Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using a mathematical model of motivation, volition, and performance to examine students’ e-text learning experiences

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This empirical study used Keller’s (Technol Instr Cogn Learn 16:79–104, 2008b) motivation, volition, and performance (MVP) theory to develop and statistically evaluate a mathematical MVP model that can serve as a research and policy tool for evaluating students’ learning experiences in digital environments. Specifically, it explored undergraduate biology students’ learning and attitudes toward e-texts using a MVP mathematical model in two different e-text environments. A data set (N = 1334) that included student motivation and e-text information processing, frustration with using e-texts, and student ability variables was used to evaluate e-text satisfaction. A regression analysis of these variables revealed a significant model that explained 77% of the variation in student e-text satisfaction in both e-text learning environments. Student motivation and intrinsic cognitive load were positive predictors of student satisfaction, while extraneous cognitive load and student prior knowledge and background variables were negative predictors. Practical implications for e-text learning and generalizability of a mathematical MVP model are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1816–1828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. K. (2014). Use of admissions data to predict student success in postsecondary freshman science. (PhD Dissertation), Capella University.

  • Apple, I. (2015). Not just reading—Interacting: The textbook transformation. Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/education/ipad/ibooks-textbooks/.

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Schiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, C. A., & Sarinsky, G. B. (1989). Selected factors associated with achievement of biology preparatory students and their follow-up to higher level biology courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(7), 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, L. A. (2014). Model building in economics: Its purposes and limitations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boroughs, D. (2010). Bye the book: In educational publishing the only certainty is change. PRISM 19. Retrieved from http://www.prism-magazine.org/apr10/feature_01.cfm.

  • Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Bessiere, K., Robinson, J., & Shneiderman, B. (2004). Determining causes and severity of end-user frustration. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(3), 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabbaghian, V., & Mago, V. K. (2014). Theories and simulations of complex social systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, L., Turner, D. E., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. (2011). e-Textbooks at Indiana University: A summary of two years of research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., & Levin, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12 textbook in a digital age. Paper presented at the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), Washington, DC.

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions. Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao, Y. (2016). Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, R. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W.-H., Huang, W.-Y., & Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55(2), 789–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (2003). Some dynamics of social balance processes: Bringing Heider back into balance theory. Social Networks, 25(1), 17–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, J. A., Moser, M. T., & Segala, L. N. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: Understanding learner expectation and usage intent for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y. S., & Lee, H. (2010). Understanding the role of an IT artifact in online service continuance: An extended perspective of user satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1993). Motivation by design. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2008a). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2008b). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 16, 79–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention and volition (pp. 279–291). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, A. (2001). Reading redefined for a transmedia universe. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(3), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, N., Peters, O., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2015). Validation of the instructional materials motivation survey (IMMS) in a self-directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 204–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, E. (2014). Toward a mathematical model of motivation, volition, and performance. Computers & Education, 74, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, E., Daday, J., & McDaniel, K. (2018). Assessing intrinsic and extraneous complexity of e-text learning. Interacting with Computers, 30(2), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 480–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffl, M. W. (2001). A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT–PCR. Nucleic Acids Research, 29(9), e45–e45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockinson- Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, J. L. (2010). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 65(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvidge, P. R., Chaparro, B. S., & Bender, G. T. (2002). The world wide wait: Effects of delays on user performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sepehr, S., & Head, M. (2017). Understanding the role of competition in video gameplay satisfaction. Information & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.09.007

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35, 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamura, K., Masatoshi, N., & Sudhir, K. (2004). Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

  • Thomas, A. (2013). A study of algebra 1 students’ use of digital and print textbooks. (PhD Dissertation), University of Missouri-Columbia.

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55, 945–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70(Supplement C), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–38). Erlbaum, NJ: Mahwah.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by Western Kentucky University (WKU) Division of Extended Learning and Outreach’s (DELO) Online Learning Research Office.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Lifespan Development and Educational Sciences, Kent State University, 150 Terrace Drive, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH, 44242-0001, USA

    Elena Novak

  2. Center for Innovative Teaching & Learning, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, 44101, USA

    Jerry Daday

  3. Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, 44101, USA

    Kerrie McDaniel

Authors
  1. Elena Novak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerry Daday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerrie McDaniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Novak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Novak, E., Daday, J. & McDaniel, K. Using a mathematical model of motivation, volition, and performance to examine students’ e-text learning experiences. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1189–1209 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9599-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9599-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation