Abstract
As research questions in the rapidly growing field of Open, Distance, and Digital Education shift from if to how these forums should be approached, a paramount and complementary area of research is the accompanying motivation students’ exhibit to learn in ODDE environments. This chapter critically examines the existing literature on student motivation in ODDE at each of the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, and beyond. Much existing research involves one-off comparisons between students’ motivation in using popular tools such as MOOCs, gamification of learning, interactive whiteboards, and AR/VR tools with not using them. While mixed effects have been observed, seldom are tools catered to theory and context in a manner that best supports students’ learning. To see the field continue to mature, results from studies must be situated within robust theories of motivation in educational psychology. More program-level research built on more stringent standards in design, analysis, and replication is required. Future directions of research are discussed.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download reference work entry PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
This chapter addresses the role of student motivation within ODDE environments and the implications of ODDE environments for student motivation. This reciprocal relationship between environment and individual differences is one that is still poorly understood, even in the long-researched context of face-to-face teaching and learning (for robust theoretical modelling of this relationship consider reciprocal framing by Bandura, 1997; Biggs, 1993; Skinner, 1995). Given that research in ODDE environments is a relatively nascent field, much of what will be presented will not have been replicated across contexts, making the review presented here a preliminary sketch much in need of color and shading. Additionally, many ODDE researchers often do not have a firm foundation in educational psychology, ODDE’s intersections with student motivation can yield theoretically weak research outputs. This chapter highlights research which demonstrates the best theoretical and empirical rigor available. It begins by defining motivation, and then reviews ODDE in three main sections, addressing motivation to learn in each of primary, secondary, and tertiary/adult education contexts. These reviews are then summarized in the form of critical insights that inform theory and practice. The chapter concludes with future directions for researching ODDE motivation.
Motivation and Its Outcomes in ODDE Environments
Motivation Definition and Framework for Interpretation
This chapter is situated in the succinct and well-established definition presented by Brophy (2004) as a summary of Maehr and Meyer’s (1997) seminal review of motivation research: “Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behaviour, especially goal-directed behaviour” (p. 3). This definition is broad, covering each of the mediated behaviors through which an individual’s motivation impacts learning outcomes. It provides five specific, if overlapping, lenses for examining motivations in ODDE environments. This hopefully reminds researchers that motivation is not a nebulous source of locomotion for students, but that motivation instead has impact on at least five components of the learning process. This is particularly important for researchers focused just on one motivational theory and its implications for learning. It is very unlikely that one theory could address all five components (i.e., initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behavior). It is also unlikely that any one theory addresses the needs of the wide array of ODDE environments effectively. A collage of robust theories is necessary to comprehensively address each component and offer any sensitivity to ODDE environments.
Motivation Theories Central to Understanding ODDE Experiences
As noted at the outset, there are a dizzying multitude of motivational theories for ODDE researchers and practitioners to draw upon. Both practical considerations and convenience play important roles when determining which theories to employ to investigate ODDE environments. For educational technology researchers, selecting a motivational theory is likely to be based on a combination of what is being used in target journals for their research and the relative convenience of available instruments. This means that motivational theories which got an early start in leading educational technology journals such as Computers & Education and Internet and Higher Education, including self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and self-regulation related models (e.g., Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009) have grown in prominence. Educational psychology orientated researchers in contrast often come to educational technology research with a preferred theory, looking to test and establish it in this new environment. Scant educational technology research puts the environment or learning related research questions at its heart. Even less research seeks to address the five aspects of the learning process that motivation in large part explains. It is more common for educational technology research to focus on technology and treat teaching and learning theory secondarily (Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia, & Lo, 2019).
This chapter reviews the wide variety of digital environments encompassed by ODDE and engages with educational contexts ranging from primary to tertiary and beyond. A large net was cast for the selection of the published research to include. However, this review seeks to connect this research to the five areas consistent with Brophy’s (2004) definition and will return to this definition in its summary. Furthermore, an emphasis is given to research that matches context, questions, and theory in a way that provides robust direction for practitioners and a foundation for further replication and extension of research.
Motivation in Open, Digital and Distance Education
Primary Education
The focus of a considerable proportion of early ODDE research was on whether digital education was substantively useful to elementary school students. Research reviewing the benefits of ICT for elementary school students supported the inclusion of digital education, citing the potential for supporting student-student and teacher-student relationships in the classroom (Cooper & Brna, 2002; Wegerif & Scrimshaw, 1997). This research also suggested that the well-integrated use of ICT can enhance motivation and thereby support longer-term engagement with subject studies. Research tests of the efficacy of e-mail exchanges in elementary school were a strong example of how individual students and groups of students can be connected, and their communication skills be enhanced (van der Meij & Boersma, 2002).
As ICT became more prominent in elementary school contexts, a considerable proportion of ODDE research shifted to testing a broad range of digital tools’ and applications’ efficacy for supporting learning outcomes and motivations to learn. Many of these studies employed weak research designs and were under-theorized (i.e., cross-sectional correlative or simple quasi-experimental such as traditional teaching vs new e-learning) leading to Hawthorne effects and inability to even hint at causal implications. Results often failed to provide effect sizes, focusing only on “significant effects,” therefore giving an inadequate sense of the impact of interventions.
Building on early research exploring e-mail as a connecting tool for digital education during elementary school, research during the past two decades has worked to integrate video conferencing into elementary school digital education. The benefits traverse the broad range of simply enabling communications in schools (e.g., Anastasiades et al., 2010) and motivating students to broaden their social connections, to supporting the learning of new languages (e.g., Whyte, 2011). During and since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an explosion of research in this area but mostly addressing the practical demands of its delivery methods, with only tangential interest in impact on students’ motivation (e.g., Moorhouse & Beaumont, 2020).
Gamification is often seen as the best and maybe easiest possible way to motivate primary school students in ODDE environments. Some of the most direct research assesses the impact of adding gaming to specific subject study. Shin, Sutherland, Norris, and Soloway (2012) is an unusually strong example of a robust test, adding games to math studies, indicating that well-structured gamification can add to students’ motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. Results are strengthened by other simpler comparative studies (i.e., traditional classroom vs. online gamification; e.g., Tüzün, Yilmaz-Soylu, Karakuş, Inal, & Kizilkaya, 2009) pointing to the potentially untapped and misunderstood benefits of gamification for digital education in primary schools. The way forward is being forged by studies pairing gamification with other learning tactics (Chen, Liu, & Hwang, 2016), and testing the efficacy of specific online experiences’ power to motivate students’ through self-determination theory’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation framework (e.g., online escape rooms; Vidergor, 2021).
In primary school environments, motivational ODDE can also support opening new doorways through experiential learning affordances (e.g., AR, VR, or livestreaming; Radu et al., 2014). Ongoing research suggests the growing consensus that digital education has much to offer student motivation and that it will be a progressively critical gear in the educational engine for the coming decades.
Secondary School
In contrast to research on elementary school digital education, considerably less literature has focused on whether ICT is appropriate for classrooms. This has as much to do with the nature of secondary education (focused on specific knowledge development) as it does with students’ increased knowledge of and access to ICT. While there are differences, there are also substantial overlaps between elementary and secondary research, with many studies covering both contexts (e.g., Taylor, Casto, & Walls, 2007) and major reviews generally lumping them together. Many of the same motivational questions are being asked, such as whether gamification is a solution to students’ motivational malaise or whiteboards are worth the expense. At the same time, secondary schools are on the forefront of issues such as the full adoption of tablets and the use of mobile tools to enhance learning and collaboration at school (Courtois et al., 2014).
