Design of a Supporting System for Consultation of Instructional Improvement
In many universities instructional designers consult and provide appropriate advice to faculty members about instructional improvement. It usually takes many times for such instructional consultation. We have developed a supporting system useful for instructional designers to provide expert advice to their clients in the instructional consultation. We made a questionnaire for evaluating a course instruction by students in an effort of the system development, in which we compose items based on ARCS motivation model. The questionnaire has superiority over existing ones in term of narrowing down the strategies of instructional improvement, so that instructional designers prepare appropriate tactics of improvement to their clients in shorter period. Then we developed a prototype system that automatically detects improvements by analyzing the result of the questionnaire, and to suggest several suitable improvement tactics. This proposal showed the possibility to semi-automate multiple steps of motivational design of instruction in relatively short time.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K00489.
- 3.Suzuki, K., Nishibuchi, A., Yamamoto, M., Keller, J.M.: Development of website “check-and-revise your motivational design” based on the ARCS model. In: Uskov, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education CATE 2003, pp. 740–744 (2003)Google Scholar
- 4.Suzuki, Y., Matsuba, R., Suzuki, K., Kita T.: Development of ARCS motivation model based system for instructional improvement. In: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014, pp. 1648–1650 (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Kogo, C., Suzuki, K.: An analysis of the structure of course evaluation items based on ARCS motivation model (2). In: Proceedings of ICCE/ICCAI 2000, 8th International Conference on Computers in Education/International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction 2000, pp. 1577–1578 (2000)Google Scholar