Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

MOTIVATIONAL MEASURE OF THE INSTRUCTION COMPARED: Instruction Based on the ARCS Motivation Theory V.S. Traditional Instruction in Blended Courses

Journal Name:

  • The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The ARCS Motivation Theory was proposed to guide instructional designers and teachers who develop their own instruction to integrate motivational design strategies into the instruction. There is a lack of literature supporting the idea that instruction for blended courses if designed based on the ARCS Motivation Theory provides different experiences for learners in terms of motivation than instruction developed following the standard instructional design procedure for blended courses. This study was conducted to compare the students‘ motivational evaluation of blended course modules developed based on the ARCS Motivation Theory and students‘ motivational evaluation of blended course modules developed following the standard instructional design procedure. Randomly assigned fifty junior undergraduate students studying at the department of Turkish Language and Literature participated in the study. Motivation Measure for the Blended Course Instruction (MMBCI) instrument was used to collect data for the study after the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Results of the study indicated that designing instruction in blended courses based on the ARCS Motivation Theory provides more motivational benefits for students and consequently contributes student learning.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-motivational-measure-instruction-compared-instruction-based-arcs-motivation-theory-v.s.traditional-instruction-blended-courses.pdf
  • 2
73-89
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Akdemir, O. & Colakoglu, O. (2008). Measuring motivation in the instruction developed for blended courses. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 10-15). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Akdemir, O. & Koszalka, T. (2008). Investigating the relationships among instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers & Education, 50 (4), 1451–1461.
Bonk, C. J. & Graham, C. R.(2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Capshew, T. F. (2005). Motivating social work students in statistic courses. Social Work Education. 24(8), 857-868.
Chyung, Y. (2001). Systemic and systematic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE), 15 (3), 36-49.
Dilalla, F. L. (2000). Structural equation modeling: uses and issues. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling. Tinsley, H. E. A. & Brown, S. D. (Eds.). San Diego, Academic Press: 439–462.
Feng, S., & Tuan, H. (2005). Using arcs model to promote 11th graders‘ motivation and achievement in learning about acids and bases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 463–484.
Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th
89
Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook Of Applied Multivariate Statistics And Mathematical Modeling. Tinsley, H. E. A. & Brown, S. D. (Eds.). New York: Academic Press: 465-497.
Huang, W. Huang, W. Diefes-Dux, H. Imbrie, P. K. (2006). A preliminary validation of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction model-based instructional material motivational survey in a computer-based tutorial setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 (2), 243-259.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 7–30.
Keller, J. M. & Litchfield, B.C. (2002). Motivation and performance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructioanal Design and Technology. New Jersey: Merill Prenctice Hall.
Keller, J. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education. 29(2), 175-185.
Kim, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2006). Data Modeling: Structural Equation Modeling. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaite & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Educational Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Publishers: 161- 175.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shellnut, B., Knowltion, A. & Savage, T. (1999). Applying the ARCS model to the design and development of computer-based modules for manufacturing engineering courses. Educational Technology Research and Development. 47(2), 100-110.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally-adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 5 - 22.
Suziki, K., Nishibuchi, A., Yamamoto, H., and Keller, J. M. (2004). Development and evaluation of a website to check instructional design based on the ARCS Motivation Model. Journal of the Japanese Society for Information and Systems in Education, 2(1), 63-69.
Tabachnick, B. G. & L. S. Fidell (1989). Using multivariate statistics. California State University, Northridge, Harper Collins Publishers.
Visser, J. & Keller, J. M. (1990). The clinical use of motivaitonal messages: an inquiry into the validity of the ARCS model of motivational design. Instructional Science, 19, 467–500.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com