Gamification and Augmented and Virtual Reality (A/VR) (sometimes paired) have historically been the focus of a substantial body of digital education research in secondary schools (Perrotta, Featherstone, Aston, & Houghton, 2013). Much of the research centers on how these digital education approaches support motivation, as well as engagement and knowledge related learning outcomes. Early reviews of gamification within education have heralded its central role in stimulating and sustaining motivation (Shaffer, Squir, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). Shaffer et al., go so far as to proclaim that questions of whether to use gamification should be put aside, and that the only meaningful question going forward is how to use it. In contrast to this positive tone from gamification researchers, many stakeholders do not see games as valid parts of classroom learning and note that teachers are often not a good judge of a “good” game design (Williamson, 2007). Gamification research regularly yields no significant benefit for students’ motivation, often citing technical issues (e.g., Huizenga, Admiraal, Akkerman, & ten Dam, 2019) or sense of disconnect (leading to lower educational value) from subject materials (Brom, Preuss, & Klement, 2011). Despite these types of issues, reviews such as McClarty et al. (2012) echo Shaffer et al. (2005). McClarty et al., argue that digital games afford unique and valuable combinations of “...motivation, engagement, adaptivity, simulation, collaboration...”(p. 22). In this spirit, researchers have started to begin to re-examine how digital gaming might fit into secondary education by learning more about students’ habits and preferences (e.g., Beavis, Muspratt, & Thompson, 2015). Others have begun to situate digital gaming questions within well-defined motivational theories (e.g., Huizenga et al., 2019).
Despite more than a decade of increasingly intensive use, AR/VR are still emerging technologies for secondary education. Their support for secondary student motivation can be moderately positive (Allison, 2008; Gandolfi, 2018). AR/VR appear to be most powerful when used with specific teaching methods (i.e., narrative, Calvert & Abadia, 2020), for skills development (Papanastasiou, Drigas, Skianis, Lytras, & Papanastasiou, 2019) and for complexity visualization (Thompson et al., 2020). It is reasonable to suggest that when AR/VR use is aligned well with supporting pedagogical practices and knowledge to be acquired, that its motivating capacity is also maximized.
Tertiary and Lifelong Education
The abundance of ODDE motivation research in tertiary and lifelong education has yielded both benefits and weaknesses, which has led to a stream of more robust theory-driven research in this area. Concurrently, much of the ongoing quantity of research is of low quality, limited in validity and insight.
There is a considerable amount of higher education ODDE research comparing face-to-face and blended or entirely online learning experiences and resulting motivations to learn. Specific research comparing the use of online applications for these populations sometimes result in unusual findings (e.g., Pellas & Kazanidis, 2014) pointing to high self-efficacy and satisfaction in some online environments (relative to hybrid arrangements). More general tests of the student experience on and offline generally point to students being more motivated offline, although not necessarily perceiving themselves to be more self-efficacious (e.g., Mullen & Tallent-Runnels, 2006). However, comparisons of graduate and undergraduate students online suggest that graduate students engage more effectively online while procrastinating less, and that undergraduate students experience greater task value for online learning, expressing a stronger intention to enroll in future online courses (Artino & Stephens, 2009). Some of the more insightful research points to the positive (interesting) and negative (distracting) aspects of studying online (Sansone, Smith, Thoman, & MacNamara, 2012).
Drilling down on motivational issues in general digital education, a program of self-determination theory research with blended language students raised three issues worth noting. First, students who are autonomously motivated tend to stay that way, but those that are not have room and can improve and develop their motivation (Fryer, Nicholas Bovee, & Nakao, 2014). Second, classroom teachers can have a powerful impact on students’ motivation for online learning (Fryer & Bovee, 2016), but have more difficulty beyond a certain threshold of actual student competence (Fryer & Bovee, 2018). Parallel research has highlighted the cost-value differences when studying online (e.g., workload for face-to-face vs. working in groups for online), and the role these trade-offs play in persistence (Vanslambrouck, Zhu, Lombaerts, Philipsen, & Tondeur, 2018).
The theme of collaboration is central to digital education research and motivation to learn online. Researchers range from creating and testing online tools (Antonaci et al., 2015), noting motivation derived from collaborative Wikis (Zou, Wang, & Xing, 2016), to suggesting that more motivation might not necessarily be any more linked to collaborating online (Zhang, Pi, Li, & Hu, 2021).
