Int'l J of Instructional Media Vol.

32(4), 2005

THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONAL

MEDIA ON LEARNER MOTIVATION

DAVID L. RODGERS
Marshall University GraduateCollege
BEVERLY J. WITHROW-THORTON
CharlestonArea Medical Center Institute
ABSTRACT
With a variety of instructional media available to educators, selecting the appropriate
instructional format is a critical decision to stimulate learner motivation. This study evaluated learners' perceptions of motivation in a comparison of three instructional formats:
lecture, video, and interactive computer-based instruction. Ninety-six participants were
assigned to one of three groups. Each group received training on the same subject by one
of the three instructional methods. A modified version of the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) was used to determine learner attitude and motivation. Computerbased instruction generated a higher degree of motivation than either video or lecture (p =
.000). There was no significant difference between video and lecture in the degree of
motivation each of these produced (p = .574). This study presented new information in
two areas. First, it targeted adult learners as opposed to the more commonly studied
K - 12 or college student. Second, it represented an expanded scope for the survey instrument.

INTRODUCTION
Motivation is an important element required for learning. Educators have a
variety of instructional media and teaching formats available to present information. Selecting a medium that motivates learners is an important consideration.
This study compares the effect of different media on learners' motivation to
learn. Through the use of a survey instrument - the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) - overall motivation to learn was evaluated. This study
provides new information in two areas. First, most applications of the IMMS and
other motivational scoring scales on learner motivation have been conducted in
academic arenas and included K - 12 or college students. This study shifted the
focus to adult learners in the workplace. This area has been much less explored.
Second, the IMMS was modified to increase its scope to evaluate instructional
media and format, not just instructional materials.
The Instructional Materials Motivation Survey was designed to evaluate how
333

334 / David L. Rodgers & Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton

instructional materials affect motivation to learn. Designed with the premise that
certain conditions must be present to stimulate the desire to learn, the IMMS [1]
was developed around Keller's [2, 3] ARCS model of motivational design. In the
model, Keller defined four basic human characteristics that need to be influenced
for people to learn: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. The IMMS is
designed with four sub-scales, one each to evaluate the effect of the four characteristics. The four subscales combine to create a total motivational score.
Because the IMMS is used to evaluate motivation in conjunction with instructional materials, it only evaluates state motivation as it relates to that instructional material. State motivation is a temporary condition that affects the level of
concentration and attention toward an assigned task. The IMMS does not evaluate trait motivation that is the underlying tendency to achieve higher degrees of
learning with little or no influence by the situation.
In describing the ARCS Model, Keller [3] offers these insights into the four
areas.
1. Attention - The learner's attention must be acquired and maintained. The
instructional material must have attention-getting strategies to direct the
learner to the material. Once that attention is achieved there must be attention-sustaining strategies employed to keep the learner's attention on task.
Coupled with this is the ability of the material to stimulate the curiosity of
the learner to learn more.
2. Relevance - Unless the learner perceives a need for the information, motivation to learn will be impaired. Instructional materials must be designed to
show that the information is important to the learner and relates to their
work or other personal goals or motives. Through the use of relevance-producing strategies, such as goal orientation or motive matching, learners must
be able to see how the subject matter will relate to their own experiences.
3. Confidence- A serious distracter to motivation is the inability of the
learner to maintain confidence in his or her ability to learn the material.
Frustrations with the complexity of the subject may decrease motivation.
Conversely, an over abundance of confidence may also produce a detrimental effect as the learner may skip over details after assuming to already
know the material.
4. Satisfaction - The learner must be satisfied with the learning experience in
order to maintain motivation. This satisfaction can manifest itself in both
extrinsic and intrinsic ways. Extrinsic rewards such as achieving a high
grade, course completion certificates, or other material awards help provide
motivation. However, intrinsic rewards are equally important. Receiving
positive feedback through interaction, improving self-esteem by learning
more about a subject, and the ability to control their own learning are
examples of intrinsic rewards.
The ARCS model gains its support from expectancy-value theory. Where
there is value attached to the task and the learner believes success is probable,
motivation increases as the expectation to succeed and the value of the task
increase [4, 5]. By improving confidence towards probability of success and

