Aims: Higher education plays a crucial role in preparing competent graduates, yet a significant gap remains between academic theoretical knowledge and the practical skills required in professional environments. This gap stems from traditional teaching methods, inflexible curricula, and ineffective knowledge transfer. One of the major challenges in higher education is the decline in students’ academic motivation a factor that directly influences academic achievement, reduces anxiety, enhances creativity, and improves overall performance. Many educational systems worldwide face student demotivation and its negative consequences, such as academic underachievement. The presence of students with similar abilities but different motivation levels highlights the importance of addressing motivational factors.In response to these challenges, modern approaches such as constructivism have emerged, emphasizing active learning and the central role of the learner. This approach strengthens intrinsic motivation by enhancing self-efficacy and fosters collaborative learning environments that reduce anxiety and stimulate creativity. Evidence shows that constructivist, active teaching methods create meaningful connections between educational content and students’ real needs, thereby enhancing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Accordingly, the present study examines the effectiveness of constructivist instruction in improving academic motivation among architecture students.
Materials & Methods:  This applied study employed a quasi-experimental design with pre-test and post-test measurements across experimental and control groups. The statistical population consisted of first-semester undergraduate architecture students and first-semester associate architecture students at the National Girls’ Skills College in Sari, enrolled in the Perspective course during the 2023–2024 academic year. The control group included 15 associate students, while the experimental group consisted of 21 undergraduate students. The independent variable was the constructivist instructional model, delivered to the experimental group in twelve weekly sessions, each lasting three hours.The dependent variable, academic motivation, was assessed using Vallerand’s Academic Motivation Scale (1992), based on Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory. The scale includes 28 items measuring intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of each motivational dimension. The questionnaire was administered to both groups at the beginning and again at the end of the course. Constructivist teaching strategies were adapted to the study context and organized into three domains: objectives and content, instructional methods, and assessment. In terms of objectives and content, lesson plans were adjusted flexibly according to students’ levels, and assignments were personalized. Instructional methods included providing educational videos alongside in-class teaching, allowing students to review concepts outside the classroom. Assessment strategies involved continuous evaluation, periodic interim submissions, and a final exam. Since both groups shared identical classroom environments, physical learning conditions were not examined. This design enabled a clear comparison of the impact of constructivist instruction on students’ academic motivation.
Findings: All participants in this study were female architecture students at the National Girls’ Skills College in Sari, aged between 18 and 20. The experimental group consisted of 21 undergraduate architecture students, while the control group included 15 associate-level students. The age distribution in both groups showed that most participants were 18 years old. The results of academic motivation were examined across three dimensions: amotivation, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation, in both pre-test and post-test stages. Findings revealed that the mean score of amotivation in the experimental group decreased from 32.60±3.80 in the pre-test to 28.40±3.20 in the post-test, while the control group showed only a minimal reduction from 33.10±4.10 to 32.80±3.90. This notable decline demonstrates the effectiveness of the constructivist teaching model in reducing students’ amotivation. For intrinsic motivation, the experimental group showed an increase from 66.70±5.12 to 72.40±4.85, whereas the control group exhibited only a slight improvement. This indicates that constructivist instruction significantly enhanced students’ intrinsic motivation and their active engagement in learning. In the dimension of extrinsic motivation, the experimental group’s mean increased moderately from 58.20±4.95 to 62.10±4.30, while changes in the control group were negligible. Overall, the results confirm that constructivist teaching has a positive impact on reducing amotivation and enhancing intrinsic motivation among architecture students.
Conclusion: In contemporary society, social development is a key concern for policymakers, and one of its important indicators is academic achievement within educational systems. Motivation whether intrinsic or extrinsic plays a fundamental role in individuals’ success, as it drives purposeful effort, productivity, and effective planning. Educational approaches have a significant impact on strengthening students’ motivation, and among them, constructivist teaching is recognized as an effective method for enhancing academic motivation. This study aimed to investigate the effect of constructivist instruction on the academic motivation of architecture students. The findings revealed that this teaching method significantly increased intrinsic motivation and reduced amotivation among students. Although a positive effect was also observed on extrinsic motivation, its magnitude was smaller compared to intrinsic motivation. These results align with previous studies that highlight the importance of active, project-based, and collaborative learning environments in promoting academic motivation. Overall, the study suggests that constructivism by fostering interactive learning opportunities, personalizing content, and enhancing students’ self-efficacy can serve as an effective approach to addressing motivational challenges in higher education, particularly in practice-oriented fields such as architecture. It also underscores the need for educational policymakers to support the broader implementation of active teaching methods.