagogies 
and identifying the best multimodal combinations of online 
and offline learning components [15]. 

The pandemic experience constituted an unprecedented 
natural experiment on the use and deployment of teaching 
technologies. Systematic surveys of blended learning 
experiences over this period show meaningful patterns, 
trends, and lingering challenges [16]. An international survey 
on emergency distance learning practices underscored 
variability in methods and accomplishments across different 
institutional settings [17]. Both analyses stress the 
importance of differentiating between emergency 
interventions and sustained educational strategies, 
highlighting the fact that quality online teaching requires 
careful planning and reflective pedagogy [18]. Current 
developments in educational technology emphasize the need 
to build complex platforms that enable holistic learning 
experiences. The initiative of digital transformation brings up 
the importance of convergence of academic education, with 
an applied focus on practical use that stimulates innovation, 
for the formation of new platforms [19]. The integration of 
sustainability aspects in blended teaching represents an 
effort to address the difficulties of developing educational 
infrastructure technologies that are technologically 
motivated, pedagogically justified, and ecologically informed 
[20]. The tenets propose that successful educational 
technology must maintain a delicate equilibrium between 
innovation, access, equity, and pedagogical soundness. The 
introduction of complex AI-based applications in the 
education field also involves smart tutoring systems (STS) 
that aim to deliver instruction personalized to the individuals' 
varying conditions and developmental processes [21]. In 
theory, the introduction of advanced techniques such as 
graph knowledge and graph convolution networks could 
make it possible to dynamically adapt even a complex 
sequence of learning events (with varying content, sequence, 
and time scheduling) to each student’s unique profile [22]. 
The successful implementation of these advanced systems is 
likely to accommodate student diversity while maintaining 
the quality and rigour of academics. Introduction of these 
complex systems must be conducted with sensitivity to issues 

of technical support, development of professional expertise of 
the educators, and student preparedness. The rapid 
proliferation of blended learning environments and AI-
powered educational technologies has created a paradoxical 
situation where technological capabilities far exceed our 
empirical understanding of their optimal implementation. 
While existing literature demonstrates the potential benefits 
of both blended learning and AI analytics separately, there 
remains a critical absence of comprehensive frameworks that 
guide their synergistic integration. Educational institutions 
currently lack evidence-based models for determining 
predictive features and patterns. This gap results in 
technology implementations that often fail to achieve 
pedagogical outcomes. Furthermore, although AI systems can 
generate vast amounts of learning analytics data, the 
translation of these insights into timely and effective 
interventions remains largely unexplored in empirical 
research. This gap between theoretical potential and practical 
application is particularly pronounced in determining the 
optimal balance between technological automation and 
human-centered pedagogical principles. Without validated 
frameworks that address these interconnected challenges, 
institutions risk adopting technology-driven solutions that 
may inadvertently compromise educational quality or 
exacerbate existing inequalities in student engagement and 
achievement. 

Despite the substantial advances, there are challenges in 
effectively maximizing hybrid teaching environments in 
different teaching scenarios. Outstanding questions include 
successful AI-driven analytics incorporation and ensuring 
academic integrity in a human-centered approach to 
education. It is important to find a fine line between exploiting 
technological advancements and preserving the very human 
dimensions of teaching. Consequently, further investigation 
and strategic application are warranted. This study considers 
emerging challenges in the form of an empirical model for 
integrating AI-informed analytics into blended learning in 
web-based teaching. The principal research question seeks to 
explore how online teaching systems may be complemented 
to enhance blended teaching practices. This line of research 
involves monitoring student interactions under the facade of 
teaching simulation, identifying the factors that influence 
learning efficacy, developing better data-driven teaching 
strategies, and ensuring data processing for analysis.  

This research focuses on platform usage patterns, 
examines the success of the blended learning strategy, 
identifies the critical success factors, and proposes 
optimization procedures. This work is valuable in that it can 
be used both for the advancement of theories and for 
practicality by experts. By articulating this coherent 
framework that connects well-established, theory-based 
principles with cutting-edge technological advances, we 
attempt to marry innovative potential to curriculum 
development. The ramifications of these applications are 
many and diverse, including implications for educational 
institutional policy, implications for how we teach our faculty, 
implications for curricular development, and the 
infrastructure of technology and teaching. It also moves the 
conversation on AI-augmented instruction forward by 
offering concrete suggestions to instructors, curriculum 
developers, and technologists for increasing the effectiveness 
of academic environments. 

 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

175 

 

2. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses 

2.1 Core concepts and definitions 
The foundation for this study is based on established 

principles that rule the AI-supported blended learning 
systems. Within the AI-mediated framework, blended 
learning represents a dynamic, data-driven ecosystem where 
machine learning algorithms continuously optimize the 
balance between digital and physical modalities based on 
real-time engagement patterns, moving beyond static designs 
to create adaptive pathways that respond to individual 
learner behaviors [4]. This definition goes beyond mere 
technological infusion to focus on intentional design decisions 
that leverage contextual strengths of both instructional 
modes. Operational definition. In this AI-enhanced context, 
virtual learning environments function as intelligent sensing 
platforms that capture multidimensional behavioral signals 
and generate continuous data streams, evolving from passive 
delivery mechanisms to predictive systems capable of 
anticipating learning needs and automatically adjusting 
resources [7]. Whilst virtual environments are the 
fundamental component for the interaction between students 
and digital teaching resources (which generate large amounts 
of data that need further consideration). Within this 
framework, learning analytics extends beyond descriptive 
statistics to encompass predictive modeling through machine 
learning, transforming from post-hoc evaluation tools to 
active components that shape learning experiences through 
continuous AI-driven feedback loops [13]. This is how raw 
data from education is transformed into actionable 
knowledge that supports teaching decisions and student 
planning. The measurement of learning contains multiple 
dimensions and includes performance outcomes, skill 
acquisition, levels of motivation, and general satisfaction with 
the learning process [15]. The diverse indicators demonstrate 
the multifaceted constructs that are necessary for success in 
education in today’s contexts of learning. 

