Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Motivate Students? The Four Dimensional Instructional Design Approach in a Non-core Blended Learning Course

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Cross Reality and Data Science in Engineering (REV 2020)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1231))

Abstract

The four dimensional design approach focuses on cognitive, emotional, social, and psychomotor dimensions of learning. It relies on balanced differentiation of educational activities. Such a differentiation aims at increasing learners’ motivation. In this paper, we examine the adoption of the four dimensional design to a non-core blended course designed and led at the War Studies University in Poland. Data collected from 59 respondents through structured interviews and the analysis of learning outcomes revealed that the four dimensional instructional design approach applied to a blended course keeps students motivated and engaged in the learning content. Our results suggest that university instructors should incorporate the four dimensional approach into instructional strategies to maximise learners’ motivation and learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., Primeau, R.: Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov. High. Educ. 27, 95–111 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Garrison, D.R., Vaughan, N.D.: Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stein, J., Graham, C.R.: Essentials for Blended Learning: A Standards-Based Guide. Routledge, New York, London (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. López-Pérez, M.V., Pérez-López, M.C., Rodríguez-Ariza, L.: Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Comput. Educ. 56, 818–826 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2010.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Domalewska, D.: Technology-supported classroom for collaborative learning: blogging in the foreign language classroom. Int. J. Educ. Develop. Inf. Commun. Technol. 10(4), 21–30 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garrison, D.R.: E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice, 3rd edn. Routledge/Taylor and Francis, London (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, J., Bonk, C.J.: Social network analysis of peer relationships and online interactions in a blended class using blogs. Internet High. Educ. 28, 35–44 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2015.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R.D., Archer, W.: Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. J. Distance Educ. 14, 50–71 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Zahrani, A.M.: From passive to active: the impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46, 1133–1148 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horn, M.B., Staker, H.: Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Domalewska, D.: Blogs as means for promoting active learning: a case study of a Thai University. In: Smyczek, S., Matysiewicz, J. (eds.) New Media in Higher Education Market. University of Economics in Katowice, pp. 278–288 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Roehl, A., Reddy, S.L., Shannon, G.J.: The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 105, 44–49 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Angelaina, S., Jimoyiannis, A.: Analysing students’ engagement and learning presence in an educational blog community. EMI Educ. Media Int. 49, 183–200 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wentao, C., Jinyu, Z., Zhonggen, Y.: Learning outcomes and affective factors of blended learning of english for library science. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 12, 13–25 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2016070102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sugahara, S., Boland, G.: The effectiveness of powerpoint presentations in the accounting classroom. Account. Educ. 15, 391–403 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280601011099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Owston, R., York, D.N.: The nagging question when designing blended courses: does the proportion of time devoted to online activities matter? Internet High. Educ. 36, 22–32 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2017.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Der Merwe, A.: Using blended learning to boost motivation and performance in Introductory Economics modules. South African J. Econ. 75, 125–135 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2007.00109.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schober, A., Keller, L.: Impact factors for learner motivation in Blended Learning environments. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Learn. (iJET), 7(Sp. Iss. 2: FNMA), 37–41 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smirnova, G.I., Katashev, V.G.: A study module in the logical structure of cognitive process in the context of variable-based blended learning. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 4, 102 (2017). https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.1.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacDonald, J.: Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: Planning Learner Support and Activity Design. Gower, Aldershot (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Whiteside, A.L.: Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learn. 19, 2 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parlangeli, O., Marchigiani, E., Guidi, S., Mesh, L.: Disentangled emotions in blended learning. Int. J. Hum. Factors Ergon. 1, 41–57 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zirkle, C., Fletcher, E.C.J.: Utilization of distance education in Career and Technical Education (CTE) Teacher Education. In: Wang, V.C.X. (ed.) Handbook of Research on e-Learning Applications for Career and Technical Education: Technologies for Vocational Training, pp. 1–13. Information Science Reference, Hershey, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Okaz, A.A.: Integrating blended learning in higher education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 186, 600–603 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nauman, S., Yun, Y., Sinnappan, S.: Emerging web technologies in higher education: a case of incorporating blogs, podcasts and social bookmarks in a web programming course based on students’ learning styles and technology preferences. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12, 98–109 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Parrish, P., Linder-VanBerschot, J.: Cultural dimensions of learning: addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 11, 1 (2010). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i2.809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oxford, R.L.: Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives. University of Hawaii, Honolulu (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Domalewska, D.: Approaches to studying across culturally contrasting groups: implications for security education. Secur. Def. Q. 16, 3–19 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bonk, C.J., Graham, C.R.: The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Koller, V., Harvey, S., Magnotta, M.: Technology-Based Learning Strategies (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Al-Huneidi, A.M., Schreurs, J.: Constructivism based blended learning in higher education. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 7, 4–9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v7i1.1792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Broadbent, J.: Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. Internet High. Educ. 33, 24–32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2017.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cooner, T.S.: Dialectical constructivism: reflections on creating a web-mediated enquiry-based learning environment. Soc. Work Educ. 24, 375–390 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470500096902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Snodin, N.S.: The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: a case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Comput. Educ. 61, 209–216 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2012.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Melton, B.F., Graf, H., Chopak-Foss, J.: Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 3, 1–13 (2009). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Strayer, J.: The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: a comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system. Dissertation. The Ohio State University (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bergmann, J., Sams, A.: Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education, Alexandria (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tucker, B.: The flipped classroom. Educ. Next 12, 82–83 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., Treglia, M.: Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J. Econ. Educ. 31, 30 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2307/1183338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sonesson, L., Boffard, K., Lundberg, L., et al.: The potential of blended learning in education and training for advanced civilian and military trauma care. Injury 49, 93–96 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INJURY.2017.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Whittaker, C.: A military blend. In: Tomlinson, B., Whittaker, C. (eds.) Blended Learning in English Language Teaching: Course Design and Implementation, pp. 175–183. British Council, London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tyler, K.M, Dolasky, K.C.: Educating warrior diplomats. Blended and unconventional learning for special operations forces. In: Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, pp. 235–248. Routledge, New York, London (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Strayer, J.F.: How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 15, 171–193 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marmah, A.A.: Students’ perception about the lecture as a method of teaching in tertiary institutions. Views of students from College of Technology Education, Kumasi (COLTEK). Int. J. Educ. Res. 2, 601–612 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Illeris, K.: Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 22, 396–406 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Illeris, K.: A comprehensive understanding of human learning. Contemporary Theories of Learning, pp. 1–14. Routledge, New York, London (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Poscente, K.: The Three Dimensions of Learning: Contemporary Learning Theory in the Tension Field between the Cognitive, the Emotional and the Social (Author: Illeris, K.). Int. Rev. Res. Open. Distrib. Learn. 7 (2006). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i1.305