Media Motivation / 335

increasing the value of the task by creating a higher degree of relevance,

expectancy-value theory would predict higher degrees of motivation.
The IMMS tests the effectiveness of instructional material on motivation to
learn by evaluating how the material or presentation stimulates the learners
response to the four areas of the ARCS Model. The IMMS is a 36-item, selfadministered measure that uses a five-point Likert-type scale. The 36 items are
broken into four subscales based on the ARCS Model. Specifically there are 12
items for attention, 9 items for relevance, 9 items for confidence, and 6 items for
satisfaction. The total score can be used as an overall score to judge state motivation regarding instructional media or materials.
The purpose of this study was to identify how different instructional media
affected learner motivation in a workplace training situation. Three formats were
selected for evaluation: linear video that consisted of video taped presentations
with demonstrations of techniques and principals discussed, lecture presentations by experts on the subjects that included use of overhead projector as well
as demonstration of skills, and computer-based instruction that utilized an interactive multimedia format. These three instructional methods are representative
of methods frequently used in the workplace [6].
Based on earlier research that indicated computer-based instruction promoted
a more positive learning experience and could lead to a higher degree of motivation for the user, [7-91 it was hypothesized that computer-based instruction
would provide a more positive learning experience that should be reflected with
higher degrees of motivation to learn.
METHODS
Subjects
This study was experimental, comparing the motivation of three groups after
being assigned to receive training by one of three methods of instruction. The
dependent variable was motivation, ascertained with the IMMS, while the independent variable was method of instruction. The IMMS was administered to 96
subjects. The group consisted of new employees of a large medical center who
were undergoing safety training. Since the training is an annual requirement of
employees, new employees were used as the sample group because they had not
been previously exposed to the material. There were 76 females in the group and
20 males. Mean age was 33.
Procedure
Using a quota sample based on gender, age, and education, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Distribution of the quota characteristics
was equal allowing for the creation of three homogeneous groups. The groups
were then randomly assigned to receive the safety education in one of the three
formats. Each format provided the same information with the only difference

336 / David L. Rodgers & Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton

being the medium.

The video consisted of a series of professionally produced programs that utilized combinations of on-camera narrators, live action, graphics, sound effects,
and demonstrations. Lectures were conducted by hospital employees considered
experts on the topics with each speaker having presented the program many
times in the past with good student evaluations. Lecturers utilized supporting
materials such as overhead projector and slides as well as demonstrating some
procedures with props such as a fire extinguisher. Lecture is the usual format
used by the hospital to conduct new employee safety training. Computer-based
instruction was delivered in a computer lab equipped with a computer workstation for each employee in the group. The program was produced by the hospital
and featured a multi-media format with video, sound, and interactions such as
simulations, game playing, and quizzes. The subjects were scheduled to receive
the training as part of a regular new-employee orientation program. After receiving the training, subjects were asked to complete the IMMS.

Measure
The IMMS wording in its original form was not adequate for participants to
relate to all types of materials or media. In its unmodified form, the IMMS had a
bias towards written media, using expressions such as "the writing" and "words
on the page." Since non-written media was used in this study, some minor modifications of the questions were made to allow them to be applied to all of the
instructional methods in the study.
Alpha coefficients for the four subscales collected in this study indicated
moderate to high reliability. The total scale had an alpha coefficient of .89,
showing a marked relationship. Keller [10] reported a slightly higher reliability
for the IMMS in its original form. Reported coefficients for other application of
the scale ranged between .81 and .96 [11]. The individual subscale and total
scale coefficients for this study is compared against Kellers [10] reported coefficients as shown in Table 1. Using the same sample set, a split-half reliability test
was conducted. In a split across the four subscales, a reliability of .80 for the
total scale was found.
TABLE 1. ALPHA COEFFICIENT SCORES FOR IMMS

Subscale

N of Items

Alpha Level

Keller [10]

