Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting

System 59 (2016) 100e115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting Ching Chang*, Chih-Kai Chang, Ju-Ling Shih Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 May 2015 Received in revised form 25 March 2016 Accepted 26 April 2016

This study examined how mobile inquiry-based learning (M-IBL) influenced students' learning motivation and achievement in accordance with motivational theory. It bridges a research gap by investigating the learning effectiveness of motivational design in M-IBL in a formal English as a Foreign Language (EFL) /L2 educational context. Two entire classes were recruited to participate in a six-week study. The experimental group undertook MIBL that was embedded with motivational strategies (MSs) containing motivational elements of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (ARCS). In contrast, the control group were provided with M-IBL without MSs. The results indicated that although there was no significant difference in learning achievement between the two groups, the students who received M-IBL instruction with motivational enhancement had significantly greater learning motivation than students who received M-IBL instruction without MSs. When analysing the components of the ARCS model separately, it was found that the students who participated in M-IBL with embedded ARCS MSs showed a significantly higher level of motivation in the dimension of ARCS-relevance, ARCS-confidence, and ARCS-satisfaction than those who participated in M-IBL without MSs. In light of this, instructional design suggestions that incorporate motivationally enhanced strategies for M-IBL in language learning contexts are provided. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mobile inquiry-based language learning ARCS model Motivationally enhanced strategies Language learning

1. Introduction Mobile technology has attracted a great deal of attention from educators with regard to integrating both traditional and innovative ways of teaching and learning into the curriculum as well as providing adaptability and utility across a wide range of educational learning activities in diverse learning areas. Similar to other subject areas, language instructors have widely applied mobile devices in designing language courses so that learners can access resources and benefit from various educational experiences (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2007). The development of mobile applications has generally adhered to pedagogical approaches, from the content delivery technique with basic drill exercises (e.g., Song & Fox, 2008), to interactivity with teacher-learner interactions or systematic feedback (e.g., Cooney & Keogh, 2007), and constructivism with collaborative frameworks (e.g., Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008). Although most educators seek effective ways to integrate mobile technology in language courses, instructional designs that follow motivational strategies and facilitate learning motivation in mobile language learning activities are scarce. Some

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Chang). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.013 0346-251X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

101

studies have shown that mobile-based learning activities for different learning contexts have enormous potential for enhancing student engagement, motivation, active learning attitude, and course retention (e.g., Ciampa, 2014; Joosten, 2010; € th, 2005). However, course instructors might ignore motivational enhancement in favour of instructional Schwabe & Go design, and inconsistently assume that the novelty effect of mobile technology is sufficient to stimulate student motivation (Huett, Kalinowski, Moller, & Huett, 2008; Jones, Issroff, Scanlon, Clough, & McAndrew, 2006). According to Malone and Lepper (1987), motivation is a fundamental element for student involvement in any type of learning task; what and how effectively students learn may be affected by their level of motivation. Ushioda (2013) also asserted that whatever the properties or affordances of mobile technologies or applications for language learning, a key point is the motivation that students bring to the learning, and how this is facilitated and supported. Although there is abundant research on motivational theories, few studies have shown empirical evidence regarding how well these theories apply in instructional design for mobile assisted language learning (Tran, Warschauer, & Conley, 2013). In other words, the question is, what theory helps instructors understand how to design mobile-based learning activities that improve learner motivation and have a positive impact on learning? More specifically, how can a learning task that promotes learners' engagement with mobile technology and facilitates their motivation be designed on the basis of motivational theory? Tran et al. (2013) highlighted that in order for this to happen, there is a need to identify and investigate the motivational components and processes of implementation that are required in mobile-based language instruction. The goal of the present study is clear and practical. A learning activity called mobile inquiry-based learning (M-IBL) was used to support learner motivation in language learning in the present study. M-IBL has been developed to engage learners in observing data to answer questions (Looi et al., 2011; Shih, Chuang, & Hwang, 2010). It is designed to interact with the physical environment in that it allows students to leave the classroom to engage in simultaneous interactions with the learning environment. In contrast with lecture-type learning where students are passive and receive knowledge, learners are guided to acquire knowledge through the learning materials. The idea of inquiry-based learning is based on a concept from constructivist literature (Cunningham & Duffy, 1996). However, problems regarding sustaining learner motivation could be a challenge in the context of M-IBL, especially when the learners are working independently in a real context without the assistance of their instructors (Shih et al., 2010). Students might feel isolated or lack the motivation needed to complete the requirements of the task. Therefore, the current study, in addition to immersing learners in the mobile learning context, focuses on using instructional design in learning activities in accordance with motivational theory to promote active learning and motivation. In contrast with theories such as achievement goal theory or self-determination theory, it is assumed that instructional design plays a crucial factor in stimulating student motivation. Keller's (1979, 1987, 2010) attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (ARCS) theory is feasible for use in the current study because its main focus lies in instructional design. The model is an attempt to integrate divergent motivational theories (e.g., behavioural, cognitive and affective learning theories) but patiently falls under an expectancy value framework. Keller (1987) believed that learner motivation can be affected by external conditions, and he argued that the essential components of ARCS help course developers to apply strategies that fit in instructional contexts. Thus, the four components of ARCS serve as the overall framework for the motivational strategies used in the study. Motivational strategies were used to deliver ARCS-based motivationally enhanced messages to students. These enhanced messages tailored to be embedded in the learning content were displayed on students' mobile screens to support their learning when they conducted inquiry tasks. The purpose of ARCS, therefore, is to deploy motivational strategies that are manipulated by instructors to improve the motivational appeal of instruction. Many studies have included Keller's (1987) ARCS model in their investigations. However, the majority adapted its questionnaires or cited the article to explain the effect of motivational improvement (e.g., Liu & Chu, 2010; Moses, 2008; Su & Cheng, 2014). Rather than simply using the questionnaires to assess motivation, the present study considered a holistic integration of ARCS motivational strategies, tailoring a task embedded with ARCS MSs. In other words, it highlighted Keller's (1987) ARCS MSs for instructional design. Through the realisation of the experiment, it was anticipated that meaningful activities would be created, students' interest and motivation would be facilitated, and thus, active learning would be promoted. Specifically, this study aimed to explore the role of embedded ARCS motivational MSs in M-IBL in enhancing learners' motivation and learning performance in foreign language learning. 2. Literature review 2.1. Mobile technology and inquiry-based learning Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is grounded in the central tenets of constructivism, which provides learners with opportunities to construct meaning by acquiring information from the outside world and developing a personal understanding of it through exploration, investigation and observation in their learning environments (Feletti, 1993). ‘Learning by doing’ with open-ended, student-centred, and hands-on activities encourages students to actively participate rather than be passive recipients of knowledge in a traditional teacher-centred model. IBL is traditionally developed in science study (Shih et al., 2010). However, its value has been used in English as L2 instructions. Research successfully demonstrates the combination of mobile technology and IBL approaches for language instruction: for example, context-aware mobile learning or contextualised mobile-assisted language learning (Liu & Chu, 2010; Tai, 2012). Studies show that M-IBL reflects the epistemologies of language learning, mainly stemming from: (1) inquiry that

102

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

leads students to read the texts for meaningful understanding, then identify learning issues, and work on their own problems; (2) a learning process enhanced by a collaborative/cooperative approach; (3) knowledge gain via the interactive process between the content and the context; (4) meaningful understanding of target subjects that further deepen understanding of how to learn. In short, learners travel a physical world but carry a mobile device that offers relevant/pre-set content and goals. Through the combination of the digital world and the physical environment, M-IBL immerses learners in a scenario that permits them to walk in the target places in the real world but access resources and learning material from the virtual world. Learners could gain the learning experiences anytime and anywhere (Chang, Shih, & Chang, 2013; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008). 2.2. Learning motivation The motivation of students in the classroom is always critical for course developers and instructors. A variety of motivational theories/models address motivational practice in the L2 classroomdfor example, Gardner's social-psychology theory € rnyei's process-oriented L2 model (Gardner, 1985), Crookes and Schmidt's framework (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), and Do (2001). Acknowledgement of these models is beneficial for comprehending learning processes. However, in the current study, understanding classroom-specific motives was a springboard for designing an effective instructional strategy to motivate, reinforce, and retain the interest of EFL learners. € rnyei's (2001) process-oriented model is regarded as one of the most influential frameworks in motivational strategies. Do The author illustrated how to organise motivation-relevant techniques in diverse learning conditions and offered a checklist of 35 motivational strategies for teachers to use in the language classroom. He asserted ‘time’ as a critical aspect in the motivation construct, for motivation is not a relatively stable variable but rather involves a complex mental process. The four principles serve as focal points for presenting motivational changes. In the first stage, motivation is created and generated. Then, attention to maintaining or protecting the generated motivation is necessary when learners are to complete certain activities. The last stage is to encourage learners to evaluate their work. These strategies mainly stress the psychology of language learners and the relationships among teachers and learners themselves in the L2 classroom. € rnyei's (2001) model specifically developed for foreign language teachers, Keller's (1987) ARCS model was Other than Do originally developed for classes using computers. However, its value has been applied to a variety of instructional contexts (Liu & Chu, 2010). The model attempts to integrate divergent motivational theories and demonstrates that external conditions could be successfully constructed to increase learner motivation. Keller (2010) argued that classroom-based learning motivations are based on actual external environmental pressure (e.g., instructional materials or teaching strategies) and that internal individual learning conditions (e.g., inherent motivation) contribute to the particular performance levels and behaviours of learners in the classroom. Whilst it is expected that motivated learners reach high levels of learning performance € rnyei and achievement, learners with low motivation tend to be closely linked to failure and lack of success. In addition, Do (2001) linked such lower motivation with learning environments where the teacher behaviours, learning situation, peers, and course book used can generate a tendency toward engaging in negative action. Keller (1983) argued that such external factors jeopardise learning intention, and instructional design is a key element that is often a ‘neglected heart’ in classroom settings. He established the ARCS model, offering promising elements for the appeal of learning motivation. This model assumes that there is value in learning whereby ‘learners have the basic motives and generalised expectancy for success’ (Keller, 2010, p. 32). Those who lack learner motivation could be affected by ‘deficiencies in the motivational characteristics of the instruction itself’ (Keller, 1979, p. 32). Only when techniques of motivational practice are considered is it possible for learners to maintain attention, find relevance in the content, build confidence, and feel satisfied with task completion. Comparing the two models, it is clearly seen that the two frameworks are in a similar vein, where motivation is concerned with responding to individuals' € rnyei's (2001) self-reported motivational conditions rather than with replacing the motivational capabilities of individuals. Do list of strategies provides concrete and observable methods for instructors to enhance learner motivation. However, Keller's (1987) model advocates four attributes in the motivational manipulations of the instructional process, offering a simple but useful framework for instructors to achieve their goals, which is adopted by the current study. Based on Keller's extensive review of the motivational literature, the four categories of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction (and their 12 subcategories) constitute the rationale of the ARCS model (see Table 1). The first three attributes are located in psychological theories of human behaviour, and the fourth attribute has more pedagogical origins (Keller, 2010). The first stage is to stimulate learners' curiosities so that the first attribute, attention, includes motivational variables referring to attracting learners' attention as sine qua non for learning to take place. The next stage is to ensure that learners believe that their learning experiences are personally relevant. The second attribute, relevance, is then related to instruction designed to assist learners in meeting their anticipated needs at the present time and in the future. The third stage involves helping

