1. Supporting the Distant Student the Effect of ARCS-Based Strategies on Confidence and Performance Presenter: Che-Yu Lin Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen Date: 07/01/2009 1 Huett, J. B., Young, J., Huett, K.C., Moller, L., & Bray, M. (2008). Supporting the distant student the effect of ARCS-Based strategies on confidence and performance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 113–126.

2. Introduction(1/2) An extensive review of the literature leads one to concur that there is a noted lack of research concerning the motivational needs of learners. Keller (1999) noted that self-directed learning environments posed greater challenges to learner motivation than their face-to-face counterparts. They noted that with the widespread use of computers in education, one could no longer depend on the “novelty effect” of technology to stimulate learner motivation. Student-centered, independent learning requires a strong sense of motivation and confidence. 2

3. 3 Introduction(2/2) ARCS stands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction and serves as the framework for the confidence-enhancing tactics found in this study. The ARCS model is an attempt to synthesize behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning theories and demonstrate that learner motivation can be influenced through external conditions such as instructional materials (Moller, 1993). To better understand the role of confidence in the ARCS model, it helps to examine what Keller and Suzuki (1988) characterize as its three most important dimensions: perceived competence, perceived control, and expectancy for success.

4. 4 Method This study was conducted over a period of approximately 5-and- one-half weeks. The purposes of this research were to: - determine if there were statistically significant increases in confidence levels of online learners using systematically designed confidence tactics based on Keller’s ARCS model. - determine if the tactics also produced a statistically significant increase or change in academic performance. The subjects in this study were undergraduate students enrolled at a Texas university rated Carnegie Doctoral/Research Universities— Extensive.

5. 5 Confidence Tactics (1/4) CT ComponentsTreatment GroupControl LR: Are there clear statements, in terms of observable behaviors, of what is expected of the learners? Objectives were stated in SAM(Skill Assessment Manager) at the beginning of each lesson and restated on guide-sheets. Reminders were stated in the confidence-enhancing e-mails (CEE). Objectives were not stated. A pretest was not provided.

6. 6 Confidence Tactics (2/4) CT ComponentsTreatment GroupControl SO1: Is the content organized in a clear, easy-to-follow sequence? The treatment group received a statement with each lesson assuring them the material was clear and easy-to follow along with directions highlighting how to proceed through the pretest-training- posttest sequence. This group received no such explanation.

7. 7 Confidence Tactics (3/4) CT ComponentsTreatment GroupControl SO2: Are there methods for self- evaluation? Yes, SAM 2003 was set to display simple feedback for each task (e.g., correct or incorrect). Results were also displayed at the end of each exam as a percentage (e.g., 90% correct). No feedback was provided, and no results were displayed.

8. 8 Confidence Tactics (4/4) CT ComponentsTreatment GroupControl PC: Are learners given the opportunity for feedback and practice in a “low risk” environment where it is acceptable to make mistakes and learn from them? On the pretest, training, and posttest, learners were given feedback regarding performance and were allowed multiple attempts at the posttest. The control group received no pretest, one timed attempt at the training with minimal computer generated feedback.

9. 9 Results(1/2) Results for the Confidence Subsection of the IMMS

10. 10 Results(2/2) Results for Posttest Measure

11. 11 Discussion Similar to Moller’s (1993) findings, there seem to be at least three potential explanations: - The ARCS model is ineffective for improving learner confidence. - The confidence tactics and methods used in this study were implemented improperly or were somehow inappropriate for these subjects. - The differences in confidence were too small to measure or were immeasurable with the instrument (IMMS).