From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering motivation from an instructional design perspective.
Cheng, Y., & Yeh, H. (2009). From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering motivation from an instructional design perspective. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 40(4), 597-605. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x
This article explores the concept of motivation in the context of instructional design. Authors introduce the topic by explaining the etymology of motivation and defining its meaning in various context (general, teaching and business context) supporting each of the examples with the appropriate references. The focus is then shifted to explaining differences between extrinsic (existing outside of the individual and arising from environmental incentives) and intrinsic (present within an individual and emerging from personal curiosities and psychological needs) motivation. Authors present a brief overview of the research conducted over the years and include the most prominent names and corresponding theories and concepts. Extrinsic motivation is linked with reinforcement theories, such as Thorndike’s stimulus-response theory (connectionism), Pavlov’s classical conditioning and Skinner’s operant conditioning theory. While admitting that these theories are useful in explaining different learning phenomena, authors do not attempt to elaborate on them. As alternatives to reinforcement theories, authors name need theories (examples of those are Maslow’s five-levels-needs hierarchy and Reeve’s three-layers-needs structure) and Atkinson’s expectancy-value theory. Explaining the intrinsic motivation authors elaborate on two concepts: self-regulation and an idea that I find particularly interesting – self-determination i.e. increasing motivation by letting learners choose and engage in activities of their own will (or allowing them to believe so). Authors then discuss the advantages of intrinsic motivation. While I agree that learning, when intrinsically motivated, can be more successful, and an interest in the subject can be associated with the higher level of involvement and creativity, I have doubts about authors’ statement that intrinsically motivated learners select more challenging tasks. Authors also refer to the psychological concept of a flow (a highly focused mental state recognised and popularised by Hungarian psychologist M. Csíkszentmihályi) arguing that people in the flow-state, are intrinsically motivated when performing tasks. Some other concepts are discussed in the paper I reviewed here.
Motivation then is analysed in the context of instructional design (ID). Echoing the introductory statements authors argue that in the early stages of ID design history the motivation was considered from the behaviourist perspective (reinforcement theories) or in the context of getting learners attention. For years the psychological research and literature did not shed much light on issues of motivation in ID context. It was only in 1979 when J.M. Keller by publishing an article on motivation, lead to significant growth of research in implications of motivation for ID. In his work, Keller proposed a motivational model based on the expectancy-value theory (linking the motivation with the expectancy to be successful and satisfaction), known as the ARCS motivational design model. The acronym’s letters stand for Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction identified by Keller as necessary conditions for people to become and stay motivated. Authors briefly outline each of these four conditions and in the following section discuss their application in ID. The ARCS was not proposed as an ID model, but as a system that helps to understand the motivation to learn and improve motivational aspects of the instructional materials, techniques and behaviours. The ARCS model was advised to be used in conjunction with the ID rather than as a separate ID model (Keller and Kopp). Authors propose applying the ARCS principles during four phases of ID – Define, Design, Develop and Pilot (interesting why DDDP, not ADDIE?). The most valuable part of the article for me was the framework proposed for adapting ARCS to the chosen ID model (Morrison, Ross and Kemp ID model). It was very detailed (plenty of examples of interlinking stages) and helped me to see the differences and links between the ID process and motivational steps necessary during each of ID stages to ensure higher motivation and achievement level. I see the application of ARCS principles as a shift of focus of the ID (ARCS as motivation-centred ID model).