Attention

12

.76

.89

Confidence

.81

.90

Relevance

.66

.81

Satisfaction

.85

.92

Total Scale

36

.89

.96

Media Motivation / 337

RESULTS
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted with motivation, as reported
on the IMMS, as the dependent variable and instructional media as the independent variable that resulted in a significant finding [F (2, 93) = 17.515, p = .000]
that indicated that at least one of the media had a significant effect on motivation. In a post hoc test, computer-based instruction was found to have significant
differences when compared with video and lecture instruction on the total scale.
The LSD post hoc test revealed a mean difference between computer-based
instruction (CBI) and video of 27.3852, SE = 5.027, p = .000. It also showed a
mean difference between CBI and lecture of 24.5484, SE = 5.142, p =
.000.These findings support the hypothesis.
In each of the individual subscales - attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction - significant findings favored CBI as the favored medium (see Table 2).
For attention, relevance, and satisfaction, p = .000. For confidence, p = .020. The
LSD post hoc test indicated no significant difference between video and lecture
instruction in the degree of motivation each produced with a mean difference of
2.8368, SE = 5.142, p = .574. Findings for the total scale and each subscale for
the LSD post hoc test are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2 POST HOC TEST (LSD) ON IMMS

Mean Differ Standard

(A-B)
Error Significance

Subscale

Media (A)

Media (B)

Attention

Video

CBI
Lecture

-12.1205
-1.088

2.176
2.176

.000*
.618

CBI

Video
Lecture

12.1205
11.0323

2.176
2.226

.000*
.000*

Lecture

Video
CBI

1.0882
-11.0323

2.176
2.226

.618
.000*

Video

CBI
Lecture

-5.3083
.7562

1.339
1.339

.000*
.575

CBI

Video
Lecture

5.3083
6.0645

1.339
1.369

.000*
.000*

Lecture

Video
CBI
CBI

-7.562
-6.0645
-3.6869

1.369
1.369
1.551

.574
.000*
.020*

Lecture

-1.3321

1.551

.393

CBI

Video
Lecture

3.6869
2.3548

1.551
1.587

.020*
.141

Lecture

Video
CBI

1.3321
-2.3548

1.551
1.587

.393
.141

Relevance

Confidence

Video

338 / David L. Rodgers & Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton

Satisfaction

Video

CBI
Lecture

-6.2694
-1.1082

1.240
1.240

.000*
.374

CBI

Video
Lecture
Video
CBI

6.2694
5.1613

1.240
1.268

.000*
.000*

1.1082
-5.1613

1.240
1.268

.374
.000*

Video

CBI
Lecture

-27.3852
-2.8368

5.027
5.027

.000*
.574

CBI

Video
Lecture

27.3852
24.5484

5.027
5.142

.000*
.000*

Lecture

Video
CBI

2.8368
-24.5484

5.027
5.142

.574
.000*

Lecture
Total Scale

p < .025
DISCUSSION
The results of the overall score were highly significant in rating computerbased instruction as a more motivating medium than either video or lecture. At
the subscale level, findings that attention, confidence, and satisfaction were
greater for CB[ were consistent with much of the literature judging these attitudes against other media. An interesting result was the strength of the finding
on the relevance subscale. Despite all groups receiving the same information and
having the same potential opportunities to apply the information in their workplace, the CBI group felt the knowledge and skills were more relevant than
either the video or lecture groups. The CBI program was able to involve the
learners with the content and used techniques such as simulated scenarios that
required immediate learner input. These interactions and their instant feedback
provided opportunities for the learners to become more cognitively engaged and,
as Caincross and Mannion explained, "causes them to think about the material
that is presented, what it means, its relevance, how it can be applied and in what
contexts" [12, p. 161). In video and lecture groups, the instructional format provided information but did not provide practice opportunities. Through the use of
simulation and game playing, CBI provided opportunities for learners to demonstrate new knowledge and be given immediate feedback. This explanation for
improved motivation has been forwarded in other studies [ 131.
When evaluating these results against the theoretical basis of the ARCS
model, elements of expectancy-value theory are evident. In a recent review of
motivation literature, Eccles and Wigfield [ 14] summarized modem expectancyvalue theory development. As they noted, important influences on the expectancies and values included learners' feelings about their level of competence in
performing the task and their view of the difficulty of the task. Because of the
interactive nature of the CBI program, immediate feedback permitted learners to
build individual outcome histories more readily than learners in the other two