2.2 Theoretical foundations 
The curriculum structure is based on empirically proven 

theory regarding how humans acquire, understand, and 
retain knowledge in technologically advanced environments. 
In alignment with constructivist theory about how people 
learn, knowledge acquisition depends on active student 
participation in meaning construction, with reflective 
participation and experiential understanding in place of 
simple passive reception of material [6]. In a blended virtual 
online environment, this concept is realized by including 
students with exploration opportunities within virtual spaces 
with direct interactions with others for the purposes of 
enhancing the construction of knowledge. This underlying 
theory underpins a curriculum that does more than simply 
insert new material within existing cognitive schemas while 
also engaging students in a critical understanding process 
simultaneously. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 
provides critical insights into factors affecting users' 
willingness to utilize educational technology [8]. In line with 
the directives set out in TAM, technology acceptance is mostly 
determined by perceived ease of use and perceived 
usefulness, which play a central role in determining 
behavioral intentions as well as levels of adoption for 
operating systems. In an academic environment, perceived 
ease of use refers to the cognitive effort learners experience 
while interacting with digital media, whereas perceived 
usefulness refers to the collective belief among learners and 
instructors that technology facilitates students' academic 
achievements. Empirical studies proved that both aspects 

hold a significant role in measuring blended learning 
environment effectiveness [7]. Self-regulation theory 
explains different student tactics for achieving proficiency in 
academic endeavors, including goal-setting, planning 
strategically, tracking progress, and improving reflective 
practice [16]. In addition, blended learning contexts foster 
self-regulatory traits by requiring students to utilize varying 
time management styles while also handling their academic 
endeavors' asynchronous aspects. In addition, learning 
analytics provides a supplementary mode of self-regulation 
by providing students with information about their progress, 
together with academic behavior patterns [14]. 

2.3 Conceptual framework and hypotheses 
The theory base includes different conceptual models 

that aim to clarify relationships between significant variables 
in blended environments facilitated by artificial intelligence. 
It proposes that platform attributes and instruction quality 
represent the main control variables in determining learning 
effectiveness, while student motivation and personal belief 
represent intervening variables that bridge these factors. In 
addition, analytics based on artificial intelligence assert a 
moderating effect on both task-related behaviors as well as 
non-task behaviors that arise under processes of 
customization and optimization. Figure 1 provides a 
diagrammatic explanation of relationships with 
corresponding research hypotheses. The theoretical 
constructs are operationalized through computational 
parameters within the AI system. Engagement is quantified as 
a composite score combining login frequency (weight=0.25), 
session duration (0.20), resource completion rate (0.20), 
forum interactions (0.20), and submission punctuality (0.15). 
Self-efficacy is computed using Bayesian modeling that 
integrates survey responses with behavioral indicators, 
including challenge-seeking patterns and help-resource 
utilization rates. Instructional quality is encoded through 
algorithmic metrics: content clarity index (time-on-
task/completion ratio), scaffolding effectiveness 
(improvement rate after remedial access), and feedback 
timeliness scores. These constructs are transformed into 47 
quantifiable variables feeding the machine learning pipeline, 
with continuous updates using exponential smoothing 
(𝛼=0.3) for temporal sensitivity. This computational mapping 
bridges theoretical frameworks with practical 
implementation, enabling real-time monitoring and 
threshold-based intervention triggering. 

The integrative model put forward in this research 
outlines four main research hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 argues 
that platform attributes that improve navigability and 
interactivity produce positive influences on student 
engagement [7]. Hypothesis 2 argues that instructionally 
optimized designs with clear objectives and appropriate 
scaffolding result in significant improvements in students' 
self-efficacy [5]. Hypothesis 3 argues that student 
engagement acts as a mediator variable between platform 
attributes and academic achievement [17]. Hypothesis 4 
supports the role of self-efficacy as a mediator variable in the 
academic achievement and instructionally optimized 
measures [21]. Additionally, AI-powered analytics allow for 
these interactions by suggesting personalized environments 
based on data-driven recommendations for the sake of 
intervening [9]. 

 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

176 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Research Design and Methodology 

3.1 Research Design and Strategy 
The study adopts a predominantly quantitative approach 

with supplementary qualitative insights for a systemic 
exploration of AI-mediated blended teaching contexts. This 
approach prioritizes measurable outcomes through 
quantitative methods while acknowledging the value of 
participant perspectives in educational phenomena 
exploration. The research prioritizes measurable outcomes 
through quantitative methods while incorporating 
participant perspectives through open-ended questions to 
enhance understanding of revealed patterns and meaningful 
relationships. The research method applied in this study is 
constructed in a case study fashion with a focus on a leading 
university that has incorporated blended instruction tactics. 
This kind of research structure allows for a deep exploration 
of real academic contexts while also ensuring that there is 
enough control of variables to examine meaningful 
relationships. The longitudinal dimensions of the study track 
groups of students for one academic semester at a time, 
allowing for an in-depth understanding of patterns of 
progression in learning along with blended learning infusion. 