Perhaps the most important kind of research seeking to navigate online students’ motivation is the work that straddles tertiary and adult/lifelong learning. Research that seeks to explain how the modality of the online experience and its affordance/constraints motivates, engages, and results in learners’ performance. McPartlan, Rutherford, Rodriguez, Shaffer, and Holton (2021) explain how strictly online tertiary students often differ from tertiary students in blended or face-to-face contexts; how online students are generally studying for very different reasons, have less time to reach their goals and on average fare worse.
Another popular area of motivational research that bridges tertiary and adult/lifelong ODDE are MOOCs. MOOCs are so reliant on student motivation (and resulting retention), that it is often the focus of research in this area (Zhu, Sari, & Lee, 2018). There is evidence to suggest that the autonomous nature of MOOCs can mean that students’ motivation and goals shape how they understand MOOCs and their experience online (Littlejohn, Hood, Milligan, & Mustain, 2016). This finding should be cross-referenced with results suggesting that the impact of participation in and initial intrinsic motivation for a MOOC is at least partially mediated by the situational interest students experience across the MOOC course (de Barba, Kennedy, & Ainley, 2016).
Students have reported engaging in MOOCs for a handful of specific reasons (e.g., Hew & Cheung, 2014). However, different kinds of students completing MOOCs have very different orientations across the learning experience (Watted & Barak, 2018): university-affiliated students tend to seek knowledge and certificates, while general participants often work toward research and their own professional development. These pair of findings make understanding students’ motivations for learning in MOOC environments (initial and across the experience) critical to solving retention issues.
Gamification is an active area of motivational research in digital tertiary environments. Unlike in some areas of tertiary ODDE research, higher quality research is not as prevalent. Results are still often simple comparisons of gamified vs traditional engagement and rely on self-reported data for independent and dependent variables (e.g., Putz, Hofbauer, & Treiblmaier, 2020). Some studies in this vein are, however, applying more rigorous motivational frameworks (e.g., Buil, Catalán, & Martínez, 2020). However, it is still common for studies, much like those in secondary and primary contexts, to find gamification failing to support student motivation and/or achievement, even weakening one or both (see Donnermann et al., 2021; Murillo-Zamorano, López Sánchez, Godoy-Caballero, & Bueno Muñoz, 2021).
Pedagogical agents for online learning materials can improve motivation, engagement, and knowledge development (e.g., Dinçer & Doğanay, 2017). Research seeking to refine pedagogical agents as a source of support for students has proliferated during the past decade (e.g., Lin, Atkinson, Christopherson, Joseph, & Harrison, 2013). Similarly, gesturing (embodied) pedagogical agents are a substantial improvement over static versions (Wang, Li, Mayer, & Liu, 2018). Early research findings with chatbots as language learning partners (Fryer & Carpenter, 2006) noted that some, especially weaker, students were more motivated to engage with a chatbot than a partner. Despite the growth of research in this area (Fryer et al., 2020; Wollny et al., 2021) and the broad recognition that, like pedagogical agents, chatbots can be motivating (Fryer, Nakao, & Thompson, 2019), there has not been enough refinement-orientated research (e.g., for an important exception Li, Wang, Mayer, & Liu, 2019).
Critical Insights from Researching Motivation in ODDE
General Insights
ODDE Has Matured
The field has matured, as questions shift from whether ICT is of any use to education, to how specific aspects should be employed within ODDE contexts. Gamification is a good example of this development. While gamification’ s value as a support for ODDE is still often debated, many researchers have shifted to acknowledging that gamification is here to stay. Therefore, ongoing questions should focus on the kinds of contexts in which gamification should be used, and how individual differences can be accounted for.
Context and Individual Differences
Consistent with the example of gamification, motivational research in ODDE environments must move past the idea that any specific piece of hardware or software will be a silver bullet for student motivation. Furthermore, it is rare that a new tool is focused only on enhancing motivation; the hope is generally that it will also yield strong knowledge outcomes as well. Research thus far suggests that findings are likely to be localized; where motivational supports cross contextual boundaries, support for learning outcomes might not. As will be discussed in the conclusion to this chapter, one way the external validity of findings might be buttressed is by consistently employing robust motivational theory and clearly building on past research both in ODDE and parallel classroom contexts.
Specific to Primary Education
Questions regarding the value of gamification for supporting motivation in digital education abound are particularly acute in primary education. The variance around findings suggests gamification might not be easy to modulate for young learners. The clarification of modulation approaches would support researchers in investigating and supporting the development of student motivation.
In contrast, online tools that effectively increase and enhance social interaction are a relatively clear path to supporting primary school student motivation on and offline. Especially, in the aftermath of COVID-19, it is critical that positive findings showing how students can be brought together effectively be shared and collaboratively be built upon. Continued research in this vein should support classroom motivation as well as in blended environments.
The research on tools that bring digital education to classrooms such as whiteboards are broadly supported by research, teachers, and students alike. Given the substantial investment made by many schools, and the motivational implications hinted at by exploratory studies, researchers should begin to apply stricter theory and design, to begin testing specific practices, and ensure teachers and students maximize their use.
Particularly in primary school settings, several important factors moderate the motivating potential of digital education tools. The first is one that has been discussed extensively, teacher ICT proficiency (often packaged as TPAK; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Researchers can further the field by clarifying the correspondences between specific teacher ICT proficiencies to their relevant digital education environments. Students’ subject competence and their ICT proficiency are also critical moderators for enhancing digital education motivation. Both of these deserve greater attention, by programs of research, rather than once-off explorations.
Specific to Secondary Education
Some of the best AR and VR research has sought to support motivation and learning outcomes across specific, often challenging secondary school learning experiences. Due in part to carefully situated use of AR/VR, many modest but positive outcomes have been reported. Across this research a few findings have the potential for external validity, providing direction for future research. The first is the power of AR/VR to support learners across complex topics, such as visualizing intricate objects or processes. The second for VR in particular, is the opportunity for socialization. This socialization can amplify classroom experiences or expand on them. There is, as always, a need to match AR/VR use carefully with curricular aims and ensure teaching methods applied through this medium are appropriate, rather than relying on it or treating it as something completely different from classroom practice. Similar to AR/VR, secondary school is a hotbed for gamification. As noted earlier, gamification has progressed beyond whether it should be applied in secondary education. Its unreliable contribution to motivation and learning outcomes can be attributed partly to poor design and situation. Future programs of research in specific learning contexts found to be amenable to gamification are necessary for this approach to supporting motivation in ODDE to find its place.
Specific to Tertiary and Adult Education
While flipped learning has its roots in secondary education, tertiary education has quickly made it its own. The field is now substantial enough to yield several comprehensive reviews which point to this online support for classroom engagement as a consistent support for student motivation and positive attitudes, but not necessarily for learning outcomes. Research has long ago, and now more recently, noted that not all areas of learning are conducive to being effectively transferred to video. That said, separate from flipped learning specifically, recent reviews of recording of classes and class materials have demonstrated broad small to moderate benefits to students (Noetel et al., 2021). Flipped learning is one area of ostensibly online research where more classroom research, rather than online research, is needed. The benefit of moving more material online (and out of the class) is that more time in class can be devoted to engage students in meaningful learning. Figuring out how to use that time effectively is likely the gap between small to large benefits to students’ motivation and knowledge outcomes.
Some of the best research bridging tertiary and adult lifelong learning has highlighted very different goals these populations have and the resulting motivations that support them in succeeding. More research is necessary to better understand and adapt tertiary offerings for adults to meet their specific lifestyle and motivational needs. MOOCs which serve both populations of students could benefit from this kind of research and adapt their offerings in a manner to support these diverse groups of learners more effectively.
Open Questions and Directions for Future Research
When Will Motivational Theory Be Stretched to Fit ODDE Experiences?
In the vast majority of cases, new motivational theory, specific to ODDE is not needed. Existing motivation theory needs to either be applied within its limits (see Fryer and colleagues applying self-determination theory) or, even better, carefully adapted and built upon to address ODDE specific questions (see Mayer and Colleagues work applying cognitive load theory to multimedia). Both approaches demand programmatic research and cutting-edge research design/analyses to be effective.
It is worth highlighting the contributions of educational psychology theory-driven research. In place of researching “motivation,” which is more common in primary and secondary contexts, specific theories are increasingly drawn upon for research questions in tertiary contexts. From clear to more diffused, Skinner et al.’s (1995) self-theory has been drawn up to examine simulations (Buil et al., 2020); Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is increasingly employed to explore student motivation online (e.g., Fryer & Bovee, 2018); various models of self-regulation are used to explore procrastination (Cheng & Xie, 2021); or, in some cases, a constellation of psychological constructs (and theories) is grouped to test ODDE questions. What these efforts often lack, however, is a connected program of sustained research or even any concerted effort at building on previous work in the same or parallel areas.
When Will Digital Education’s Affordances Really Drive Life-Long Learning?
When will digital education really start to impact life-long learning? How is motivation for ODDE different for adult and life-long learning and how can it be supported best? These questions are not meaningfully addressed by MOOCs and tertiary education broadly. This is partly due to lack of robust theory being applied to programmatic research, and financial viability. The corporate sector, which has been investing in digital education for its employees’ continuing professional development might be an area to learn from going forward.
When Will Gamification’s Potential Contributions Be Clarified?
As has been noted across this chapter, gamification is here to stay. Programs of research are needed now at each level of education and in some cases in specific subject areas. These programs need to apply robust motivational theory, research design, and analysis to progressively test the affordances and constraints of gamification for the support of short and long-term motivation in ODDE environments. Furthermore, the propensity of gamification for supporting different facets of motivation as laid out by Maehr and Meyer (initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behavior, especially goal-directed behavior; 1997) should be tested to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of gamification.
Doing More of What We Know Works
It is time for ODDE motivation-orientated researchers to realize that educational technology is a sub-applied science that relies on educational psychology, in the way that educational psychology relies on psychology. Both research and practice should direct its efforts toward applying educational technology toward education in a manner we know works, because it is already supported by theory and a sound empirical base. Educational technology researchers need go no further than recent meta-analyses and reviews (e.g., Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Hattie & Anderman, 2019; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012) for high impact theoretical constructs, and the learning and instructional practices they build upon. Examples of strong areas highlighted consistently are academic self-efficacy, feedback, meta-cognitive strategies, formative testing, summarization, practice tests, spaced learning, interleaved learning, and reciprocal teaching.
Implications for ODDE Practice that Arise from this Research
Robust Motivational Theories for the Road Ahead
Researchers might consider giving special attention to three motivational theories which have been conceptually and empirically validated both online and in classrooms. These theories are consistent with the five motivational behaviors reviewed and are relevant to the aims toward which educational technology is employed. First is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and specifically its continuum of value from lacking regulation (amotivation), to external regulation (extrinsic motivation), and finally internal regulation (intrinsic motivation). This organization of value can explain variance in learning behaviors such as initiation, direction, and quality. It also spans learners avoiding (amotivation), being forced to (extrinsic), and seeking to (intrinsic) learn online. The second, is social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1993), specifically self-efficacy and its model of reciprocal determination. Self-efficacy is central to understanding learner persistence (Bandura, 1993) and the model of reciprocal determination is useful for understanding how the environment and learner behaviors affect future motivation. Finally, interest, specifically the Four Phase Model of interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), is one of just a few developmental models which can contribute explanatory power to the full gamut of learning behaviors (i.e., all five within Maher and Mayer’s definition). This is dependent on the phase of interest (Stimulated, Maintained, Emerging, and Well developed Individual) the individual experiences for the material’s (object) understudy.