Media Motivation / 339

groups. This ongoing interaction as opposed to the more limited interaction from
linear video and lecture created a history of success that generated a stronger
degree of confidence in the material. Yildirim, Ozden, and Aksu [15] suggested
that learner-controlled instructional media causes increased motivation that leads
to feelings of increased confidence that then lead to even higher degrees of motivation. Other authors have cited CBI's learner-directed capabilities as an advantage over other methods of instruction [ 161.
There are other theoretical explanations for the success of CBI in generating a
higher degree of motivation. From the constructivist's viewpoint, CBI leads to a
more student-centered, self-directed approach that allows each learner to manage his or her own learning process. By being more engaged in the process, a
learner is able to construct a reality that has a higher degree of personal relevance [17]. This engaging process creates a more interesting learning environment that stimulates intrinsic motivation.
As for limitations, while the quality of each instructional method was thought
to be relatively equal, some variations may have existed that could have had
detrimental effects on motivation. This was managed by using professionally
produced programs for the video segments and CBI, and experienced expert presenters for the lecture sessions. This study looked at only three instructional
media. There are a number of other instructional methods in use in business and
industry including role playing, case study, and conference [6]. Additional comparisons with other methods would be valuable.
Although the IMMS has had frequent appearances in the literature [5], other
tested measures of evaluating motivation exist such as the Student Motivation
Scale [ 18]. However, Keller argues that while other measures are similar in their
intent, the IMMS is more specific with regard to the materials, not just the subject matter [101.
The original IMMS did require some modification to make it applicable to
these presentation formats. The application of the IMMS in this study was an
expansion of the scope of use for this measurement. It was felt the changes were
slight and the effect on the measurement's validity was not adverse. This was
supported by the relatively strong alpha coefficients reported in Table 1. Applying a modified form of the IMMS to this broader definition of instructional
materials was effective and indicates the expanded scope of use to include
instructional formats, and not just instructional materials, to be practical.
The IMMS has been modified by other authors with success. For example,
Small and Ferreira [19] revised the scale to create a measurement aimed at gauging motivation in reference to specific information resources. Dempsey and
Johnson [5] developed the ARCS Gaming Scale that focused on motivation
related to computer games. Eom and Reiser [161 modified the IMMS in their
study on the influence of student's self-regulated learning strategies on outcomes
including motivation and the level of learner- versus program-controlled CBI.
Others have used individual subscales of the IMMS with success [201. There are
other measurement instruments based on the ARCS model [21, 22], but the
IMMS remains the most well tested and reliable ARCS instrument to evaluate

340 / David L. Rodgers & Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton

the effect of instructional material on motivation.

The ARCS model was developed primarily using K- 12 students [231. As
Bohlin and Milheim [23] suggested, there may be different motivational factors
to consider when using the model to stimulate motivation in adults. With a
greater life experience and the potential to have learned attitudes that may reflect
negatively on one instructional medium over another, there are considerations to
be taken into account with adult learners. However, the instructional media utilized in this study were specifically designed for adults. Still, Bohlin and Milheim made a critical point in the importance of looking at adult implications of
the ARCS model, especially considering the accelerated rate of change and new
knowledge many adults in the work force face.
While this study shows a higher degree of learner motivation for computerbased instruction over video or lecture, this must be linked to learning and recall.
Without a successful link between these, curriculum and program designers may
have a difficult time justifying a change to computer-based instruction based
solely on motivation or satisfaction. While several studies have shown higher
degrees of learning [7, 8, 15, 24], other studies have proved inconclusive [9, 25,
26]. Continued research into this area is warranted.
Direct Reprint Requests to:
David L. Rodgers
Charleston Area Medical Center
Health Education and Research Institute
501 Morris Street
Life Support Training Center - 5 East
Charleston, WV 25301
Email: dave.rodgers @camc.org