3.2 Data Collection Methods and Instruments 
The data gathering process includes a range of sources 

for ensuring comprehensive achievement of research 
purposes. Digitally produced data provides objective 
measures of student activity, such as login rates, session 
length, patterns of resource use, and measures of interactions. 
Online traces present complex measures of true-learning 
behavior compared to self-reporting measures. Performance 
indicators for academic work consist of both formative 
(assignments, quizzes, and projects) measures along with 
summative (mid-term and end-term examinations) measures 
that allow for a consideration of learning achievements with 
varying types of assessments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A carefully crafted questionnaire serves as the main 
instrument for obtaining information about student 
experience and attitude. It uses carefully worded 
measurement scales that evaluate technology acceptance, 
self-efficacy, satisfaction, and perceived learning 
effectiveness. The questions are primarily based on a five-
point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly 
agree, supplemented by open-ended questions to capture 
qualitative insights, thus allowing comprehensive analysis 
while using simple responses. Before its extensive use, the 
instrument was pilot tested on a small sample of students to 
ensure clarity, reliability, and content validity. Table 1 shows 
a clear time plan for data gathering with corresponding 
activities that took place while undertaking this research. 
This systematic approach ensures effective data gathering, 
alleviates participant fatigue, and maintains data integrity. 

Table 1. Data collection timeline and activities 

Phase Timeline Data Collection 
Activities 

Pre-Implementation Week 1-2 • Baseline questionnaire 
administration 
• Platform usage training 
and orientation 

Mid-Semester Week 7-8 • Platform usage data 
extraction 
• Midterm performance 
assessment 

End-Semester Week 14-15 • Final questionnaire 
administration 
• Complete platform 
analytics export 

Post-Analysis Week 16 • Final grade compilation 
• Qualitative feedback 
analysis 

 
 

Platform 

Features
·User Interface

·Functionality

Instructional 

Design
·Content Quality

Learner 

Engagement
·Behavioral

Self-Efficacy
·Confidence

·Persistence

Learning 

Effectiveness
·Achievement

Al-Powered Analytics
Personalization ·Predictive Modeling

 · Adaptive Learning

Control 

Variables
·Prior Achievement

·Tech Experience

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Al-Enhanced Blended Learning

H1: Platform features positively influence learner engagement          H3: Learner engagement mediates learning effectiveness

H2: Instructional design quality enhances learner self-efficacy          H4: Self-efficacy mediates learning effectiveness

H1

H2

H3

H4

 

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for AI-enhanced blended learning 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

177 

 

3.3 Data analysis methods and quality assurance 
Quantitative data was analysed using advanced 

descriptive statistics facilitated by the software SPSS. 
Moreover, inferential statistical methods are employed to 
achieve a more sophisticated insight than that offered by 
these descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics enable 
describing participant profiles, the determination of means 
for multiple platform usage patterns, and an assessment of 
academic aptitude using measures of central tendency 
combined with measures of variability. Correlation testing 
explores connections between things (such as the use of a 
platform and academic achievement). More significantly, 
using multiple regression analysis, serial determinations 
could identify which variables predicted whether a student 
would be able to learn, while controlling for potential 
confounding variables of previous academic achievement and 
for differing computer experience. Advanced analysis also 
encompasses structural equation modeling, which permits 
the conceptualization of models and testing parallel 
mediational effects of the various variables. The cluster 
analysis will enable us to categorize student profiles into 
several segments based on their behavior on the e-learning 
platform, allowing us to provide recommendations tailored to 
each segment. The use of platform data-based time-series 
analysis can determine such patterns of seasonal behaviour 
and both their corresponding time indicators, enabling 
appropriate intervention measures to be implemented. The 
AI-powered analytics framework employs multiple machine 
learning algorithms for different analytical tasks. For early 
warning system development, Random Forest classifier 
(n_estimators=100, max_depth=10, min_samples_split=5) 
and Gradient Boosting classifier (learning_rate=0.1, 
n_estimators=200, max_depth=5) were implemented with 
70-30 train-test split and 5-fold cross-validation. Model 
inputs include 15 features: login frequency, session duration, 
resource access patterns, assignment submission timing, 
forum participation metrics, and video completion rates. The 
clustering analysis utilized the K-means algorithm (k=3, 
determined by the elbow method and silhouette analysis) 
with standardized engagement metrics as inputs. For 
predictive modeling, LSTM neural networks (2 hidden layers 
with 128 and 64 units, dropout=0.2, Adam optimizer with 
learning_rate=0.001) processed temporal sequences of 
weekly engagement data to predict final performance 
categories. Model optimization employed grid search for 
hyperparameter tuning, with F1-score as the primary 
evaluation metric. Feature importance analysis identified 
platform engagement frequency (importance score=0.42), 
assignment timeliness (0.38), and forum participation (0.27) 
as top predictors. The final ensemble model combining 
Random Forest and Gradient Boosting achieved 83.7% 
accuracy, 81.2% precision, and 79.8% recall for at-risk 
student identification. Quality control throughout all levels of 
the study will be used to ensure the quality and credibility of 
the study. Consistency of responses in questionnaire surveys 
is tested using Cronbach's alpha, with associated measures 
suggesting strong internal consistency that exceeds a 
minimum of 0.7. Validity measures involve content validation 
by expert opinion, and construct validation by factor analysis, 
whereas criterion validation is compared with a known 
standard. Triangulation of data sources, which involves cross-
checking patterns found in sources beyond the literature 
(such as peer-reviewed journal articles and self-reports), 
enhances the robustness of the study's findings. 

