Advertisement

Using ARCS Model to Promote 11th Graders' Motivation and Achievement in Learning about Acids and Bases

  • Sung-Lin Feng
  • Hsiao-Lin TuanEmail author
Article

Abstract

The purposes of this study are: to apply the ARCS model in designing an acid and bases unit, and to assess a single class of 11th graders for motivation and achievement outcomes before and after ARCS instruction. Four essential strategies for designing motivation instruction in the ARCS model were: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. We used the ARCS model in designing a 10-hour acids and bases lesson for one class of 11th graders with low interest and motivation in chemistry learning. Both the Students' Motivation toward Science Learning questionnaire (SMTSL) (Tuan, Chin & Shieh, in press) and a teacher-designed achievement test were implemented before and after instruction. In addition, students' self-reporting on time engagement in learning before and during the instruction was also collected. The results of the study indicated that both students' motivation and achievement in the acids and bases unit increased significantly (p<0.05) after the ARCS instruction. Students' time engagement during the ARCS lessons had increased from before. Findings of the study showed that using the ARCS model to teach acids and bases unit could improve low motivated students' level of motivation and achievement. The implications for chemistry teaching will be discussed in the paper.

Keywords

ARCS instruction chemistry learning chemistry teaching student's motivation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnone, M.P. & Small, R.V. (1995). Arousing and sustaining curiosity: Lessons from the ARCS model. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA. Google Scholar
  2. Barlia, L. & Beeth, M.E. (1999). High school students' motivation to engage in conceptual change learning in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  3. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M. & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 418925. Google Scholar
  4. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  5. Erduran, S. (1999). Merging curriculum design with chemical epistemology: A case of teaching and learning chemistry through modeling. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Google Scholar
  6. Fairbrother, R.W. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk and J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching (pp. 7–24). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Folino, D.A. (2001). Stories and anecdotes in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1615–1618. Google Scholar
  8. Francisco, J.S., Nicoll, G. & Trautmann, M. (1998). Integrating multiple teaching methods into a general chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 210–213. Google Scholar
  9. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  10. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1615–1618. Google Scholar
  11. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivation design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–484). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  13. Keller, J.M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction Journal, 26, 1–7. Google Scholar
  14. Keller, J.M. (1997). Motivational design and multimedia: Beyond the novelty effect. Strategic Human Resource Development Review, 1, 188–203. Google Scholar
  15. Keller, J.M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 39–47. Google Scholar
  16. Nakhleh, M.B. & Krajcik, J.S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1077–1096. Google Scholar
  17. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W. & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199. Google Scholar
  18. Shellnut, B. (1999). The influence of designer and contextual variables on the incorporation of motivational components to instructional design and the perceived success of a project. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX. Google Scholar
  19. Shellnut, B., Knowlton, 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. Google Scholar
  20. Sisovic, D. & Bojovic, S. (1999). Attitudes of pupils of the first form of secondary school towards chemistry classes. Nastava i vaspitanje, 3–4, 352–364. Google Scholar
  21. Small, R.V. (1997). Motivation in instructional design. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 409895. Google Scholar
  22. Small, R.V., Dodge, B.J. & Jiang, S. (1996). Dimensions of interest and boredom in instructional situations. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. Google Scholar
  23. Song, S.H. & Keller, J.M. (1999). The ARCS model for developing motivationally-adaptive computer-assisted instruction. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX. Google Scholar
  24. Suzuki, K. & Keller, J.M. (1996). Creation and cross-cultural validation of an ARCS motivational design matrix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Japanese Association for Educational Technology, Kanazawa, Japan. Google Scholar
  25. Tamir, P. (1996). Science assessment. In M. Birenbaum & F.J.R.C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 93–129). Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  26. Tuan, S.L., Chin, C.C. & Shieh, S.H. (in press). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning, International Journal of Science Education. Google Scholar
  27. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  28. Visser, L., Plomp, T. & Kuiper, W. (1999). Development research applied to improve motivation in distance education. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX. Google Scholar
  29. Zoller, U. (1990). Students' misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1053–1065. Google Scholar
  30. Zoller, U. (1999). Scaling-up of higher order cognitive skills-oriented college chemistry teaching: An action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 583–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Changhua Normal UniversityChanghuaTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations