Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive Instructional Design (CID) Model for English Proficiency in Higher Education
Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia 
Article Sidebar
-
Cognitive Instructional Design, English for Proficiency, Instructional Design, TOEFL
Abstract
Background. English proficiency is an important competency in higher education, yet some students struggle to meet institutionally required TOEFL standards.
Purpose. This study developed and evaluated a Cognitive Instructional Design (CID) model and an integrated learning package for proficiency-oriented English instruction. The package comprised a model book, Student’s Book, Assessment Book, Teacher’s Book, and Online Review Materials delivered through Google Classroom.
Method. A development study using the Dick, Carey, and Carey instructional design model was conducted at STKIP PGRI Tulungagung, Indonesia. A purposive sample of 16 undergraduate students enrolled in an Introduction to TOEFL course completed a one-group pretest–posttest evaluation after six instructional sessions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired-samples t-tests; normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
Results. Mean total proficiency scores increased from 409.13 (SD = 48.73) at pretest to 470.25 (SD = 31.24) at posttest, a mean increase of 61.13 points, t(15) = ?9.034, p < .001, 95% CI [?75.55, ?46.70] for the pretest-minus-posttest difference. The within-group effect size was Cohen’s dz = 2.26. Scores also increased across listening comprehension, structure and written expression, and reading comprehension.
Conclusion. The findings show a substantial pre–post improvement in this group. Because the study involved only 16 students at one institution and had no control group, the results provide preliminary evidence of potential rather than definitive causal evidence of effectiveness. The model offers a structured framework for proficiency-oriented instruction that warrants further evaluation in larger controlled studies.
Full text article
References
Abuhassna, H., Adnan, M. A. B. M., & Awae, F. (2024). Exploring the synergy between instructional design models and learning theories: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), Article ep499. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14289
Anisah, G., & Amreta, M. Y. (2024). Cognitive diagnostic assessment instrument with individual feedback for language receptive learning on multimodal text. KEMBARA: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 10(1), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.22219/kembara.v10i1.32974
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2023). AECT definition of educational technology. https://aect.org/aect/about/aect-definition
Azhari, T., Sahputri, J., & Rasyimah. (2022). Analysis of student perceptions on the implementation of required TOEFL test before graduation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social Science, Political Science, and Humanities (ICoSPOLHUM 2021) (pp. 125–130). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220302.019
Be?irovi?, S., Brdarevi?-?eljo, A., & Polz, E. (2021). Exploring the relationship between language learning strategies, academic achievement, grade level, and gender. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.10771
Broda, M., Kovalova, K., Bezugla, I., Stoika, O., & Mulyk, K. (2025). Enhancing foreign language acquisition: Innovative cognitive strategies and tools. Conhecimento & Diversidade, 17(45), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.18316/rcd.v17i45.12371
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2025). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition (7th ed.). Routledge.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.
Dalimunte, A. A., Tika, A., Dalimunte, M., Tanjung, A. P., & Suryani, I. (2023). Evaluating TOEFL ITP test: A critical review. Humanitatis: Journal of Language and Literature, 9(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.30812/humanitatis.v9i2.2329
Fayed, I., & Cummings, J. (2025). Cross-modalities instructional design model (CIDM) for online and blended teaching and learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 24(3), 301–333. https://doi.org/10.70725/157616jbyghw
Kurniati, D., Riyono, A., Solaeman, A., Millan, A. R., & Noordin, N. (2025). Exploring English proficiency levels of Indonesian university students through EnglishScore-based assessment. Indonesian EFL Journal, 11(3), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.25134/9kjdz259
Loibl, K., Leuders, T., Glogger-Frey, I., & Rummel, N. (2025). CID: A framework for the cognitive analysis of composite instructional designs. Instructional Science, 53(6), 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09665-9
Öztürk, M., & Çak?ro?lu, Ü. (2021). Flipped learning design in EFL classrooms: Implementing self-regulated learning strategies to develop language skills. Smart Learning Environments, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00146-x
Raja, P., Flora, Putrawan, G. E., & Razali, A. B. (2022). English as an international language: Perceptions of EFL preservice teachers in higher education institutions in Indonesia. Education Research International, 2022, Article 3234983. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3234983
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–54). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shadiev, R., & Wang, X. (2022). A review of research on technology-supported language learning and 21st-century skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 897689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897689
Si, K., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, D. (2025). English proficiency and national competitiveness in sustainable development research based on a bibliometric analysis. Discover Sustainability, 6, Article 547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01447-8
Terasawa, T. (2025). Relationship between English proficiency and socioeconomic status in Asia: Quantitative cross-national analysis. World Englishes, 44(3), 492–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12705.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2026 Yepi Sedya Purwananti, Punaji Setyosari, Bambang Yudi Cahyono, Sulton Sulton
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
