Quasi-experimental analysis reveals that instructional pacing influences motivation in learners, suggesting tailored strategies enhance engagement.
This study investigates the relationship between thinking styles; legislative, executive and judicial, and perceived motivation in the context of digital video production education. Grounded in Sternberg’s Theory of Mental Self-Government (MSG) and Keller’s ARCS model of motivation, the research examines the differential effects of two instructional pacing modes: learner-paced (DVC-LS) and system-paced (DVC-SS). The primary objective is to explore how these cognitive styles interact with instructional design to influence student motivation and engagement. A quasi-experimental design employing a 2x3 factorial structure was used, involving undergraduate students enrolled in multimedia and digital content development courses. Data were collected through validated instruments and analyzed using ANOVA and ANCOVA techniques to determine main and interaction effects. The findings reveal that legislative thinkers exhibit significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation in learner-paced environments that offer greater autonomy and flexibility. Conversely, executive and judicial thinkers demonstrate stronger motivation and engagement in structured, system-paced settings where clear guidance and defined expectations are present. The results suggest that tailoring instructional strategies to match students’ cognitive preferences can significantly enhance motivational outcomes and learning effectiveness. This study contributes to the growing body of literature emphasizing the role of personalized learning environments in higher education. By aligning instructional pacing with learners' cognitive characteristics, educators can foster deeper engagement, improved motivation and better overall academic performance. The findings have practical implications for the design of digital courseware, particularly in creative and skill-based domains such as digital video production.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: