True experimental design reveals the ARCS model significantly improves academic achievement in biology students, suggesting better outcomes than traditional lectures.
This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) Model on the academic achievement of 9th-grade biology students in District Swabi. The objectives of the study were: to investigate the effect of the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model on the academic achievement of secondary school students and to compare the effect of the ARCS model and lecture method on the academic achievement of the students in the subject of Biology. This study was a true experimental, and the pretest-posttest control group design was employed in this study. All the students of the 9th grade (148) at Government High School, Lahor (Swabi) constituted the population of this study. Random sampling technique through matching pairs was used to select 60 students of the 9th grade as a sample for the study. The pre-test consisted of a research instrument, i.e., the Subject Achievement Test. The experimental group was instructed through the ARCS model, and the control group was instructed through the lecture method. Eight lesson plans were developed, covering all four components of the ARCS model. Descriptive analysis was used to calculate the Mean and Standard Deviation. A t-test was applied. SPSS (25) was used for the whole data analysis. This study highlights the use of the ARCS Model; the experimental group did much better in school, as shown by significant increases in post-test scores, high positive correlations, and large t-test findings. The control group, on the other hand, only showed a small improvement in post-test scores with a weak association and less noticeable gains. Overall, the findings strongly support the idea that the ARCS Model is better than the lecture-based approach to helping 9th-grade students do better in school and keep doing better.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: