skip to main content
research-article

Modeling Dyslexic Students’ Motivation for Enhanced Learning in E-learning Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:09 November 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

E-Learning systems can support real-time monitoring of learners’ learning desires and effects, thus offering opportunities for enhanced personalized learning. Recognition of the determinants of dyslexic users’ motivation to use e-learning systems is important to help developers improve the design of e-learning systems and educators direct their efforts to relevant factors to enhance dyslexic students’ motivation. Existing research has rarely attempted to model dyslexic users’ motivation in e-learning context from a comprehensive perspective. The present work has conceived a hybrid approach, namely, combining the strengths of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, to motivation modeling. It examines a variety of factors that affect dyslexic students’ motivation to engage in e-learning systems from psychological, behavioral, and technical perspectives, and establishes their interrelationships. Specifically, the study collects data from a multi-item Likert-style questionnaire to measure relevant factors for conceptual motivation modeling. It then applies both covariance-based (CB-SEM) and variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approaches to determine the quantitative mapping between dyslexic students’ continued use intention and motivational factors, followed by discussions about theoretical findings and design instructions according to our motivation model. Our research has led to a novel motivation model with new constructs of Learning Experience, Reading Experience, Perceived Control, and Perceived Privacy. From both the CB-SEM and PLS-SEM analyses, results on the total effects have indicated consistently that Visual Attractiveness, Reading Experience, and Feedback have the strongest effects on continued use intention.

References

  1. D. Gooch, A. Vasalou, L. Benton, and R. Khaled. 2016. Using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia using gamification to motivate students with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). 969--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. J. Rose. 2009. Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. An independent report to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//14790/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Wang, L. Chen, I. Solheim, T. Schulz, and A. Ayesh. 2017. Conceptual motivation modeling for students with dyslexia for enhanced assistive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces for Ubiquitous and Smart Learning (SmartLearn’17). 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. W. E. Blank and S. Harwell (Eds.). 1997. Promising Practices for Connecting High School to the Real World. University of South Florida, Tampa. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED407586.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P. C. Dev. 1997. Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial Spec. Educ. 18, 1 (1997), 12--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S. Walker and D. Prytherch. 2008. How is it for you? (a case for recognising user motivation in the design process). In Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction: From Theory to Applications, C. Peter and R. Beale (Eds.). Springer Berlin, 130--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Gefen, 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. AIS 4 (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Amaro, C. Seabra, and J. L. Abrantes. 2015. Comparing CB-SEM and PLS-SEM results: An empirical example. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Partial Least Squares Path Modeling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. E. Civelek. 2018. Comparison of covariance-based and partial least square structural equation modeling methods under non-normal distribution and small sample size limitations. Euras. Econ. Stat. Empir. Econ. J. 10, 39--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Ajzen and T. J. Madden. 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 5 (1986), 453--474.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 1 (2000), 54--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. R. H. Shroff and D. R. Vogel. 2009. Assessing the factors deemed to support individual student intrinsic motivation in technology supported online and face-to-face discussions. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 8 (2009), 59--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. Sun. 2008. An examination of disposition, motivation, and involvement in the new technology context computers in human behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 6 (2008), 2723--2740. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 4 (2002), 227--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Bandura. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Bandura. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. M. Keller. 2010. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Daki and R. S. Savage. 2010. Solution-focused brief therapy: Impacts on academic and emotional difficulties. J. Educ. Res. 103 (2010), 309--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. Glazzard. 2010. The impact of dyslexia on pupils's self-esteem. Supp. Learn. 25, 2 (2010), 63--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Burden and J. Burdett. 2005. Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. Brit. J. Spec. Educ. 32, 2 (2005), 100--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. L. Derbali and C. Frasson. 2012. Assessment of learners’ motivation during interactions with serious games: A study of some motivational strategies in food-force. Adv. Hum.-comput. Interact. — Special Iss. User Asses. Se. Games Technol.-enhanc. Learn. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/624538. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Z. Dörnyei. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. L. Barolli, A. Koyama, A. Durresi, and G. De Marco. 2006. A web-based e-learning system for increasing study efficiency by stimulating learner's motivation. Inf. Syst. Front. 8 (2006), 297--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. N. A. Alias. 2012. Design of a motivational scaffold for the Malaysian e-learning environment. Educ. Technol. Soc. 15, 1 (2012), 137--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. I. Arroyo, J. Johns, T. Dragon, and H. Mahadevan. 2007. Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work. 195--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. Hurley. 2006. Intervention strategies to increase self-efficacy and self-regulation in adaptive on-line learning. Adapt. Hypermed. Adapt. Web-based Syst. 440--444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Chang, C. Chang, and J. Shih. 2016. Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting. System 59, (2016), 100--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. L. Cidrim and F. Madeiro. 2017. Information and communication technology (ICT) applied to dyslexia: Literature review. Rev. CEFAC 19, 1 (2017), 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. K. Dawson, P. Antonenko, H. Lane, and J. Zhu. 2018. Assistive technologies to support students with dyslexia. Teach. Except. Child. 51, 3 (2018), 226--239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. E. Lindeblad. 2017. Assistive technology as reading interventions for children with reading impairments with a one-year follow-up. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 12, 7 (2017), 713--724.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. T. Verhagen, F. Feldberg, B. Van Den Hooff, S. Meents, and J. Merikivi. 2012. Understanding users’ motivations to engage in virtual worlds: A multipurpose model and empirical testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 2 (2012), 484--495. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. F. D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 3 (1989), 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. C. C. Chang, C. Liang, C. F. Yan, and J. S. Tseng. 2013. The impact of college students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on continuance intention to use English mobile learning systems. Asia-Pacif. Educ. Res. 22, 2 (2013), 181--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27, 3 (2003), 425--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. El-masri and A. Tarhini. 2017. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the unified theory. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65 (2017), 743--763.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. N. Singh, N. Sinha, and F. J. Liébana-Cabanillas. 2020. Determining factors in the adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: Analysis of the effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 50 (2020), 191--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. B. Park, H. Chang, and S. (Steven) Park. 2019. Adoption of digital devices for children education: Korean case. Telemat. Inform. 38 (2019), 247--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. R. M. Tawafak, A. B. T. Romli, R. Bin, and A. Arshah. 2018. Continued intention to use UCOM: Four factors for integrating with a technology acceptance model to moderate the satisfaction of learning. IEEE Access 6, (2018), 66481--66498.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. T. C. Herrador-Alcaide, M. Hernández-Solís, and R. S. Galván. 2019. Feelings of satisfaction in mature students of financial accounting in a virtual learning environment: An experience of measurement in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16, 20 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. A. Hanif, F. Q. Jamal, and M. Imran. 2018. Extending the technology acceptance model for use of e-learning systems by digital learners. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 73395--73404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. F. A. Kimathi and Y. Zhang. 2019. Exploring the general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach on student's usage intention on e-learning system in University of Dar es Salaam. Creat. Educ. 10 (2019), 208--223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. C.-T. Chang, J. Hajiyev, and C.-R. Su. 2017. Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Comput. Educ. 111 (2017), 128--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. A. Mehta, N. Morris, B. Swinnerton, and M. Homer. 2019. The influence of values on e-learning adoption. Comput. Educ. 141 (2019), 103617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. T. He and S. L., 2019. A comparative study of digital informal learning: The effects of digital competence and technology expectancy. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 4 (2019), 1744--1758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. M. Al-Emran, V. Mezhuyev, and A. Kamaludin. 2018. Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 125 (2018), 389--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. A. Y. Alsobhi, N. Khan, and H. Rahanu. 2015. DAEL framework : A new adaptive e-learning framework for students with dyslexia. Procedia Comput. Sci. 51, (2015), 1947--1956. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Y. Griffiths and M. Stuart. 2013. Reviewing evidence-based practice for pupils with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. J. Res. Read. 36, 1 (2013), 96--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. R. Wang, L. Chen, and I. Solheim. 2017. A conceptual system architecture for motivation- enhanced learning for students with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on E-education, E-business and E-technology. 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. T. J. Larsen, A. M. Sørebø, and Ø. Sørebø, 2009. The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 3 (2009), 778--784. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. C. Martins, T. Oliveira, and A. Popovič. 2014. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34 (2014), 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. J. Moon and Y. Kim. 2001. Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf. Manag. 