1. Development and evaluation of Website to check instructional design based on the ARCS Motivation Model Reporter: Chen, Wan-Yi 日期 : 2006/ 5/ 22 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.

2. CSL2 Computer mediated Students will no longer be as excited by these novel features, and it then will become more of a challenge to stimulate and sustain their motivation during computer-mediated instruction Student motivation to learn is disregarded or assumed to be embedded in the cognitively adaptive CAI

3. CSL3 Computer mediated Design and development of motivating CAI –The computer-feature approach –Principle-seeking approach, in which prescriptive motivational design principles and tactics for CAI are identified or developed from diverse theoretical and practical perspectives –Model-establishing approach The CAI should provide the most appropriate motivational strategies in terms of purpose, type, and amount

4. CSL4 ARCS model ARCS model is useful for instructional designers –It helps one understand the construct of motivation in terms of four distinct categories –It provides the systematic motivational design process –It provides motivational strategies

5. CSL5 ARCS & Wlodkowski Both are well-published holistic models of motivational design Different –Strategy selection in the ARCS model is done systematically from a set of categories and subcategories based on comprehensive synthesis of concepts and theories in human motivation –ARCS model is a problem-solving approach Learner analysis is a key challenge

6. CSL6 Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of motivationally Three key areas –Attention –Relevance –confidence

7. CSL7 Method Participants and design –60 tenth-grade students from the Developmental Research School Treatments –Motivationally adaptive CAI –Motivationally saturated CAI –Motivationally minimized CAI Instruments –Motivation was measured by a simplified version of Keller’s IMMS

8. CSL8 Results Motivation –Overall motivation scores revealed a significant difference for the treatments –Students in the motivationally adaptive CAI showed higher motivation than those in both motivationally saturated and motivationally minimized Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction –Differences occurred only for attention and relevance –Showed higher attention than those in both motivationally saturated and motivationally minimized –Students in the motivationally adaptive CAI showed higher relevance than those in motivationally saturated CAI

9. CSL9 Results Effectiveness –The results showed a significant difference for the treatments Continuing motivation –Although the students in the motivationally adaptive CAI showed higher self-reported continuing motivation Efficiency –The correlation coefficient between science score and the efficiency measure was significiant

10. CSL10 Discussion Motivationally adaptive CAI was superior to the other two CAI types for the enhancement of overall motivation and attention Confidence and satisfaction, although students in the motivationally adaptive CAI showed the highest scores, significant differences were not found among three CAI type Saturated CAI provided and distributed throughout the instruction Students had to be exposed to much more material than those who received No differences in confidence among the three conditions

11. CSL11 Conclusion The results demonstrate that it is feasible to design motivationally adaptive instruction for a self-paced learning setting such as CAI Self-reports of motivation can be valid indicators of learning readiness to which motivational strategies are adaptively prescribed