Table 1 Summary of Keller's ARCS model (Keller, 1987). Attention

Relevance

Confidence

Satisfaction

A1 Perceptual arousal A2 Inquiry arousal A3 Variability

R1 Goal orientation R2 Motive matching R3 Familiarity

C1 Learning requirements C2 Success opportunities C3 Personal control

S1 Natural consequences S2 Positive consequences S3 Equity

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

103

learners to become convinced that they can learn the materials and experience actual success on tasks. The third attribute, confidence, then refers to the perception of the probability of success and individuals' positive expectations regarding task accomplishment. When students are successful in achieving these first three goals, the next stage is to ensure that they have feelings of satisfaction with the learning process. The final attribute is satisfaction, which refers to the accomplishment of a task to offer feedback and reinforcement combined with extrinsic (praise) and intrinsic rewards (enjoyment) in order to sustain desired behaviour. According to Keller, each of the categories can be applied to a variety of instructional contexts, and ‘motivational interventions can be focused within a general category’ (Keller, 1987, p. 6). The ARCS guidelines have already been applied to instructional design in a non-mobile-based instructional context in previous research. For example, ARCS studies assessing computer-assisted instruction (e.g., Chang & Lehman, 2002; Song & Keller, 2001), the blended learning context (Gabrielle, 2003), and online or Web-based classrooms (Huett et al., 2007) have been published. Although previous ARCS research regarding mobile learning applications can be found, many of these studies merely adapted the ARCS questionnaires (e.g., Liu & Chu, 2010; Su & Cheng, 2014) or emphasised one of their motivational enhancements (e.g., Chang & Lehman, 2002; Moses, 2008) to claim learning effectiveness and motivation for learning. Moreover, little research can be found regarding the use of motivationally enhanced messages embedded in the learning content for language education in the M-IBL learning context. Thus, in contrast with these studies, the motivational strategy designed to deliver motivationally enhanced messages was built into the learning activity for EFL learners in the M-IBL context. More specifically, the present study adopted the ARCS MSs to design instructional tasks as the intervention in order to examine the differences in motivation and learning achievement in an M-IBL setting. Two instructional conditions were established; the first of these was M-IBL with embedded ARCS MSs, whilst the second was simply M-IBL. The learning goals of the study were rooted in motivation and achievement. The concrete research questions were as follows: 1. Do students who participate in M-IBL with ARCS MSs have better learning achievement than students who participate in M-IBL without ARCS MSs? 2. Do students who participate in M-IBL with ARCS MSs have higher learning motivation than students who participate in MIBL without ARCS MSs? 3. Is there a significant difference between the four ARCS dimensions of motivation of students who participate in M-IBL with ARCS MSs and those who participate in M-IBL without ARCS MSs? 3. Methods 3.1. Participants A sample of 67 second-year university students were recruited from two classes of EFL learners in a general English course at a university of science and technology in Taiwan. One of these classes comprised 35 students and the other had 32 students. The sign-up sheets for the study were distributed to these students, and all of them agreed to participate in the study. In addition, none of them withdrew at any point during the study. In regard to ethics, the researchers followed the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Technology (ROC). This included informing participants of the general nature of the research, maintaining their anonymity, and offering them the option of withdrawing at any time without any grading effect. To meet the requirements of the research experiment, the experimental group (N ¼ 35) was assigned to M-IBL with embedded ARCS MSs and the control group (N ¼ 32) was simply M-IBL without ARCS MSs. Their English proficiency levels were lowintermediate based on their English score on the university entrance exam. Both classes used the same course content, schedule, instructor, and examinations; however, they were guided using two different M-IBL strategies. 3.2. Research design 3.2.1. Mobile inquiry-based learning activity design Two learning objectives were tailored for the activity: (1) helping students to understand Confucius, the culture of the Taiwan Confucius Temple and its architectural features, and (2) taking language learning into consideration to help students to improve English language learning. Students benefited from learning the target language outside of a classroom in which language forms (grammar and vocabulary) were specifically reinforced. Students were expected to gain knowledge about Confucius as well as become familiar with content expressions in English after completing M-IBL. Three phases of learning were designed for the two groups of students to conduct the inquiry task. The first (preparation) and last (reflection) phases were completed in class, starting at the beginning with preparation for the task and finally with reflection based on a teacherled discussion and peer sharing of what they had learnt. The second (main) phase was devoted to field-trip learning, aiming to immerse students in an authentic learning environment to enable them to experience language learning and usage in varied contexts. Three themes surrounding the Confucius Temple were identified for the students: entrance, temple space, and school space. Instructional material was rewritten to fit the students' language proficiency level. An outline of the learning materials is given in Appendix 1. In the main phase, the design goal was to generate authentic peer discussion and deliver learning content over via mobile phones among the students. An inquiry task was designed to enable learners to become familiar with authentic situations,