38, 4 (2001), 217--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. V. Venkatesh. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11 (2000), 342--365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Y. Lee, J. Lee, and Y. Hwang. 2015. Relating motivation to information and communication technology acceptance: Self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51 (2015), 418--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. L. A. Mills, G. A. Knezek, and J. S. Wakefield. 2013. Understanding information seeking behavior in technology pervasive learning environments of the 21st century. Turk. Onl. J. Educ. Technol. 12, 4 (2013), 200--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. G. S. Leng, S. Lada, and M. Z. Muhammad. 2011. An exploration of social networking sites (SNS) adoption in malaysia using technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and intrinsic motivation. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 16, 2 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. M. Standage, J. L. Duda, and N. Ntoumanis. 2003. A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. J. Educ. Psychol 95, 1 (2003), 97--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. J. B. Ullman. 2001. Structural equation modeling. In Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.), B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell (Eds.). Allyn 8 Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 653--771.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. J. B. Schreiber, F. K. Stage, J. King, A. Nora, and E. A. Barlow. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research 99, 6 (2006), 323--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. J. F. Hair Jr., L. M. Matthews, R. L. Matthews, and M. Sarstedt. 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 1, 2 (2017), 107--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. W. J. Reinartz, M. Haenlein, and J. Henseler. 2009. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Mark. Res. 26, 4 (2009), 332--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. J. L. Arbuckle. 2013. Amos (Version 22.0). IBM SPSS, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS, Bönningstedt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. D. L. Goodhue, W. Lewis, and R. Thompson. 2012. Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data?. MIS Quart. 36, 3 (2012), 981--1001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. H. W. Marsh, J. R. Balla, and R. P. McDonald. 1988. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychol. Bull. 103, 3 (1988), 391--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2012. Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Plann. 45, 5--6, (2012), 312--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. J. F. Hair Jr, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 1 (1981), 39--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. N. Kock. 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 11, 4 (2015), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. R. K. Chellappa and P. A. Pavlou. 2002. Perceived information security, financial liability and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logist. Inf. Manag. 15, 5/6, (2002), 358--368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. M. A. Patton and A. Jøsang. 2004. Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electron. Commer. Res 4, 1--2, (2004), 9--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. H.-L. Chou and C.-H. Chen. 2016. Beyond identifying privacy issues in e-learning settings—Implications for instructional designers. Comput. Educ 103, C, (2016), 124--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. V. Terzis, C. N. Moridis, and A. A. Economides. 2012. How student's personality traits affect computer based assessment acceptance: Integrating BFI with CBAAM. Comput. Hum. Behav 28, 5 (2012), 1985--1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. B. Wheaton, B. Muthén, D. F. Alwin, and G. F. Summers. 1977. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol. Methodol. 8 (1977), 84--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. B. M. Byrne. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. I. Hu and P. M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 6, 1 (1999), 1--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing), Vol. 20. 277--319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. J. F. Hair Jr., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 46, 1--2 (2013) 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. M. Stone. 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. 36, 2 (1974), 111--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. S. Geisser. 1974. A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika 61, 1 (1974), 101--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. K. K. Wong. 2013. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using smartPLS. Mark. Bull. 24 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. W. W. Chin. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research, G. A. Macoulides (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 295--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. J. Cohen. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. X. Zhao, J. G. Lynch Jr., and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37, 2 (2010), 197--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. S. A. Nikou and A. A. Economides. 2017. Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Comput. Educ. 109, C (2017), 56--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. M. Fetscherin and C. Lattemann. 2008. User acceptance of virtual worlds. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 9, 3 (2008), 231--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. J. Merikivi. 2009. What Habbo goers do in practice? Decomposing attitudinal beliefs. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. S. A. Eroglu, K. A. Machleit, and L. M. Davis. 2001. Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. J. Bus. Res. 54, 2 (2001), 177--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Y. Zhao, J. Ye, and T. Henderson. 2016. The effect of privacy concerns on privacy recommenders. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 218--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. S. Liaw. 2008. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. 51 (2008), 864--873. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. C. R. Plouffe, J. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch. 2001. Research report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions—understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 2 (2001), 208--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. J. C. Roca and M. Gagne. 2008. Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (2008), 1585--1604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Y. Malhotra, D. Galletta, and L. Kirsch. 2008. How endogenous motivations influence user intentions: Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25, 1 (2008), 267--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. S. Stienen-Durand and J. George. 2014. Supporting dyslexia in the programming classroom. In DSAI 2013, Procedia - Procedia Computer Science 27 (2014), 419--430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. R. A. Taj and M. A. Malik. 2010. Conclusive study to uncover the attributors for success and failure of learning disabled children. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 16, 4 (2010), 590--592.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. R. M. Klassen and S. L. Lynch. 2007. Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with LD and their specialist teachers. J. Learn. Disabil. 40, 7 (2007), 494--507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. N. Alexander‐Passe. 2008. The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school‐aged dyslexics, compared with sibling controls. Dyslexia 14, 4 (2008), 291--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. P. Mweli. 2012. Exploring learners’ experiences of inclusive education: The voice of the voiceless. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544051.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. N. Humphrey. 2002. Self-concept and self-esteem in developmental dyslexia. Brit. J. Spec. Educ. 29, 1 (2002), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. B. P. Woodfine, M. Baptista Nunes, and D. J. Wright. 2008. Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! Comput. Educ. 50 (2008), 703--717. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. H. Goldstein. 2003. Multilevel Statistical Models (3rd ed). Hodder Arnold, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. M. Goudas and S. J. H. Biddle. 1994. Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical education classes. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 9, 3 (1994), 241--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  102. P. Athanasios. 1994. Development of a questionnaire to measure achievement orientations in physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 65, 1 (1994), 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. D. C. Treasure and G. C. Roberts. 2001. Students’ perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs and satisfaction in physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 72, 2 (2001), 165--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  104. R. L. Oliver. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17, 4 (1980), 460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Modeling Dyslexic Students’ Motivation for Enhanced Learning in E-learning Systems

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
            ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems  Volume 10, Issue 3
            Special Issue on Data-Driven Personality Modeling for Intelligent Human-Computer Interaction
            September 2020
            189 pages
            ISSN:2160-6455
            EISSN:2160-6463
            DOI:10.1145/3430388
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2020 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 9 November 2020
            • Accepted: 1 September 2019
            • Revised: 1 July 2019
            • Received: 1 February 2019
            Published in tiis Volume 10, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format