ODDE Motivation Research Design and Analysis Must Improve to Be Substantive
The use of robust motivational theories is a necessary but not sufficient step toward substantively improving ODDE research and learning outcomes. Based on the present review of the recent ODDE motivation research literature three recommendations standout. First, interventions must stop comparing a new digital addition to traditional classroom teaching with traditional classroom teaching (i.e., doing nothing new). This sets up the very likely chance of a Hawthorne effect, making all findings from the prospective study suspect. At the very least, two separate additions to traditional teaching should be compared and if possible, the traditional classroom should be added as a second control (e.g., 2 × 2 experimental design; Donnermann et al., 2021). The second recommendation is the greater use of intensive longitudinal designs (Fryer, Ainley, Thompson, Gibson, & Sherlock, 2017; Fryer et al., 2019). One great benefit of researching ODDE is the relative ease with which data can be collected. The third and final recommendation is that observed outcomes be included in research designs and that effect sizes for all findings are presented in publications.
Stop Asking Whether and Start Asking for Whom and How
Echoing many prominent contributors to the field of ODDE, it is time for researchers and educators alike to stop asking whether digital education has a place in schools and begin recognizing that these tools are here to stay. Some tools like interactive whiteboards, demand considerable time on the part of both educators (teachers and curriculum developers) to integrate effectively into classes. Others like gamification, augmented and virtual reality need context specific development, testing, and refinement to estimate their compatibility. There is a third type of ODDE development that gets far less attention and that is development aimed at addressing educational issues raised by the research literature more broadly. For example, meta-analyses (e.g., Hattie & Anderman, 2019) and strategic reviews (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013) have consistently raised spaced learning and formative testing as powerful sources of support for teaching and learning, yet few ODDE developers, let alone researchers work in these areas. Another interesting area is interleaved learning, which although interesting and promising, presents challenges to research with traditional textbook approaches.
There is still much to do, with many avenues unexplored. ODDE has the potential to make substantial contributions to students’ motivation to learn at every stage of their lives. Developers, educators, and researchers will need to work together to bring this future to our present.
References
Allison, J. (2008). History educators and the challenge of immersive pasts: A critical review of virtual reality “tools” and history pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880802497099.
Anastasiades, P. S., Filippousis, G., Karvunis, L., Siakas, S., Tomazinakis, A., Giza, P., & Mastoraki, H. (2010). Interactive Videoconferencing for collaborative learning at a distance in the school of 21st century: A case study in elementary schools in Greece. Computers and Education, 54(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.016.
Antonaci, A., Dagnino, F. M., Ott, M., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., … Mayer, I. (2015). A gamified collaborative course in entrepreneurship: Focus on objectives and tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.082.
Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005.
Beavis, C., Muspratt, S., & Thompson, R. (2015). ‘Computer games can get your brain working’: student experience and perceptions of digital games in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.904339.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436930120107.
Brom, C., Preuss, M., & Klement, D. (2011). Are educational computer micro-games engaging and effective for knowledge acquisition at high-schools? A quasi-experimental study. Computers and Education, 57(3), 1971–1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.007.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610218.
Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2020). Engagement in business simulation games: A self-system model of motivational development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12762.
Calvert, J., & Abadia, R. (2020). Impact of immersing university and high school students in educational linear narratives using virtual reality technology. Computers and Education, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104005.
Cheng, S. L., & Xie, K. (2021). Why college students procrastinate in online courses: A self-regulated learning perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 50, 100807.
Chen, C. H., Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Interaction between gaming and multistage guiding strategies on students’ field trip mobile learning performance and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1032–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12270.
Cooper, B., & Brna, P. (2002). Supporting high quality interaction and motivation in the classroom using ICT: The social and emotional learning and engagement in the NIMIS project. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2–3), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631021000025321.001.
Courtois, C., Montrieux, H., de Grove, F., Raes, A., de Marez, L., & Schellens, T. (2014). Student acceptance of tablet devices in secondary education: A three-wave longitudinal cross-lagged case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.017.
de Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005.
Donnermann, M., Lein, M., Messingschlager, T., Riedmann, A., Schaper, P., Steinhaeusser, S., & Lugrin, B. (2021). Social robots and gamification for technology supported learning: An empirical study on engagement and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106792.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest., 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Fryer, L., & Carpenter, R. (2006). Bots as language learning tools. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/10125/44068.
Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045.
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.003.
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2018). Staying motivated to e-learn: Person- and variable-centred perspectives on the longitudinal risks and support. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.006.
Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.023.
Fryer, L., Coniam, D., Carpenter, R., & Lăpușneanu, D. (2020). Bots for language learning now: Current and future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 8–22.
Fryer, L. K., Nicholas Bovee, H., & Nakao, K. (2014). E-learning: Reasons students in language learning courses don’t want to. Computers and Education, 74, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.008.
Gandolfi, E. (2018). Virtual reality and augmented reality. In Handbook of research on K-12 online and blending learning (pp. 545–561). Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. M. (2019). Visible learning guide to student achievement: Schools edition. Routledge: New York.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.
Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12770.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4.
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & ten Dam, G. (2019). Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game: Original article. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00316.x.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000352.
Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Christopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers and Education, 67, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.017.
Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024750807365.
McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., & McVay, A. (2012). A literature review of gaming in education. In Gaming in education (pp. 1–35). Pearson Research Report.
McPartlan, P., Rutherford, T., Rodriguez, F., Shaffer, J. F., & Holton, A. (2021). Modality motivation: Selection effects and motivational differences in students who choose to take courses online. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100793.
Moorhouse, B. L., & Beaumont, A. M. (2020). Utilizing video conferencing software to teach young language learners in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 class suspensions. TESOL Journal, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.545.
Mullen, G. E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Student outcomes and perceptions of instructors’ demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.005.
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., Godoy-Caballero, A. L., & Bueno Muñoz, C. (2021). Gamification and active learning in higher education: is it possible to match digital society, academia and students’ interests? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00249-y.
Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 204–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713.
Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality, 23, 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2.
Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014). Online and hybrid university-level courses with the utilization of Second Life: Investigating the factors that predict student choice in Second Life supported online and hybrid university-level courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.047.
Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., & Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based learning: Latest evidence and future directions. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Putz, L. M., Hofbauer, F., & Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Can gamification help to improve education? Findings from a longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106392.
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 18(6), 1533–1543.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.
Sansone, C., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & MacNamara, A. (2012). Regulating interest when learning online: Potential motivation and performance trade-offs. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.004.
Shaffer, D. W., Squir, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. In Phi Delta Kappan. 87.
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, & coping (Vol. 8). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327198.
Taylor, L. M., Casto, D. J., & Walls, R. T. (2007). Learning with versus without technology in elementary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 798–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.010.
Thompson, M. M., Wang, A., Bilgin, C. U., Anteneh, M., Roy, D., Tan, P., … Klopfer, E. (2020). Influence of virtual reality on high school students’ conceptions of cells. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 26(8), 929–946.
Tüzün, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., Inal, Y., & Kizilkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers and Education, 52(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008.
van der Meij, H., & Boersma, K. (2002). Email use in elementary school: An analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00252.
Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002.
Vidergor, H. E. (2021). Effects of digital escape room on gameful experience, collaboration, and motivation of elementary school students. Computers and Education, 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104156.
Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000221.
Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001.
Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (1997). Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL, 23(3), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000188.
Williamson, B. (2007). Viewpoints: Teaching and learning with games? Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141492.
Wollny, S., Schneider, J., di Mitri, D., Weidlich, J., Rittberger, M., & Drachsler, H. (2021). Are we there yet? - A systematic literature review on Chatbots in education. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.654924.
Zhang, X., Pi, Z., Li, C., & Hu, W. (2021). Intrinsic motivation enhances online group creativity via promoting members’ effort, not interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13045.
Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014–2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002.
Zou, B., Wang, D., & Xing, M. (2016). Collaborative tasks in Wiki-based environment in EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1121878.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this entry
Cite this entry
Fryer, L.K., Shum, A., Nakao, K. (2023). Motivation to Learn in Open, Distance, and Digital Education. In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Jung, I. (eds) Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_52
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_52
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-2079-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-2080-6
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education