104

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

learn by in-person viewing, gain information by accessing the quick-response (QR) code in the target places, and link the learning content to real life. In order to enable the students to understand the temple in detail, a question-and-answer form was designed to gather information about students' perceptions towards the required observation spots or features. It was anticipated that the multiple-choice question format would provide students with some cues or hints that would guide them to better see the target objects. Their curiosity could be elicited if they had some concepts or ideas about seeing the actual scenes after receiving the questions from the Open Data Kit (ODK) system. In this practical activity, mobile devices were used to serve as a scaffolding tool guiding them to conduct the inquiry learning. The researchers divided the query (learning content) into three parts: valuable features, history, and architecture. Students were asked to work in groups and were guided by ODK instruction. The instructions were presented in the forms of an action request (scan, photograph), query (observation, elaboration), and information (feedback, information) (see the description in Table 2). Taking the example of understanding the Stone Arch and its carved patterns, students would first scan the QR-code to locate the site and view the guidance (Fig. 1). Following the given questions (Fig. 2), they gained a rough idea about how to observe the Stone Arch, compared their knowledge and understanding with artefacts of reality, and received feedback (Figs. 3 and 4) from the ODK instruction to ensure their comprehension of the target spots. The instruction not only scaffolds students' inquiry of the authentic learning field and collection of the required data, but also guides them to make use of mobile technology in a helpful and meaningful way. 3.2.2. Motivational enhancement for the experimental group The motivational strategies for the learning material were designed using an understanding of the literature surrounding the ARCS model (Table 1). The enhanced messages written (feedback) were based on the instructor's and researcher's interpretations of what constitutes motivationally enhanced texts, and an adaptation of the earlier relevant studies by Chang and Lehman (2002), Gabrielle (2003), and Keller (2008). The embedded feedback within the learning material for the motivational strategies applied in the main phases of the current study is described. Based on the research design, the experimental group used the instruction offering the M-IBL task with ARCS MSs, whilst the control group referred to the instruction providing the M-IBL task without MSs. Table 3 gives an example of feedback from the students' query on the Ta Cheng Arch, presenting the difference between the two groups on the ODK instruction with and without MSs. Two types of feedback were utilized. One is for the control group containing only the target information (Fig. 3), and the other is for the experimental group containing the target information and motivationally enhanced messages (Fig. 4). The feedback in the experimental group is delivered according to the sequence of the query. In the beginning, the attention messages used to attract the students' attention are sent to their mobile device screens when they locate the spot. Messages associated with relevance, confidence, and satisfaction are then delivered by the time students finish the question, and information (content knowledge) is included in the feedback. Fig. 5 shows the delivery sequence of all motivational messages whilst students visited the Ta Cheng Arch. 3.2.3. Supported system of mobile inquiry-based learning activity ODK Aggregate, which is free software developed by the Google App Engine, was used to support the implementation. This tool is designed to allow users to manage and share data whilst dealing with programming or server maintenance. The structural design of its modular components means it is easy to deploy and use, and it allows the design of course learning material based on the intended needs (Anokwa, Hartung, Brunette, Borriello & Lerer, 2009). Thus, the learning content for the two M-IBL tasks was uploaded to an ODK form and presented on mobile devices (Figs. 1e4). Smartphones, offering features including wireless capability, camera, and the basic mobile phone functions of voice and SMS were chosen for the study. A specific mobile application was developed according to the M-IBL activities. The students followed the instructions presented on the mobile devices to conduct the learning tasks (Figs. 6e8). Numerous QR-code tags were attached to the target boards or objects placed on the walls of the specific learning zone (e.g., Fig. 9). These QR-code tags link to the webpage which presents the learning content on the mobile devices. The researchers downloaded the data from the ODK aggregate server when the students transmitted their inquiry data to the server (Fig. 10).

Table 2 Mobile inquiry-based learning activity and ODK instruction. ODK instruction

Type

Locate the site Find the object and observe it

Action Query

Seek the sites and describe them (elaboration) Taking pictures Feedback

Description

To scan the QR-code and follow the instruction presented by the mobile device Guided by ODK instruction to observe the target objects in order to answer the query on the mobile devices Query Guided by ODK instruction to seek some specific sites and describe them so that the students can answer the query Action To photograph the scenes of the target places Information Provide correct answers and explanations to the observational query

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

105

Fig. 1. The guidance for the mobile inquiry task.

Fig. 2. The query form for the mobile inquiry task.

3.2.4. Procedure Fig. 11 outlines the experimental procedure. The study was conducted over a six-week period. A mobile device was used to support student inquiry learning for both the experimental and control groups in the main learning phase. Before the experiment, all of the students took a pre-test and completed a questionnaire on motivation. During the instruction, the same instructor taught both groups the same learning content. The teacher offered both groups guidance in conducting an M-IBL activity outside of school. Following completion of the inquiry learning, the teacher led the students in finishing the learning process in class. A post-learning achievement test and a post-questionnaire for motivation were distributed. 3.2.5. Instruments The study utilised an achievement test and questionnaires about learning motivation in English language learning. The achievement test was based on course content and was developed by two experienced teachers along with the researcher. The validity of the content was determined via the cooperation of one experienced instructor and one doctoral student with a

106

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

Fig. 3. Feedback from ODK instruction without MSs.

background in English language teaching. The test consisted of three parts: vocabulary, grammar, and summarising. Questions about the learning content were developed in a reading-text form. The test was made up of seven multiple-choice questions for both the vocabulary and the grammar portions, and six fill-in-the-blank items for the short-reading summarising portion, with a total score of 100. Whilst students were asked to choose the correct answers on the answer sheet, attention was also paid to students' ability in the learning content of Confucius knowledge during the mobile inquiry learning journey (e.g., cultural vocabulary). The pre-test and post-test were identical. Test items comprising three parts were developed using materials provided by the textbook (focused grammar) and materials on the Taiwan Confucius Temple published by the Ministry of Culture in Taiwan (focused vocabulary). Two experienced instructors and the researcher first chose 25 items for the vocabulary, grammar, and summarising tests but kept 20 items (seven items for grammar, seven items for vocabulary, and six items for summarising) for the final test after piloting. For the test, the Kuder-Richardson reliability statistic was 0.85, and a Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.83. The Instructional Material Motivation Survey (IMMS) questionnaire was adapted and rewritten to fit the learning content (Appendix 3). The IMMS was developed by Keller (2010) and primarily served the purpose of the examination of instructional treatment and strategy (Keller, 2010). It consists of four dimensions (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) and a 36-item survey with five-level Likert-style rating scales, ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (very true). The measure can be scored for each of the four subscales or the total scale. The minimum score is 36 and the maximum is 180, with a midpoint of 108. In the current study, all four dimensions were included. The measurement of attention consisted of 12 items with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.88: relevance consisted of nine items with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.89, the confidence attribute consisted of nine items with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.91, and satisfaction comprised six items with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.92. 3.2.6. Data analysis In the present study, quantitative research data was collected for analysis. Descriptive statistics were utilized to describe and compare the means, standard deviations, and adjusted means of the achievement test results of the two groups. With regard to learning achievement and motivation, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adopted to compare the final learning results of the two groups. Use of the pre-test in the achievement test as a covariate eliminated the effect of any existing differences on the final results. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and post hoc comparisons were conducted to investigate whether there remained a significant difference in the four ARCS subscales of the post-test of learning motivation. 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of learning achievement This study examined the effectiveness of M-IBL with embedded MSs in terms of improving students' learning achievement. Descriptive statistics for the means and standard deviations relating to the two research groups are shown in Table 4. In

