Linking Industry 4.0-Enabled Interactive TVET Instructional Management to Perceived Competency Readiness: The Mediating Role of Student Engagement in Malaysian Accredited Skills Programmes

Industry 4.0 has widened the competency expectations placed on technical and vocational education and training (TVET), yet technology acquisition alone does not explain how digitally supported learning is associated with students' readiness for occupational competence. This study examined the relationships among Industry 4.0-enabled interactive TVET instructional management, student engagement, and perceived TVET competency readiness, with particular attention to the mediating role of engagement. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was completed by 1,025 students enrolled in Malaysia's Accredited Programme Training System (Sistem Latihan Program Bertauliah; SLaPB) under the Malaysian Skills Certification System. The constructs were measured using a bilingual seven-point questionnaire and analysed with partial least squares structural equation modelling. Interactive instructional management was positively associated with student engagement (β = .496, p < .001) and perceived competency readiness (β = .452, p < .001). Student engagement was also positively associated with perceived readiness (β = .261, p < .001). The bootstrapped indirect association from instructional management to readiness through engagement was significant (β = .129, 95% bias-corrected confidence interval [.098, .163]), while the direct path remained significant, indicating complementary partial mediation. The complete structural model explained 36.4% of the variance in engagement and 38.8% of the variance in perceived readiness. These findings position Industry 4.0 transformation in TVET as an instructional-management and learner-engagement challenge, not only an infrastructure challenge. Because the data are cross-sectional and self-reported, the results concern perceived readiness and statistical mediation rather than demonstrated competence or causal change. The study therefore supports competency-centred digital pedagogy, authentic practice, feedback, and active learner participation across accredited skills programmes.

Industry 4.0, TVET, instructional management, student engagement, competency readiness

1. Abele, E., Metternich, J., Tisch, M., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., ElMaraghy, H., Hummel, V., & Ranz, F. (2015). Learning factories for research, education, and training. Procedia CIRP, 32, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baena, F., Guarin, A., Mora, J., Sauza, J., & Retat, S. (2017). Learning factory: The path to Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 9, 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126-150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Benešová, A., & Tupa, J. (2017). Requirements for education and qualification of people in Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 2195-2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.366 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bonfield, C. A., Salter, M., Longmuir, A., Benson, M., & Adachi, C. (2020). Transformation or evolution? Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Caballero, C. L., Walker, A., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2011). The Work Readiness Scale: Developing a measure to assess work readiness in college graduates. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 2(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2011vol2no1art552 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chaka, C. (2020). Skills, competencies and literacies attributed to 4IR/Industry 4.0: Scoping review. IFLA Journal, 46(4), 369-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035219896376 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499-541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Department of Skills Development Malaysia. (n.d.-a). National Occupational Skills Standard (NOSS). Ministry of Human Resources Malaysia. https://www.dsd.gov.my/ms/perkhidmatan/standard-kemahiran-pekerjaan-kebangsaan-noss [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Department of Skills Development Malaysia. (n.d.-b). Sistem Latihan Program Bertauliah (SLaPB). Ministry of Human Resources Malaysia. https://www.dsd.gov.my/en/service/accredited-program-training-system-slapb [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Getenet, S., Cantle, R., Redmond, P., & Albion, P. (2024). Students' digital technology attitude, literacy and self-efficacy and their effect on online learning engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00437-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hair, J. F., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Majlis TVET Negara. (2024). Dasar TVET Negara 2030. Government of Malaysia. https://www.tvet.gov.my/media/dasar_tvet_negara_2030.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mazlan, M. H., Puteh, S., Mohamad, Z., Sulaiman, N. L., Mohd Salleh, K., Wan Omar, W. R., Buhari, R., Bahrum, M. I. H., & Nasuha, A. (2026). Future-fit TVET students for Industry 4.0: Exploring talent domains and components through WBL and applied research in higher education. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 16(3), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-05-2025-0205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mukul, E., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of Education 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, Article 122664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122664 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mulder, M. (Ed.). (2017). Competence-based vocational and professional education: Bridging the worlds of work and education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mulder, M., Weigel, T., & Collins, K. (2007). The concept of competence in the development of vocational education and training in selected EU member states: A critical analysis. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 59(1), 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820601145630 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L., & Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849-1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Niwamanya, G., Zhong, Z., Matola, C. A., Eliachu, D., Ravindra, S., & Fahn, J. B. (2025). Bridging the digital divide through enterprise-TVET provider partnerships: Strategic insights on digital transformation in TVET in developing nations. Vocation, Technology & Education, 2(2), e11. https://doi.org/10.54844/vte.2025.0977 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Paryono, P., & Mashod, H. (2025). Responses of technical and vocational education and training institutions to the needs of industry's digital transformation in South-East Asia (ILO Working Paper 138). International Labour Organization. https://doi.org/10.54394/BJOX6123 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students' engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of twenty-first-century skills and twenty-first-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wong, G. S., & Abdullah, N. S. (2025). Job readiness level to address 4.0 skills: An empirical study on TVET students in the electrical and electronics field. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 17(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2025.17.01.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zhong, Z., & Juwaheer, S. (2024). Digital competence development in TVET with a competency-based whole-institution approach. Vocation, Technology & Education, 1(2), e13. https://doi.org/10.54844/vte.2024.0591 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]