All research adhered to strict ethical protocols approved 
by the institutional review board (IRB Protocol #2024-089). 
Multi-layered anonymization employed SHA-256 hashing for 
student identifiers with salt values, removing direct 
identifiers and applying k-anonymity (k=5) to prevent re-
identification. Informed consent procedures explicitly 
detailed AI analytics usage, data types collected, and 
predictive modeling purposes, with opt-out mechanisms 
preserving course participation. Data lifecycle management 
followed retention limits of 18 months post-study with 
automated deletion protocols. To address algorithmic bias in 
at-risk identification, the model underwent fairness auditing 
across demographic groups, revealing minimal disparate 
impact (80% rule satisfied). Regular bias monitoring 
employed confusion matrix analysis stratified by gender, 
ethnicity, and socioeconomic indicators, with recalibration 
triggered when group-wise false positive rates exceeded 10% 
variance. Students flagged as at-risk received human review 
before interventions, preventing automated decision-making. 
Transparency measures included providing students access 
to their risk scores and contributing factors upon request. 

4. Research results and analysis 

4.1 Descriptive statistics and sample characteristics 

The sampling population comprised 250 undergraduate 
business students enrolled in blended learning classes, which 
represented a well-distributed demographic sample. Gender 
representation was 52.4% female and 47.6% male. The most 
common age range was 19-21 years, representing 68.8% of 
the sample, followed by 22-24 years at 24.4% and above 24 
years at 6.8%. A measure of technology readiness exhibited 
high levels of digital competence, as indicated by mean self-
efficacy ratings of 4.12 (SD = 0.73) on a five-point scale. Prior 
online learning experience varied considerably: extensive 
(42.0%), moderate (38.4%), and minimal (19.6%). Initial 
academic performance baselines established through pre-
semester assessments showed mean scores of 72.4% (SD = 
12.3), providing a reference point for measuring learning 
progress. Platform adoption rates reached 96.4% within the 
first two weeks, indicating successful onboarding processes. 
As shown in Figure 2, the majority of participants were in the 
traditional college age range with moderate to extensive 
digital learning experience, suggesting a technologically 
prepared cohort well-suited for blended learning 
environments. 

4.2 Learning behavior pattern analysis 

Platform analytics revealed distinct patterns in student 
engagement behaviors throughout the semester. Average 
weekly login frequency reached 12.3 times (SD = 3.8), with a 
mean session duration of 47.2 minutes (SD = 15.6). Peak 
usage occurred during weekday evenings, particularly 
Tuesday through Thursday, with reduced weekend activity. 
Figure 3 illustrates the differential engagement patterns 
between high-performing and average-performing students 
across five key platform features. Resource utilization 
analysis demonstrated significant variations, with video 
lectures achieving the highest overall engagement rate 
(87.6%), followed by assessment activities (72.4%) and 
discussion forums (61.2%). The comparison reveals that high 
performers consistently exceeded average performers across 
all platform features, with the most pronounced differences 
in discussion forum participation (33% gap) and assignment 
submission rates (13% gap). 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

178 

 

 
Figure 2. Participant demographics and baseline characteristics 

 

 

Figure 3. Platform feature engagement by performance group 

 

 

 

 

 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

179 

 

K-means clustering with Euclidean distance metric 
identified three distinct learner profiles after z-score 
normalization of engagement features. The optimal k=3 was 
validated through the silhouette coefficient (0.42) and the 
Davies-Bouldin index (1.23). The resulting profiles —
consistent engagers (38%), strategic users (44%), and 
minimal participants (18%)—showed significant behavioral 

differences (MANOVA: Wilks' λ  = 0.42, p < 0.001). High-
performing students exhibited 23% greater forum 
participation and 18% more consistent resource access 
compared to average performers, suggesting that sustained 
engagement correlates strongly with academic success. 

4.3 Academic performance evaluation 

Learning outcome assessment revealed substantial 
improvements across multiple metrics. Overall academic 
performance increased from baseline scores of 72.4% to final 
averages of 81.7%, representing a statistically significant gain 
(t = 8.34, p < 0.001). This 9.3 percentage point improvement 
demonstrates the effectiveness of the blended learning 
approach. Figure 4 displays the distribution of grades across 
different assessment categories, highlighting performance 
variations between assessment types. Assignments showed 
the highest mean scores (82%), followed by projects (85%), 
while quizzes (78%) and final examinations (76%) revealed 
greater variability in student performance. The box plots 
indicate relatively consistent performance in project-based 
assessments, suggesting that collaborative and applied 
learning activities yielded more uniform success rates.  

 

Figure 4. Grade distribution across assessment types 

 

 

Competency development metrics showed marked 
improvements: critical thinking skills increased by 24.3%, 
collaborative abilities improved by 31.2%, and digital literacy 
advanced by 28.7%. Student satisfaction ratings averaged 
4.23 (SD = 0.68) on a five-point scale, with flexibility of 
learning (M = 4.45) and resource accessibility (M = 4.38) 
receiving the highest ratings. Qualitative feedback 
consistently highlighted the value of self-paced learning 
combined with structured face-to-face sessions. 

4.4 Predictive analysis and learning trajectories 

Multiple regression analysis identified key predictors of 
academic success in the blended environment. Platform 
engagement frequency emerged as the strongest predictor 
(𝛽 =  0.42, p < 0.001), followed by assignment completion 
timeliness ( 𝛽 =  0.38, p < 0.001) and discussion forum 
participation (𝛽 = 0.27, p < 0.01). These variables collectively 
explained 58.4% of the variance in final performance 
outcomes (R ²  = 0.584, F(3,246) = 114.23, p < 0.001). 
Structural equation modeling validated the hypothesized 
relationships between constructs with acceptable model fit 

indices: 𝑥
2

𝑑𝑓⁄ = 2.87 , CFI = 0.912, TLI = 0.894, RMSEA = 

0.077 (90% CI: 0.061-0.093), SRMR = 0.063. Construct 
validity was established through convergent validity (AVE 
ranging from 0.51 to 0.67) and discriminant validity 
assessment using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Composite 
reliability values ranged from 0.78 to 0.89, exceeding the 0.70 
threshold. Table 2 presents the standardized path coefficients 
and hypothesis testing results. 

 

 

 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

180 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 demonstrates the distinct learning trajectory 
patterns of three student clusters throughout the semester. 
High achievers (22%) showed consistent upward 
progression from week 1 (75%) to week 16 (89%), while 
steady progressors (56%) demonstrated gradual 
improvement from 68% to 80%. The at-risk group (22%) 
exhibited minimal growth, progressing only from 65% to 
70%, with clear divergence from other groups emerging by 
week 4. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Machine learning algorithms successfully identified at-
risk students with 83.7% accuracy by week four. Early 
warning indicators included irregular login patterns (OR = 
2.34, 95% CI: 1.82-3.01), delayed submissions (OR = 2.89, 
95% CI: 2.23-3.74), and minimal peer interaction (OR = 1.92, 
95% CI: 1.51-2.44). Students receiving algorithm-triggered 
interventions demonstrated 67% improvement in final 
outcomes compared to historical cohorts from the previous 
academic year (n=218) who experienced traditional blended 
learning without AI analytics, providing a quasi-experimental 

Table 2. SEM path coefficients and model fit statistics 

Path Standardized 
Coefficient 

SE t-value p-value Result 

Platform Characteristics → 
Engagement 

0.46*** 0.09 5.11 <0.001 H1 Supported 

Instructional Quality → Self-efficacy 0.52*** 0.08 6.50 <0.001 H2 Supported 

Engagement → Learning 
Effectiveness 

0.37*** 0.07 5.29 <0.001 H3 Supported 

Self-efficacy → Learning 
Effectiveness 

0.31** 0.09 3.44 0.002 H4 Supported 

Indirect Effects      

Platform → Engagement → Learning 0.17** 0.06 2.83 0.005 Mediation 

Instruction → Self-efficacy → 
Learning 

0.16* 0.07 2.29 0.022 Mediation 

Note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1; Model fit: 𝑥
2

𝑑𝑓⁄ = 2.87  , CFI=0.912, TLI=0.894, RMSEA=0.077 

 

 

Figure 5. Student learning trajectory patterns 

 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

181 

 

comparison baseline. The personalized intervention system 
operationalizes predictive insights through three distinct 
mechanisms. First, adaptive learning paths are automatically 
generated based on cluster membership and performance 
trajectories. Students in the 'minimal participants' cluster 
receive simplified content sequences with additional 
scaffolding materials, while 'consistent engagers' access 
accelerated pathways with advanced resources. The system 
dynamically adjusts difficulty levels using Item Response 
Theory, increasing complexity when students achieve 80% 
mastery on current modules. Second, content 
recommendations leverage collaborative filtering combined 
with behavioral clustering results. Students receive 
personalized resource suggestions based on successful 
patterns from similar learners, with the recommendation 
engine prioritizing materials that showed the highest 
engagement rates (>75%) among peers with comparable 
profiles. Third, intervention timing is personalized through 
temporal pattern analysis. The system triggers different 
support mechanisms based on individual risk scores: 
automated nudges for students showing early disengagement 
signs (risk score 0.3-0.5), peer mentor assignments for 
moderate risk (0.5-0.7), and instructor alerts for high-risk 
cases (>0.7). These interventions resulted in 67% 
improvement in at-risk student outcomes, with personalized 
study schedules showing 34% better adherence than generic 
recommendations, and adaptive content sequencing 
improving completion rates by 28% compared to fixed 
curricula. Time-series analysis revealed critical engagement 
periods during weeks 3-5 and 10-12, where participation 
patterns strongly correlated with final achievement (r = 0.72, 
p < 0.001). Students maintaining consistent engagement 
during these periods achieved 18.4% higher final grades. The 
AI-powered recommendation system enhanced learning 
pathways, resulting in 23.6% improvement in assignment 
completion rates and 19.2% increase in satisfaction scores 
among users. These comprehensive findings demonstrate the 
multifaceted nature of blended learning effectiveness, 
emphasizing the critical role of continuous engagement 
monitoring, data-driven interventions, and personalized 
support mechanisms in optimizing student success within 
technology-enhanced educational environments. The 
integration of predictive analytics with pedagogical 
interventions represents a promising approach for improving 
learning outcomes in business education. 

5. Discussion 

5.1 Theoretical interpretation of main findings 

The empirical findings obtained from this study improve 
understanding in terms of how blended learning spaces 
support student progress in the field of business studies. The 
statistically significant improvement of 9.3 percentage points 
in academic performance is congruent with previous 
systematic reviews emphasizing the effectiveness of well-
structured blended learning interventions [6]. The benefit 
can be examined using someone or other theoretical 
framework that abstracts unique aspects of the process of 
education. From the constructivist perspective, high 
achievers' achievements, as reflected in the active 
participation of discussion forums and resource use, lend 
considerable evidence towards the postulation that 
knowledge is created through active interaction with 
materials and peers [10]. The documented 33% performance 
difference between high achievers and those with mid-level 
grades evidently demonstrates social constructivist 
principles in an online setting, whereby combined endeavors 

towards a common goal yield a deeper individual 
understanding. This finding supports previous research in 
intelligent tutoring environments focusing on the significance 
of interactive feedback mechanisms in promoting educational 
achievement [21]. The Technology Acceptance Model 
provides important insight into the 96.4% rate of adoption 
attained in this study [23]. The high technology self-efficacy 
(M = 4.12) suggests that ease of use and usability perceptions 
were successfully fostered in the early implementation phase. 
Such a rapid adoption rate strongly diverges from the 
problems arising from sudden shifts to online learning 
modalities [1], underlining the need for planned design and 
thorough preparation in blended learning practices. Self-
regulated learning theory explains the three distinct student 
profiles that were defined through cluster analysis. The 
consistent engager category (38%) showed characteristics 
that align with effective self-regulation behaviors like active 
platform use and timely assignment submission. These 
behaviors reflect the autonomous learning capabilities that 
blended environments can foster when properly structured 
[14]. Conversely, the minimal participants (18%) exhibited 
patterns suggesting inadequate self-regulation skills, 
reinforcing the need for scaffolding mechanisms identified in 
learning analytics research [13]. The predictive power of 
engagement metrics (R²  = 0.584) substantiates theoretical 
propositions about the relationship between behavioral 
indicators and learning outcomes. This finding extends 
previous work on educational data mining by demonstrating 
that relatively simple engagement metrics can serve as 
powerful predictors of academic success [14]. The 
identification of critical engagement periods (weeks 3-5 and 
10-12) provides empirical support for theoretical models 
suggesting that early intervention windows exist for 
maximizing educational impact. 

5.2 Strategies for optimizing online education platforms 

The research findings point to several evidence-based 
strategies for enhancing online education platforms within 
blended learning environments. The differential usage 
patterns across platform features suggest that optimization 
efforts should prioritize high-impact components while 
addressing underutilized resources. Interface design emerges 
as a critical factor in platform optimization. The high 
engagement with video lectures (87.6%) compared to 
supplementary readings (48.8%) indicates the need for 
multimedia-rich content presentation. Recent advances in 
personalized learning path recommendation systems offer 
promising approaches for addressing diverse learner 
preferences [22]. Implementing knowledge graph-based 
recommendation algorithms could enhance content 
discovery and promote engagement with underutilized 
resources, potentially narrowing the gap between different 
feature usage rates. The significant performance differences 
in discussion forum participation highlight the need for 
enhanced social learning features. Platforms should integrate 
more sophisticated collaborative tools that facilitate 
meaningful peer interaction beyond basic forum 
functionality. This might include real-time collaboration 
spaces, peer review systems, and group project management 
tools. The sustainability-oriented design principles for 
blended learning emphasize creating platforms that support 
long-term engagement rather than temporary solutions [20]. 
Learning analytics dashboards represent another crucial 
optimization area. The success of predictive models in 
identifying at-risk students (83.7% accuracy) demonstrates 
the potential for integrated analytics systems. However, these 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

182 

 

systems must present information in actionable formats for 
both instructors and students. The systematic review of 
learning analytics applications suggests that effective 
dashboards should provide real-time feedback, personalized 
recommendations, and progress visualization [13]. 
Implementing such features could enhance the self-regulation 
capabilities that proved crucial for student success in this 
study. Content organization and navigation structures 
require careful attention based on usage patterns. The 
temporal analysis revealing peak usage during weekday 
evenings suggests that platforms should optimize for mobile 
access and offline functionality. This aligns with findings from 
comparative studies of online and offline learning, which 
emphasize the importance of flexible access modes [15]. 
Adaptive content delivery systems that adjust to individual 
learning patterns and preferences could further enhance 
engagement and outcomes. 

5.3 Guidance for blended teaching practice 

The empirical evidence provides clear direction for 
implementing effective blended teaching practices in 
business education contexts. The success of project-based 
assessments, which showed the highest mean scores and 
lowest variability, underscores the importance of authentic, 
collaborative learning activities in blended environments. 
Instructional design principles should emphasize the 
strategic allocation of content between online and offline 
modalities. Transmission of theory content and procurement 
of necessary knowledge appear more conducive to online 
media with abundant participation in video lectures. 
However, discussion forums' strong role in differentiating 
between high achievers and average performers does not 
mean that interactive elements must remain limited to face-
to-face class settings. In fact, a unified interaction framework 
involving both online and face-to-face media might provide a 
better educational outcome [5]. Instructional faculty 
development was a critical aspect in informing effective 
blended teaching practices. The variation in student 
achievement was partly due to varying levels of instructional 
facilitation. Training initiatives should be created with a focus 
on improving digital pedagogy competencies, such as digital 
discussion facilitation, multimedia production, and learning 
analytics interpretation [8].  