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

107

Fig. 4. Feedback from ODK instruction with MSs.

Table 3 Feedback from ODK instruction with/without ARCS components. Group

Locating the site

Experiment Ta Cheng group Arch: After you scan the QR-code, you are led to Ta Cheng Arch.

Control group

Ta Cheng Arch

Attention

Relevance

Confidence

Satisfaction

Feedback from the ODK instruction to attract students' attention: In this location, what special decorations and signs can you find on the wooden tablet? Remember, you have been guided to understand the learning topic of Confucius Temple and relevant vocabulary inside the classroom. You have some background knowledge with relation to Confucius and know what is expected of you in this task. e

Feedback from the ODK instruction to match students' needs of learning: This information is to give you knowledge in relation to the site you observed, which helps you expand your understanding of Confucius. You have learnt how to introduce it in English. Next time when you meet foreign friends, you can share the beauty and culture of this site with them and improve your oral ability.

Feedback from the ODK instruction to build a positive expectation of successfully completing the task: You have done a good job up to now. You have successfully conducted an inquiry of the Ta Cheng Arch outside the classroom. Once you complete all the requirements, you will have a sense of achievement. Go, run for the finish!’

Feedback from the ODK instruction to support the student's interest in the M-IBL context to learn language in pragmatics: Congratulations, you have learnt all about Confucius Temple and have gained further understanding of Confucian culture. You can confidently introduce and share the beauty and culture of this site with foreign friends or other students.

e

e

e

order to examine whether these groups had equivalent prior knowledge before the learning activity, a t-test analysis of the pre-test was performed. The means and standard deviations were 24.69 and 11.63 for the control group and 24.57 and 8.86 for the experimental group, respectively. No significant difference was found between the two groups of students (t ¼ 0.46, p > 0.05); they had equivalent prior knowledge before participating in the learning activity. ANCOVA was used to examine the first research question, with the pre-test as the covariate and the reading comprehension post-test scores as dependent variables. The adjusted mean value and standard error of post-test scores was 56.01 and 2.99 for the experimental group and 51.86 and 3.13 for the control group, respectively. On the basis of these results, no significant difference was found between the control group and the experimental group (F ¼ 0.913, p > 0.05). Students who learnt with the M-IBL method with embedded MSs did not appear to have learnt significantly more than those who learnt via the M-IBL method without MSs (Table 5). 4.2. Awareness of learning motivation An analysis of learning motivation was conducted after gaining an understanding of performance based on the different instructional strategy manipulations. IMMS scores served to analyse motivational differences between the two groups, and the t-test was first used to examine learning motivation. The results showed no significant difference between the IMMS motivation scores of the two groups (t ¼ 0.942, p > 0.05) before they participated in the learning activity.

108

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

Fig. 5. Motivationally enhanced messages from the ODK instructions.

ANCOVA was used to examine the impact of learning motivation on the two groups after the learning activity. Table 6 shows that the means and standard deviations of the IMMS scores were 136.40 and 18.58 for the experimental group and 126.53 and 14.24 for the control group, respectively. A significant difference in learning motivation was found between the two groups (F ¼ 4.84, p < 0.05). The adjusted mean of the experimental group (135.75) was significantly higher than that of the control group (127.24), revealing that M-IBL with embedded MSs had a significant impact on facilitating the students’ learning motivation. 4.3. Four elements of ARCS models motivation In response to the third research question, one-way MANOVA was used to examine the multivariate effect on each dimension of ARCS motivation for the two instructional conditions (Table 7). The results showed that there was a significant multivariate effect on four elements among these two groups: Pillai's Trace ¼ 0.28 F (4, 62) ¼ 6.27, p ¼ 0.001, d ¼ 0.28. Univariate independent one-way ANOVAs found significant main effects for the learning conditions with respect to motivation in aspects of attention, with the significance level set at 0.0125 (0.05/4), attention (F (1, 65) ¼ 0.351, p ¼ 0.55 > 0.05), relevance (F (1, 65) ¼ 8.38, p ¼ 0.005, d ¼ 0.12), confidence (F (1, 65) ¼ 10.53, p ¼ 0.002, d ¼ 0.14), and satisfaction (F (1, 65) ¼ 8.03, p ¼ 0.006, d ¼ 0.11). The effect size was around the small range, from 0.11 to 0.14. LSD in post hoc tests, setting each test at a significance level of 0.00625 (0.0125/2), indicating that M-IBL with embedded ARCS components was significantly higher than M-IBL alone, with respect to the relevance level, confidence level, and satisfaction level in the IMMS motivational scores. This indicated that M-IBL with embedded ARCS elements in instructional design could be a crucial factor for creating students' pragmatic language learning experiences in daily use, building their learning confidence, and allowing them to be satisfied with their achievement when involved in the M-IBL task. 5. Discussion and conclusion The aim of the present study was to explore the role of embedding the ARCS motivational MSs in the M-IBL activity and examine students' learning motivation and performance. In an effort to involve motivational theory in the instructional task,

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

109

Fig. 6. M-IBL field trip observation.

Fig. 7. Students check questions on the mobile.

Fig. 8. Students check questions on the mobile.

the current study describes how motivational strategy manipulations in instructional design result in different levels of motivation. A motivational strategy designed to deliver motivationally enhanced messages was used. The enhanced messages that were embedded in the learning content were shown on students' mobile screens. The messages were tailored to students using an understanding of the ARCS theory, and they were delivered according to the sequence of student query in the M-IBL activity, including attracting student's attention in the beginning, making students believe that their inquiry experience is relevant to their language learning, helping them to experience success in the M-IBL activity, and enabling them to have feelings of satisfaction regarding the completion of the task. Thus, it provides language instructors with a better

110

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

Fig. 9. The QR-code.

Fig. 10. ODK aggregate server screen presentation.

understanding of the application of ARCS theories in instructional design for the M-IBL environment. The findings on motivation from an ANOCOVA analysis show that those who participated in M-IBL with MSs demonstrated a higher level of motivation than those who took part in M-IBL without MSs. The findings mirror much of the research conducted in the ARCS model on non-mobile technology regarding motivational enhancement (e.g., Chang & Lehman, 2002; Huett et al., 2008; Keller, 2008) in that motivation is concerned with attracting student attention, introducing relevant learning content, improving student confidence, and generating satisfaction with the entire learning process. In addition, when investigating the subscales of ARCS motivation, a statistically significant difference was found between the means of the experimental and control groups for the following subscales: relevance (p ¼ 0.005), confidence (p ¼ 0.002), and satisfaction (p ¼ 0.006). However, no significant difference was found for attention (p ¼ 0.55). The findings of previous studies (Ciampa, 2014; Su & Cheng, 2014) provide convincing evidence that attracting students' attention is the key dimension of the motivating features of using mobile devices for learning. Although the current study further investigated motivational change in M-IBL when the ARCS model is considered within the instructional design, the results were different; ARCS-R (relevance), ARCS-C (confidence), and ARCS-S (satisfaction) were greater than ARCS-A (attention). One possible reason may stem from the fact that given the nature of the mobile field-trip approach used in this study, this result appears to make sense. Attention generally addresses curiosity about the subject matter and the learner's inquiry to find that learning material interesting and personally engaging. The M-IBL activity intended not only to situate students in authentic scenarios to learn about real-world target places but also to provide instruction and information in relation to the target objects they observed. Learners were involved in an authentic learning setting, exploring the surrounding contexts connected to pragmatic language use. After gaining scaffolding from the mobile devices, both groups of students could pay attention to working on the task requirements. Thus, this may explain why ARCS-A (attention) in the M-IBL group with MSs was not greater than that in the M-IBL group without MSs. Furthermore, the study also examined learning achievement for the two groups. In contrast to other mobile-enhanced findings on learning achievement (e.g., Liu & Chu, 2010; Su & Cheng, 2014), the students who participated in the mobile-

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

111

Fig. 11. The experimental procedure.

Table 4 Comprehension tests for two teaching strategies. Experimental group

Pre-test Post-test

Control group

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

35 35

24.57 56.00

8.86 18.02

32 32

24.69 51.88

11.63 17.30

Table 5 ANCOVA of comprehension tests. Group

N

Mean

SD

Adjusted mean

Std. error

F

Experimental group Control group

35 32

56.00 51.88

18.02 17.30

56.01 51.86

2.99 3.13

0.913 *

assisted learning activity with MSs in the present study did not have a significantly higher level of learning achievement than € rnyei those who took part without MSs. One possible reason could be explained by the time spent on the learning task. Do (1996) stated that ‘motivation leads to the learning behaviour, which in turn results in cognitive learning process, which leads to learning outcomes, including language proficiency’ (p. 79). This requires time to show learning production. As an example, in Astleitner and Lintner's study (2003), a motivationally enhanced treatment was used for self-regulated learners over a period of time. It was not until the third test that the self-regulated learners performed better in the motivationally enhanced condition than in the unenhanced condition. In other words, exploring the motivation that leads to achievement in instructional manipulation suggests that it is a long-term benefit. The six-week period used in the present study seems insufficient. In addition, only the pre- and post-tests were conducted in this study, which seems inadequate. For future research, a long semester planning time period with a three-round cycle of M-IBL is suggested. The instructors could develop a more systematic design to engage learners in the M-IBL. Based on the current study design, a six-week period completes a cycle of the M-IBL. A three-round cycle with three timed tests could be planned to correspond to a semester-long period (18 weeks) in a university setting. This would not only provide a context-rich scenario for learners in real-world settings but also help researchers to examine the influence of students' progress and motivation. Concerning the implications of the study, it is agreed that, in line with Ushioda's (2013) assertion, no matter how advanced the mobile technologies or peripheral equipment, what matters is what the learner him/herself brings to the learning. Instructors should realise this point and design instructional activities considering the importance of motivation. The study presents how M-IBL with MSs shows potential for considering the motivational needs and requirements of designing an

112

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

Table 6 ANOCOVA results of the IMMS scores for learning motivation of the two groups. Group

N

Mean

SD

Adjusted mean

Std. error

F

Experimental group Control group

35 32

136.40 126.53

18.58 14.24

135.75 127.24

2.66 2.78

4.84*

*p < 0.05.

Table 7 MANOVA analysis: elements of ARCS motivational model for the two groups.

Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Group

N

Mean

SD

F

Experimental group (E) Control group one (C) Experimental group (E) Control group one (C) Experimental group (E) Control group one (C) Experimental group (E) Control group one (C)

35 32 35 32 35 32 35 32

42.94 42.13 35.09 31.53 34.17 30.59 24.20 22.28

5.91 5.34 5.31 4.67 5.19 3.60 3.24 2.12

0.351n.s.

Post hoc tests

Partial

8.38*

E>C

0.12

10.53*

E>C

0.14

8.03*

E>C

0.11

*p < 0.05.

inquiry activity for authentic learning. It is essential for instructors to bear in mind that learners' motivation is key particularly when designing a challenging and adventurous learning activity outside of the classroom. Using ARCS MSs is beneficial not only for offering a model for instructional design but also for helping to facilitate and improve learners' motivation in an MIBL scenario. Language educators can improve motivation by employing the design and procedures related to the motivationally enhanced messages that the students received from the ODK system. Although the results are restricted to the specific research context and the particular mobile learning system, the apparent positive results should encourage similar studies for other M-IBL activities in other language courses. 6. Limitations The purpose of instructional design in this study was to embed motivationally enhanced strategies into an M-IBL activity outside of the school. However, some confounding effects could not be avoided. Due to the complexity of human motivation, a single intervention on instructional design could lead to positive, negative, or no effects on influencing individual motivation, although the last two were not intended by the design of this study. One potential limitation of the study would be that motivationally enhanced messages were continually shown on the mobile device screens. When students finished the questions or obtained information from the ODK instructions, motivationally enhanced messages were displayed on the screens. Such an ARCS design seems to present excessive enhanced messages to the students. It is possible that some students felt annoyed because the messages were similar to a certain degree. In addition, the design of the motivationally enhanced messages shown on the mobile screens was the main concept for the research design; however, the enhanced messages were shown together with information or instruction on the feedback of the ODK instructions, which might be inappropriate. In this situation, some students might ignore information presented on the feedback of the ODK instructions because they think the information received from the screen is about MSs messages. Thus, they may unintentionally miss some important information. Given the reasons mentioned above related to complex human behaviours as well as using M-IBL in a specific learning context and particular timeframe, it is hard to claim that the results can be generalised to other groups or learning conditions when claiming external validity. Keller and Suzuki's (2004) study about e-learning design contends that a systematic design of motivationally enhanced instruction in e-learning needs to consider individual conditions and characteristics. By receiving students' motivational attitudes from their feedback responses, instructors could include essential motivational tactics and avoid having excessive tactics. Our future study will address this issue. In addition, a mobile screen asking questions about learners' motivational conditions in the surrounding context could provide necessary support for delivering essential MSs. Separating information and motivationally enhanced messages is also necessary in order not to intervene in students' information gathering and receiving of appropriate motivational enhancement designed to improve attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction.

Acknowledgements We appreciated insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript from two reviewers. In addition, this study is partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R. O. C., under Grant no. MOST 104-2628-S-024-001MY3, MOST 103-2511-S-024-003, and MOST-104-2628-S-024-002-MY4.

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

113

Appendix 1. An example of learning content.

Theme

Related cultural knowledge

No. 1 Entrance No. 2 learning space No. 3 school space

Understanding the relevance of the Temple and School 1. Understanding cultural vocabulary and terms (e.g., gracefully, dragon, zone in ancient times. decorate, roof, figurine, gourd, stand out, etc.). The decoration of the Ta Cheng Gate and its special panel 2. Learning grammatical points: the past tense and passive forms. design.

The learning outline

The story of Morality Training: students go through it intending to become virtuous.

3. Visiting and inquiring about Confucianism in Taiwan.

Appendix 2. Sample of the achievement test.

Vocabulary ___1. Confucius Temple was the first and highest educational ___ in Taiwan. A. destination

B. culture

C. institution

D. company

___2. The central beam presents some beautiful carved ______. A. dismount

B. feudal

C. officers

D. figurines

___3. According to Confucianism, rituals and ____ are the two key elements in the pursuit of Confucianism. A. justice

B. ceremony

C. offending

D. admiration

___4. Eight stone lions ______ the Stone Arch as lovely statues. A. stand out of

B. put down

C. fly through

D. pull out

Grammar (the past tense, present perfect) Conf Based on the previous mobile inquiry, Confucius Temple has been an important part of Taiwan’s culture. 1.

In the ancient time, all students taking an examination __ to visit Confucius by passing through the Gate.

2.

The historical architecture in the temple building _____ changes over time.

A. has

B. has been

A. has undergone

C. have

D. had

B. underwent

C. undergoes

D. had undergone

3.

The historical architecture in the temple building _____ great changes three years ago.

4.

For decades, what ___ the Confucius Temple different from other historical temples?

A. has undergone

A. made

B. underwent

B. make

C. makes

C. undergoes

D. had undergone

D. making

Summary Based on the previous mobile inquiry learning activity and post-phase discussion, fill in the blanks with words from the units. Not all the words will be used.

influence,

respect,

philosopher,

discipline,

according to,

heritages,

a series of,

social status

Confucius is a world-famous teacher, and a master 1. ________. Based on his proposal, it was necessary to 2. ________ oneself and to revive the ethics of the Zhou Dynasty. Thus, he brought forward 3________ norms, which, step by step, developed into Confucianism. Imparting knowledge was only part of his teaching career; therefore, he travelled around the states to promote his ideas to people. In addition, he has set up a good example for people and had a deep and lasting 4. ________ upon his disciples. Most of his approach to education was pioneering because he promoted the ideas to ‘educate all people without considering their 5. ________’, and to teach students 6. ‘________ individual differences’. Up to the present, Confucian ideas are still popular in the modern society in China. It is one of the cultural 7. ________ of the world.

