Applications to Instructional Design

*Intrinsic Motivation

*Theories on Motivation

*There are many theories of motivation and the psychology of the human experience. Two are most applicable here and worth evaluating:

*Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000a)

*Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008)

*Both theories are not rooted in educational theory, but rather are theories of human motivation and psychology with applicability to instructional design.

*Self-Determination

Theory

*Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has grown out of the research on motivation performed by Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci both of the University of Rochester (Ryan and Deci, 2000a).

*SDT establishes three internal needs that we seek to satisfy: competence, relatedness and autonomy.

*SDT considers both internal and external motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

*Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic

Motivation in SDT

*We are intrinsically motivated to satisfy our needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy.

*Extrinsic factors can have positive or negative effects on our intrinsic motivation based on the effect the extrinsic factors have on these needs (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001).

*Verbal rewards (“positive feedback”) can increase a student’s sense of competence

*Tangible rewards such as grades or prizes can decrease a student’s sense of autonomy (control over their work) and have a negative impact on motivation.

*SDT in Instructional

Design

*Students wish to fulfill three primary needs. When instructional design leads to activities that fulfill these needs then learning can be more successful.

*Competence

* Students will be intrinsically motivated to perform if they feel they are competent and understand the material at hand.

* This is best illustrated by the proper scaffolding of lessons so that students can master tasks and feel successful before moving on to more difficult work. (Dirksen, 2012)

*Relatedness

* Student engagement is enhanced when the instructional material covered has direct relevance to them (Deci, 2009)

*Autonomy

* Student success can be improved when activities allow students a sense of choice and control over the purpose and outcome of their education (Deci, 2009; Cavendish, 2013).

*Flow Theory(Csikszentmihalyi, 2008)

*We are all driven to experience a “flow state” which is the optimum experience that we can have.

* It is characterized by total awareness of the task at hand and only the task at hand.

*When in a flow state, the sense of time, awareness of surroundings, and concern for self are dramatically altered.

* Athletes call it being “in the zone”

* It is common amongst those playing video games or engrossed in reading, both of which can go on for hours often without any realization of the passage of time.

*Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic

Motivation in Flow

*Flow by its very definition is an intrinsically motivated state (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).

*Tasks are performed simply for their own sake. A state of flow cannot be obtained if the motivation for performing the task is extrinsic unless the motivating factor leads to an internal desire to perform the task (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).

*Flow Theory in Instructional

Design

*We learn most efficiently when a “state of flow” is achieved.

*This is most likely to happen when a task is challenging but possible given the level of student skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).

*Much like a video game, proper spacing of new material, reinforcement of old material, and consistent positive feedback can maintain a student’s flow state and enhance learning to optimum levels (Dirksen, 2012)

*Flow – A Balance of Challenge and

Skills

*When the proper level of challenge is balanced against the skill level of the student (this can apply to any flow inducing task, not just education) then a state of flow can be reached (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008; Flow)

*Instructional Design Models using Intrinsic

Motivation

*There are many models of instructional design (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012)

*Historically, models have focused on learning outcomes, not students’ motivation (Chan and Ahern, 1999)

*Two recent offerings use motivation as their central purpose

*ARCS (Keller, 2013)

*Malone and Lepper “Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivation” (Rees, 2011)

*ARCS Model(Keller, 2013)

*Developed by John Keller in 1987

*Based on the idea that resources, procedures and activities should enhance motivation to learn.

*Contains four categories under which materials and activities fall.

*Utilizing all four can help to increase student motivation to succeed.

*ARCS Categories Part I

(Keller, 2013a)

*These four categories bear a striking resemblance to both SDT and Flow Theory:

*Attention

*The activities must garner students attention and concentration (as in Flow).

*Relevance

*Students should be familiar with the material and relate to it (as in SDT)

*ARCS Categories Part 2

(Keller, 2013a)

*These four categories bear a striking resemblance to both SDT and Flow Theory:

*Confidence

*Students should be in control of their learning experience (autonomy in SDT; control in Flow), be competent in the material (as in SDT) and the task should be challenging (as in Flow)

*Satisfaction

*The task should provide intrinsic reinforcement. This is the same as the satisfaction of completing a task in a “flow state.”

*Taxonomy of Intrinsic

Motivation(Rees, 2011)

*Also developed in 1987, but by Thomas Malone and Mark Lepper.

*Based on the intrinsic motivation of gameplay (a common theme in Flow)

*Four key motivating factors that when met improve learning:

*Challenge

*Curiosity

*Control

*Fantasy

*Motivating Factors

Part 1(Rees, 2011)

*Challenge

*As in Flow, the right balance between skill level and challenge is key. Consistent positive feedback and clear goals are necessary (also like Flow)

*Curiosity

*Students can be drawn in by initial images but are pulled forward by an interest in the material. This is akin to beginning with a small competence level and growing as the material becomes more complex (competence in SDT; challenging, concentration in Flow)

*Motivating Factors

Part 2(Rees, 2011)

*Control

*Learners perform better when there is a sense of control over the outcome of the project, success in a game or planning of a lesson (autonomy in SDT, control in Flow) (Cavendish, 2013)

*Fantasy

*This is more applicable to game based learning, but it also evokes a sense of control over the environment that the learning (or game) is taking place in.