The rapid movement brought about by the pandemic 
highlighted significant weaknesses in teaching professional 
training, calling for a focus on formal training approaches [3]. 
The different types of evaluations used in blended learning 
settings require a critical reassessment. The dominance of 
projects and assignments over traditional exams means that 
persistent and genuine assessment strategies better measure 
student learning in blended settings. This aligns with research 
on blended learning in Chinese educational institutions, 
which found similar patterns favoring application-based 
assessment [5]. Implementing diverse assessment portfolios 
that include peer evaluation, self-reflection, and practical 
applications could provide a more comprehensive evaluation 
of student development. The identification of critical 
engagement periods offers practical guidance for 
instructional pacing and intervention timing. Instructors 
should implement enhanced monitoring and support 
mechanisms during weeks 3-5, when early patterns 
crystallize, and weeks 10-12, when motivation often wanes. 
This targeted approach to learner support reflects the 
personalized learning possibilities that blended 
environments enable [9]. 

5.4 Implications for educational policy 

The findings carry significant implications for 
educational policy development at institutional and systemic 
levels. The demonstrated effectiveness of AI-powered 
analytics in improving student outcomes (23.6% 
improvement in assignment completion) suggests that policy 
frameworks should support the ethical integration of artificial 
intelligence in educational settings [12]. However, this 
integration must be balanced with privacy considerations and 
pedagogical appropriateness. An evaluation of patterns of 
engagement and factors of success underlies the 
prioritization of investment in infrastructure. The digital 
divide remains a critical barrier reflected in the relationship 
between technological readiness and student achievement. 
Policy intervention should address connectivity and 
equipment-related concerns while enhancing students' and 
instructors' digital literacy skills. A review of learning 
management systems in different contexts emphasizes 
contextualization as a necessary condition for success, as 
opposed to a one-size-for-all solution [8]. There is a need to 
overhaul quality assurance processes related to blended 
courses so that they also reflect the variable environments in 
which they exist. AY measures that rely solely on contact 
hours or face time prove inadequate for effective blended-
learning assessment. Therefore, it is vital that multilevel 
systems, including student engagement analytics, 
achievement of academic intentions, and student satisfaction 
levels, become common elements of accreditation systems 
and related assessment methodologies [16]. 

The strong impact of algorithmic intervention on 
students who fall behind in their academic achievements, 
with a 67% lift, highlights a strong potential for data-
informed support measures. Policy for education must 
require the incorporation of early warning systems with 
necessary protections for student data. Analysis of global 
emergency remote instruction planning approaches provides 
insight into effective academic systems with the potential to 
maintain quality in a variety of delivery formats [17]. Ongoing 
professional development for educators in academic 
institutions requires perpetual improvements, specifically 
due to difficulties brought forward by blended learning 
contexts. Policy guides must require continued training that 
includes technological pedagogical approaches, 
understanding of learning analytics, and adaptive teaching 
methodologies. Research literature documenting changes for 
higher education based on contemporary disruptions signals 
that technological incorporation forms more than a fleeting 
trend; it forms a paradigmatic change in teaching delivery 
formats [18]. Their policy impacts extend beyond a single 
college campus boundary to reach broader educational 
environments. Collaboration between academic institutions, 
technology providers, and policymakers plays a significant 
role in the development of sustainable blended environments 
that support a variety of student demographics while being 
cognizant of maintaining academic integrity with equitable 
access to quality education. 

6. Conclusion 

This study acknowledges the limitation of lacking a 
concurrent control group to isolate AI-specific effects. While 
historical cohort comparisons provide baseline references, 
future research should employ randomized controlled trials 
comparing AI-enhanced blended learning with traditional 
blended approaches and random recommendation systems to 
rigorously quantify the added value of AI analytics. This 
research has successfully developed and validated an 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

183 

 

empirical framework for optimizing blended learning 
through AI-powered analytics in digital education platforms. 
The comprehensive investigation of 250 business education 
students revealed significant improvements in learning 
outcomes, with a 9.3 percentage point increase in academic 
performance and substantial gains in critical thinking 
(24.3%), collaborative skills (31.2%), and digital literacy 
(28.7%). The study's primary contribution lies in identifying 
the critical success factors for blended learning 
environments. Platform engagement frequency, assignment 
completion timeliness, and discussion forum participation 
emerged as key predictors, collectively explaining 58.4% of 
the variance in learning outcomes. The machine learning 
algorithms achieved 83.7% accuracy in early identification of 
at-risk students, enabling timely interventions that improved 
outcomes by 67%. Three distinct learner profiles were 
identified: consistent engagers, strategic users, and minimal 
participants, each requiring differentiated support strategies. 
The temporal analysis revealed critical engagement periods 
during weeks 3-5 and 10-12, providing actionable insights for 
instructional design and intervention timing. The research 
advances theoretical understanding by integrating 
constructivist learning theory, technology acceptance models, 
and self-regulated learning frameworks within the context of 
AI-enhanced education. Practical implications include specific 
platform optimization strategies, evidence-based 
instructional design principles, and policy recommendations 
for sustainable blended learning implementation. Future 
research should explore longitudinal impacts of AI-enhanced 
blended learning, investigate cross-cultural variations in 
implementation effectiveness, and develop more 
sophisticated personalization algorithms. As educational 
institutions continue their digital transformation journey, this 
framework provides a roadmap for leveraging technology to 
enhance learning while maintaining pedagogical integrity and 
human-centered educational values. 

Ethical issue 
The authors are aware of and comply with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 

be available upon request from the authors. 

Conflict of interest 

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. 

References 

[1] Hodges, C., et al., The difference between emergency 

remote teaching and online learning. Educause 

Review, 2020. 27(1): p. 1-9. URL: 

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-

difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-

online-learning 

[2] Mpungose, C.B., Emergent transition from face-to-face 

to online learning in a South African University in the 

context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and 

social sciences communications, 2020. 7(1): p. 1-9. 

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00603-x 

[3] García-Morales, V.J., A. Garrido-Moreno, and R. Martín-

Rojas, The transformation of higher education after the 

COVID disruption: Emerging challenges in an online 

learning scenario. Frontiers in psychology, 2021. 12: p. 

616059. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059 

[4] Sharma, D., et al., A study on the online-offline and 

blended learning methods. Journal of The Institution of 

Engineers (India): Series B, 2022. 103(4): p. 1373-

1382. DOI: 10.1007/s40031-022-00766-y 

[5] Liu, H., et al., Development and students’ evaluation of 

a blended online and offline pedagogy for physical 

education theory curriculum in China during the 

COVID-19 pandemic. Educational technology research 

and development, 2022. 70(6): p. 2235-2254. DOI: 

10.1007/s11423-022-10131-x 

[6] Müller, C. and T. Mildenberger, Facilitating flexible 

learning by replacing classroom time with an online 

learning environment: A systematic review of blended 

learning in higher education. Educational research 

review, 2021. 34: p. 100394. DOI: 

10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394 

[7] Al-Fraihat, D., et al., Evaluating E-learning systems 

success: An empirical study. Computers in human 

behavior, 2020. 102: p. 67-86. DOI: 

10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004 

[8] Turnbull, D., R. Chugh, and J. Luck, Learning 

management systems: a review of the research 

methodology literature in Australia and China. 

International Journal of Research & Method in 

Education, 2021. 44(2): p. 164-178. DOI: 

10.1080/1743727X.2020.1737002 

[9] Chen, L., P. Chen, and Z. Lin, Artificial intelligence in 

education: A review. IEEE access, 2020. 8: p. 75264-

75278. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510 

[10] Ouyang, F. and P. Jiao, Artificial intelligence in 

education: The three paradigms. Computers and 

Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2021. 2: p. 100020. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020 

[11] Chen, X., et al., Application and theory gaps during the 

rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers 

and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2020. 1: p. 

100002. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002 

[12] Holmes, W., et al., Ethics of AI in education: Towards a 

community-wide framework. International Journal of 

Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2022. 32(3): p. 504-

526. DOI: 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1 

[13] Ifenthaler, D. and J.Y.-K. Yau, Utilising learning 

analytics to support study success in higher education: 

a systematic review. Educational Technology Research 

and Development, 2020. 68(4): p. 1961-1990. DOI: 

10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z 

[14] 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. DOI: 

10.3390/app11010237 

[15] Singh, P., et al., A comparative study on effectiveness of 

online and offline learning in higher education. 

International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality in 

Asia Pasific, 2021. 4(3): p. 102-114. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.32535/ijthap.v4i3.1212 



F. Zhang et al. /Future Technology                                                                                  November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 173-184 

184 

 

[16] Ashraf, M.A., et al., A systematic review of systematic 

reviews on blended learning: Trends, gaps and future 

directions. Psychology Research and Behavior 

Management, 2021: p. 1525-1541. DOI: 

10.2147/PRBM.S331741 

[17] Bond, M., et al., Emergency remote teaching in higher 

education: Mapping the first global online semester 

(Pre-print). 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x 

[18] Adedoyin, O.B. and E. Soykan, Covid-19 pandemic and 

online learning: the challenges and opportunities. 

Interactive learning environments, 2023. 31(2): p. 

863-875. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 

[19] Wang, X., et al., Digital transformation of education: 

design of a “project-based teaching” service platform 

to promote the integration of production and 

education. Sustainability, 2023. 15(16): p. 12658. DOI: 

10.3390/su151612658 

[20] Versteijlen, M. and A.E. Wals, Developing design 

principles for sustainability-oriented blended learning 

in higher education. Sustainability, 2023. 15(10): p. 

8150. DOI: 10.3390/su15108150 

[21] Mousavinasab, E., et al., Intelligent tutoring systems: a 

systematic review of characteristics, applications, and 

evaluation methods. Interactive Learning 

Environments, 2021. 29(1): p. 142-163. DOI: 

10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257 

[22] Zhang, X., S. Liu, and H. Wang, Personalized learning 

path recommendation for e-learning based on 

knowledge graph and graph convolutional network. 

International journal of software engineering and 

knowledge engineering, 2023. 33(01): p. 109-131. DOI: 

10.1142/S0218194022500681 

[23] Ursavaş, Ö.F., Technology acceptance model: History, 

theory, and application, in Conducting technology 

acceptance research in education: Theory, models, 

implementation, and analysis. 2022, Springer. p. 57-91. 

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-10846-4_4 

 

 

  

This article is an open-access article distributed under the 

terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

(CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

