Learner Motivation and E-Learning Design: A Multinationally Validated Process.
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner Motivation and E-Learning Design: A Multinationally Validated Process. Journal Of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.
In this paper, authors focus on issues related to encouraging and nourishing learner’s motivation in e-learning. The field is characterised as challenging due to the complex nature of human motivation and the abundance of the theories and concepts of motivation. Authors give their definition of e-learning adapted for this particular paper – a broad understanding of any environment in which electronic media are used for instructional delivery. Focusing or such widespread area, authors acknowledge certain similarities in motivational issues across all learning environments and give examples of particular challenges characteristic for e-learning settings (such as higher drop-out rates, a perception of being isolated or lower interactivity).
Authors, then bring up the research by Keller who did not only document motivational challenges but also analysed learner’s motivation and determined several motivational tactics that could be integrated with teaching strategies. The outcome of Keller’s analysis and synthesis of motivational literature was a development of the motivational design process focussed around four areas of motivational influence namely attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction (later called ARCS model). In the subsequent section, authors give a description of ARCS model and detailed characteristics of each of its components. For gaining and sustaining learners attention, it is important to ensure variability of tactics and stimuli used (affect different senses, introduce conflict, dissonance and a mystery to stimulate questioning). To build relevance, links between the learning goals and individual learner’s goals, their learning styles, past and possibly future experiences are necessary. The significance of student’s goals is highlighted as a factor determining the success of this phase.
Similarly to the authors of the paper, I discussed in this post Keller and Suzuki argue that the intrinsic goals and personal interest in learning topics guarantee a stronger level of motivation, achievement and self-determination. Authors also refer to other motivational concepts such as achievement, affiliation, power, competence and flow and give relevant references, but do not elaborate on them. To establish confidence requires nourishing positive expectancies for success and enabling experiencing success that can be attributed to students own capabilities and hard work rather than random coincidence. The confidence factor in motivation intrigued me and prompted to research further the attribution theory by Weiner and Badura’s concept of self-efficacy and its relationship with the self-regulation and self-directed learning.
The final aspect of motivational design, namely satisfaction is about ensuring that learners perceive their learning experiences in a positive way. This requires an external reinforcement, reward and recognition (the principles of behavioural motivation management), ensuring a sense of fairness and not colliding with intrinsic motivation. Authors, however, seem to be focused only on post-learning satisfaction not mentioning the fulfilment observed during the training. Discussing these four concepts authors could be more consistent in giving real-life examples.
Following the characterisation of four most important aspects of motivation, authors move to discussing the ten steps ARCS motivational model which was proposed by Keller as a systematic approach to motivational design (and not actual ID model). They pinpoint each of the ten steps to the stages of generic ID process (i.e. Analysis, Design, Development and Evaluation). The ten steps proposed are somehow different than those from the Framework for adapting motivational design to the Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s model presented in the paper by Y. Cheng and H. Yeh discussed in this post.
Examination of the ARCS model application led authors to the conclusion that the complete ten-steps design is rather challenging, time-consuming and more suitable for large scale projects. They propose simplified model created and tested by Suzuki and Keller in 1996 aiming to condensate steps from the complete model. The examples of the simplified ARCS design model application and the projects the model was tested on were given (followed by outcomes and conclusions) confirming model’s usefulness, but the actual simplified ARCS matrix could not be found in the paper. Authors conclude the paper by outlining possible areas of future research and emphasising that the aim of these techniques is to influence, not control learner’s motivation.