  48. Illeris, K.: What do we actually mean by experiential learning? Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 6, 84–95 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Brown, D., Bell, B., Goldberg, B.: Authoring adaptive tutors for simulations in psychomotor skills domains. In: Proceedings of MODSIM World 2017. NTSA, Virginia Beach, VA (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gawlik-Kobylińska, M.: The four dimensional instructional design in the perspective of human-computer interactions. In: Petkov, N., Strisciuglio, N., Travieso-González, C.M. (eds.) Applications of Intelligent Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International APPIS Conference 2018, vol. 310. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bloom, B.S. (ed.): Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Cognitive Domain, vol. 1. David McKay, New York (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J., Baker, J.D., Grooms, L.D.: Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. Internet High. Educ. 12, 7–13 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2008.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kupisiewicz, C.: Dydaktyka. Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls, Kraków (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Świerszcz, K., Bożejewicz, W., Jędrzejko, M.: Człowiek w ponowoczesności - postęp czy zagrożenie? In: Jędrzejko, M., Malinowski, J.A. (eds.) Młode pokolenie w zderzeniu cywilizacyjnym. Studia – badania – praktyka. Toruń: AKAPIT (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Świerszcz, K., Bożejewicz, W., Jędrzejko, M.: “Inżynieria społeczna” człowieka w epoce postmodernizmu i jej implikacje. In: Jędrzejko, M. (ed.) “Zwariowany” świat ponowoczesności. ASPRA-JR, Warszawa-Milanówek (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Funding for the present work was supported by the Ministry of National Defense (Republic of Poland), Research Grant No. GB/4/2018/208/2018/DA (2018–2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. War Studies University, Warsaw, Poland

    Małgorzata Gawlik-Kobylińska, Dorota Domalewska & Paweł Maciejewski

Authors
  1. Małgorzata Gawlik-Kobylińska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorota Domalewska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paweł Maciejewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Małgorzata Gawlik-Kobylińska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria

    Michael E. Auer

  2. College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Dominik May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gawlik-Kobylińska, M., Domalewska, D., Maciejewski, P. (2021). How to Motivate Students? The Four Dimensional Instructional Design Approach in a Non-core Blended Learning Course. In: Auer, M., May, D. (eds) Cross Reality and Data Science in Engineering. REV 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1231. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52575-0_64

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation