The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments

Abstract

In this paper, guidelines for designing virtual change agents (VCAs) are proposed to support students’ affective and motivational needs in order to promote personalized learning in online remedial mathematics courses. Automated, dynamic, and personalized support is emphasized in the guidelines through maximizing interactions between VCAs and individual students. The strategies that VCAs convey throughout the interactions are constructed to support emotion regulation and motivation based on theories and prior research on emotions and motivation. The availability and customizability of VCAs enable the strategies to be implemented in real-time and customized for individual students. Implications of the design guidelines for personalized, online learning contexts are discussed and future research directions are recommended as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1301–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States 2009. The Sloan Consortium. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf.

  5. Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1–14. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino%20Final.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Artino, A. R. (2009). Think, feel, act: Motivational and emotional influences on military students’ online academic success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The FEASP-approach. Instructional Science, 28(3), 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding pre-service teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B—Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3559–3565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berleson, W. (2011). Advancing a multimodal real-time affective sensing research platform. In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), Advancing a multimodal real-time affective sensing research platform (pp. 97–112). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work?. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2004). Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In J. van Kuppevelt, L. Dybkjaer, & N. Bernsen (Eds.), Natural, intelligent and effective interaction with multimodal dialogue systems. New York: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3/4), 363–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buck, R. (1985). An integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(3), 389–413.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell, R. H. & Green, G. M. (2009). Relational agents and StructurANTion theory: Moving towards a model for automated system integration. In Proceedings of UK academy for information systems conference.

  18. Carver, D. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark, R. E. (2003). Research on web-based learning: A half-full glass. In R. H. Bruning, C. A. Horn, & L. M. PytlikZillig (Eds.), Web-Based Learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 20(2), 147–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dees, R. L. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. El Kaliouby, R., Picard, R.W., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2006). Affective computing and autism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 228–248. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.016.

  25. Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Erichsen, E. A., & Bolliger, D. U. (2010). Towards understanding international graduate student isolation in traditional and online environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. http://www.springerlink.com/content/3w82155354515100/.

  27. Ferguson, R. D. (1986). Abstraction anxiety: A factor of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement—instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach. Learning & Instruction, 15(5), 481–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a socio-cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion regulation. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 497–512). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hagedorn, L. S., Siadat, M. V., Fogel, S. F., Nora, A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1999). Success in college mathematics: Comparisons between remedial and nonremedial first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 261–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hall, B., & Henningsen, D. D. (2008). Social facilitation and human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2965–2971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ironsmith, M., Marva, J., Harju, B., & Eppler, M. (2003). Motivation and performance in college students enrolled in self-paced versus lecture-format remedial mathematics courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(4), 276–284.

    Google Scholar 

  41. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Mancini, F. (2006). A hyper-emotion theory of psychological illnesses. Psychological Review, 113(4), 822–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Karr-Wisniewski, P., & Prietula, M. (2010). CASA, WASA, and the dimensions of us. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1761–1771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer.

  46. Kim, C. (2012). Virtual change agents. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (Vol. 7, pp. 3405–3407). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006a). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006b). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent (VCA) to motivate pre-service teachers to integrate technology. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kim, C., & Bennekin, K. N. (2010). Emotion control in online mathematics courses. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) international conference, Anaheim, CA.

  51. Kim, C., & Bennekin, K. N. (2011). Motivation, emotions, and achievement in a college remedial math course. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.

  52. Kim, C., & Hodges, C. B. (2012). Effects of an emotion control treatment on academic emotions, motivation and achievement in an online mathematics course. Instructional Science, 40(1), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students’ motivation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 36–51.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivation, volition, and belief change strategies to improve mathematics learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 407–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2011). Towards technology integration: The impact of motivational and volitional email messages. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kim, C., Keller, J. M., & Baylor, A. L. (2007). Effects of motivational and volitional messages on attitudes toward engineering: Comparing text messages with animated messages delivered by a pedagogical agent. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference of cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (CELDA) (pp. 317–320). Algarve, Portugal: IADIS press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kim, C., & Pekrun, R. (2013). Emotions and motivation in learning and performance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

  58. Kinshuk, Liu, T. C., & Graf, S. (2009). Coping with mismatched courses—students’ behaviour and performance in courses mismatched to their learning styles. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(6), 739–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Klein, J., Moon, Y., & Picard, R. W. (2002). This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computer, 14, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation, and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lee, E.-J. (2008). Flattery may get computers somewhere, sometimes: The moderating role of output modality, computer gender, and user gender. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 789–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee, J., & Park, O. (2007). Adaptive instructional systems. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 469–484). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., & FitzGerald, P. J. (1999). Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(3‐4), 278–291.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting post-secondary institutions in all 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  67. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009–10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  68. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Op ‘t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). “Accepting emotional complexity”: A socio-constructivist perspective on the role of emotions in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Op ‘t Eynde, P., & Turner, J. E. (2006). Focusing on the complexity of emotion issues in academic learning: A dynamical component systems approach. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Kornilakis, H., & Magoulas, G. D. (2003). Personalizing the interaction in a web-based educational hypermedia system: The case of INSPIRE. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(3), 213–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Park, O., & Lee, J. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 651–684). Maway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 478–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Perin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 559–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Picard, R. W. (2003). Affective computing: Challenges. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1–2), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741–2756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding: An exploration of the teacher knowledge at the intersection of student emotion and the subject matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 399–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rosiek, J., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Emotional scaffolding: The emotional and imaginative dimensions of teaching and learning. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 175–194). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional assessments. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Scheirer, J., Fernandez, R., Klein, J., & Picard, R. W. (2002). Frustrating the user on purpose: A step toward building an affective computer. Interacting with Computers, 14(2), 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 637–663). Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Schutz, P., & Davis, H. A. (2000). Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Schutz, P., & Davis, H. A. (2010). Emotion regulation related to a particular test. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on education research new educational paradigm for learning and instruction (pp. 57–59). Seoul, South Korea: Seoul National University.

  93. Seo, M., & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Being emotional during decision making-good or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 923–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2007). Adaptive technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 227–294). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Stage, F. K., & Kloosterman, P. (1995). Gender, beliefs, and achievement in remedial college level mathematics. Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 294–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Stern, M., Beck, J., & Woolf, B. P. (1996). Adaptation of problem presentation and feedback in an intelligent mathematics tutor. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 603–613). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Tung, F.-W., & Deng, Y.-S. (2006). Designing social presence in e-learning environments: Testing the effect of interactivity on children. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tzeng, J.-Y. (2006). Matching users’ diverse social scripts with resonating humanized features to create a polite interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 1230–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Wade, S. E. (2001). Research on importance and interest: Implications for curriculum development and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., & Picard, R. W. (2009). Affect-aware tutors: Recognising and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3/4), 129–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to ChanMin Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, C. The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 563–584 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9253-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic emotions
  • Emotion regulation
  • Motivation
  • Online course
  • Mathematics education
  • Virtual change agents
  • Personalized learning