Applications to Instructional Design

* 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 (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).

* 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.

* 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).

* 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.

* 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).

* 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)

* 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)

* 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)

* 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.

* 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)

* 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.”

* 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

* 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)

* 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.