114

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

Appendix 3. Adapted IMMS questionnaire. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

When I first looked at the M-IBL activity, I had the impression that it would be easy for me. There was something interesting at the beginning of the M-IBL activity that got my attention. This local cultural learning material was more difficult to understand than I would like for it to be. After the introductory information, I felt confident that I knew what I was supposed to learn from the M-IBL activity. Completing the questions raised by the mobile devices gave me a satisfying feeling of accomplishment. It is clear to me how the content of this material is related to things I already know. Many of the instructions from the mobile device had so much information that it was hard to pick out and remember the important points. These learning materials shown on the mobile device are eye-catching. There were instructions, texts or information that showed me how this material could be important to some people. Completing this M-IBL activity successfully was important to me. The quality of the local cultural materials helped to hold my attention. This lesson is so abstract that it was hard to keep my attention on it. As I worked on the M-IBL activity, I was confident that I could learn the content. I enjoyed the local cultural learning so much that I would like to know more about this topic. The information raised by mobile devices looks dry and unappealing. The content of the local cultural learning material is relevant to my interests. The way the information is arranged on the mobile devices helped keep my attention. There are explanations of how people use the knowledge in the M-IBL activity. The questions in the M-IBL activity were too difficult. This M-IBL activity has aspects that stimulated my curiosity. I really enjoyed studying this M-IBL activity. The amount of repetition in the M-IBL activity caused me to get bored sometimes. The content and style of writing in this M-IBL activity convey the impression that its content is worth knowing. I learned some things that were surprising or unexpected. After working on the M-IBL activity for a while, I was confident that I would be able to pass a test on it. This M-IBL activity was not relevant to my needs because I already knew most of it. The wording of feedback after the exercises or of other comments in this M-IBL activity helped me feel rewarded for my effort. The variety of information, instructions and questions from the mobile devices etc., helped keep my attention on this M-IBL activity. The style of writing on this M-IBL activity is boring. I could relate the content of this lesson to things I have seen, done or thought about in my own life. There are so many words on each page raised by the mobile device that it is irritating. It felt good to successfully complete this M-IBL activity. The content of this M-IBL activity will be useful to me. I could not really understand quite a bit of the material in this M-IBL activity. The good organisation of the content helped me be confident that I would learn this local cultural material. It was a pleasure to work on such a well-designed M-IBL activity.

References Anokwa, Y., Hartung, C., Brunette, W., Borriello, G., & Lerer, A. (2009). Open source data collection in the developing world. Computer, 42(10), 97e99. Astleitner, H., & Lintner, P. (2003). The effects of ARCS-strategies on self-regulated learning with instructional texts. unpublished manuscript, Salzburg, Austria. Chang, M. M., & Lehman, J. D. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive multimedia programme: an experimental study on effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 81e98. Chang, C., Shih, J. L., & Chang, C. K. (2013). Motivating english-language learning by using mobile-quest learning approach. In Proceedings of AECT International Conference on the frontier in e-learning research (AECT-ICFER), 2013 June (pp. 255e262). Taiwan: National Central University. Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82e96. Cooney, G., & Keogh, K. A. (2007). Use of mobile phones for language learning and assessment for learning, a pilot project. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on mobile learning. Melbourne, Australia. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469e512. Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170e198). €rnyei, Z. (1996). Moving language learning motivating to a larger platform from theory and practice. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Do Pathways to the new century (Technical Report No. 11 (pp. 71e80). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. €rnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Longman. Do Feletti, G. (1993). Inquiry based and problem based learning: how similar are these approaches to nursing and medical education? Higher Education Research & Development, 12(2), 43e156. Gabrielle, D. (2003). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance, and self-directed learning. Ph.D. diss. Tallahassee: Florida State University Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Burgay, Suffolk, UK: Edward Arnold.

C. Chang et al. / System 59 (2016) 100e115

115

Huett, J. B., Kalinowski, K. E., Moller, L., & Huett, K. C. (2008). Improving the motivation and retention of online students through the use of ARCS-based emails. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 159e176. Huett, J., Moller, L., Harvey, D., Holder, D., Godshalk, V., & Engstrom, M. (2007). Examining the use of learning communities to increase motivation. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), In online learning communities (pp. 189e204). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Jones, A., Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., Clough, G., & McAndrew, P. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in informal settings: is it motivating?. In Paper presented at IADIS International Conference mobile learning. July 14e16, Dublin. Joosten, T. (2010). Mobile learning and social media: increasing engagement and interactivity. In Paper presented at the new media consortium Conference, June 9e12, 2010, Anaheim, CA. Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26e34. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335e382). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1e7. Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175e185. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer. Keller, J., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: a multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229e239. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). Overview of mobile assisted language learning: from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271e289. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Design for mobile and wireless technologies. In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age. London, UK: Routledge. Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630e643. Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., et al. (2011). 1: 1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269e287. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), III. Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223e253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moses, O. O. (2008). Improving mobile learning with enhanced Shih's model of mobile learning. Online Submission, 5(11), 22e28. Nah, K.-C., White, P., & Sussex, R. (2008). The potential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean context. ReCALL, 20(3), 331e347. €th, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 204e216. Schwabe, G., & Go Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social science learning effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50e62. Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Uses of the PDA for undergraduate students' incidental vocabulary learning of English. ReCALL, 20(3), 290e314. Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 5e22. Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2014). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268e286. Tai, Y. (2012). Contextualizing a MALL: practice design and evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 220e230. Tran, C., Warschauer, M., & Conley, A. (2013). Tapping the motivational potential of mobile handhelds: defining the research agenda. In G. Trentin, & M. Repetto (Eds.), Using network and mobile technologies to bridge formal and informal learning (pp. 1e29). Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation matters in mobile language learning: a brief commentary. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 1e5.