Media Motivation / 341

REFERENCES
1. Keller, J. M., Instructional Materials Motivation Survey. Unpublished manuscript,
Florida State University, 1993.
2. Keller, J. M. The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, 26(9), p. 1-8, 1987.
3. Keller, J. M. Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and
Instruction, 26(8), p. 1-7, 1987.
4. Small, R. Motivation in instructional design. Teacher Librarian,27(5), p. 29-31, 2000.
5. Dempsey, J. V. and Johnson, R. B. The development of an ARCS gaming scale. Journal of InstructionalPsychology, 25, p. 215-221, 1998.
6. Shoenfelt, E. L., The relative effectiveness of training methods for attaining training
objectives: Current opinion of training practitioners. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 329 879), 1991.
7. Yang, Y. C. The effects of media on motivation and content recall: Comparison of computer- and print-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20,
p. 95-105, 1992.
8. Cronin, M. W., Grice, G. L., and Olsen, R. K., Jr. The effects of interactive video instruction in coping with speech fright. Communication Education,43, p. 42-53, 1994.
9. Ivers, K. S. and Barron, A. E., Teaching telecommunications: A comparison between
video and computer-based instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 378 963), 1994.
10. Keller, J. M., Manual for the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS).
Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, 1990.
II. Song, S. H. and Keller, J. M. The ARCS modelfor developing motivationally-adaptive
computer-assisted instruction, in Proceedingsof Selected Paper Presentationsat the
Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Houston, TX: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED436181),1999.
12. Caincross, S. and Mannion, M. Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the benefit. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,38(2), p. 156-164, 2001.
13. Klein, J. D., Freitag, E., and Wolf, B. Providingpractice using instructional gaming:
A motivating alternative, in Proceedingsof Selected Paper Presentationsat the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED323926), 1990.
14. Eccles, J. S. and Wigfield, A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annuals Review
of Psychology, 53, p. 109-132,2002.
15. Yildirim, Z., Ozden, M. Y., and Aksu, M. Comparison of hypermedia learning and
traditional instruction on knowledge acquisition and retention. Journal of Educational Research, 94, p. 207-214, 2001.
16. Eom, W. and Reiser, R. The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on
performance and motivation in computer-based instruction. Journal of Instructional
Media, 27(3), p. 247-260, 2000.

342 / David L. Rodgers & Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton

17. Bailey, D. H. Constructivism and multimedia: Theory and application; innovation and
transformation. InternationalJournal of InstructionalMedia, 23(2), p. 161-165, 1996.
18. Beatty, M. J., Student motivation scale, in Communication Research Measures, R.B.
Rubin, P. Palmgreen, and H.E. Sypher, (Eds.). Guilford: New York. p. 343-346, 1994.
19. Small, R. V. and Ferreira, S. M. Information location and use, motivation, and learning patterns when using print or multimedia information resources. Journal of EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia, 3, p. 251 -271, 1994.
20. Price, C. B. Affective and cognitive influences of textual display in printed instruction.
in Proceedings of Selected Paper Presentationsat the Convention of the Association
for EducationalCommunications and Technology. Anaheim, CA: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No ED323941),1990.
21. Small, R., Motivation in instructional design (Report No. EDO-IR-97-06). Eric
Digest: Syracuse, NY, 1997.
22. Bohlin, R. M., Milheim, W. D., and Viechnicki, K. J. Factoranalysis of the instructional motivation needs of adult reamers. in Proceedingsof Selected Research and
Development Presentationsat the 1994 National Convention of the Associationfor
Educational Communications and Technology Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division. New Orleans: LA: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED
362152), 1993.
23. Bohlin, R. M. and Milheim, W. D. Applications of an adult motivational instructional
design model, in Proceedingsof Selected Research and Development Presentations
at the 1994 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division. Nashville,
TN: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED373704), 1994.
24. Chang, C.Y. Does computer-assisted instruction + problem solving improved science
outcomes? A pioneer study. Journalof EducationalResearch, 95(3), p. 143-150, 2002.
25. Crain, L. A. Effects of instructional media on immediate and long-term recall. Interpersonalcomputing and technology, 2(2), p. 19-27, 1994.
26. Maul, G. P. and Spotts, D. S. A comparison of computer-based instruction and classroom instruction. IndustrialEngineering,25(2), p. 25-27, 1993.

AUTHOR NOTE
David L. Rodgers is a candidate in Curriculum and Instruction at Marshall
University Graduate College (South Charleston, W. Va.,USA).
Beverly J. Withrow-Thorton is a Health Communications Specialist with the
Charleston Area Medical Center Health Education and Research Institute

(Charleston, W.Va., USA)

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE:
SOURCE:
PAGE(S):
WN:

The Effect of Instructional Media on Learner Motivation

International Journal of Instructional Media 32 no4 2005
333-42
0500402715006

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.adprima.com/ijim.htm

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company.

All rights reserved.